The URL can be used to link to this page

20140805 Late CorrespondenceJeremy Davies, 36 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Remarks to RPV City Council on responses to the FEIR for the proposed Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions — August 5, 2014 meeting Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro -Tem, Council Members and Staff Thank you for the opportunity to emphasize two points regarding the FEIR. 1) Topical response Section 8.1a of the Hydrology and Drainage Section of the FEIR states that the drainage system was designed for the full build out of all 111 lots, which includes both the Monks lots and the remaining 31 lots. The FEIR also recognizes that the roads are an integral part of the drainage system. The assertion is made that this design was reviewed, approved and permitted by LA County. Topical response Section 8.1c which includes the Access Roadways and Pavement Integrity Section of the FEIR recognizes that the roadway system was originally designed for the full build out of all 111 lots and was reviewed and approved by LA County. The roadway system passes through zones 5 and 6, both active landslide areas which, incidentally, had not been reactivated at the time of the supposed approved design for the full build out. In addition, the FEIR asserts that the streets were designed to accommodate the envisioned loading, including construction vehicles associated with the construction of the envisioned build out as originally reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles. On request the City was unable to provide any proof of the assertion regarding the design, review, approval and permitting by LA County for the full build out of the 111 lots. CEQA section 15384 requires substantial evidence that relevant information is provided to support a conclusion. The conclusions contained in Sections 8.1 a and 8.1 c of the FEIR are of major importance to the integrity of the FEIR. The FEIR fails on this count. In responding to the 35 public comment letters the FEIR extensively uses the unsubstantiated assertions contained in these two Sections. The Responses rely on Section 8. la 110 times and on Section 8.1c 35 times to justify their conclusions and responses to the public comments. In addition, in the Responses to the oral comments made at the City Council Public Hearing of November 7, 2012 these unsubstantiated assertions are used a further 9 times. Clearly the FEIR fails CEQA section 15384 in at least 154 responses to the public's concerns. I urge you not to approve an FEIR based so extensively on unsubstantiated assertions. D MADE A PART OF TH I ]NCIL MEETING OF -Z OFFICE OF THE CITYJULhHK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK 2) Secondly, it is instructive that not one of the 31 remaining lot owners who belong to the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association submitted any critical analysis of the FEIR. This lack of involvement in the FEIR process leads one to assume that these lot owners are convinced that the City intends to rubber stamp approval of the FEIR allowing them to build, independent of whether the FEIR is adequate or not or whether the mitigation measures are adequate or not and whether major assertions are evidenced or not. If the City approves this project based on an incomplete FEIR containing unsupported assertions, the public would be right in concluding that the City is more interested in favoring short term profit motives over constituents' safety or a potentially severe impact to the Community and the City. Finally a personal comment. If I were asked to approve this non compliant CEQA EIR, my professional integrity and my conscience would not allow me to approve such a document. -eke v C., _a _t4__a* Z014 - AA El ----------- f. ca- - 51 -k Aro P 74- 4ct Atx� LIA ar7%_ 'A�_1,4C #1 zpo. Ubz -UZI%.lk_ ------------- y c .__ _._ _-.__ _moi du" _ - _,__� �-_--- -----_ FRO AND MADE -A PART OF TUE REC_WD.AT THE CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK,.- --- f 1 6) ... ... . ...... ...... .. .... ... dt n 4-6A c4 14Y 4-c Qt-�A� � 7- FAM.41 6-10L -P4 zJ�v� Act -AT,> A _4 A V A- u X d— d, - j -- ----- ------ - - ' r - _ 4-> Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) A State of California Geohazard District PMB 169-P.O. Box 7000 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 787-7111, x3 FAX (310) 787-7193 To: Joel Rojas, Director, Community Development Department, City of RPV From: Robert Douglas, Chairman, Board of Directors, ACLAD Date: July 31, 2013 cc: Eduardo Schonborn, Planning Division, Community Development Department, City of RPV Subject: Follow-up to the Draft EIR for the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revision for Zone 2 INTRODUCTION In an earlier memorandum (Miscellaneous Document, November 16, 2012) ACLAD concluded after reviewing the Geology (including appendix -D, Geotechnical Study) and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the draft EIR for Zone 2 that there were important issues that were not fully addressed in the report. In reviewing the most recent draft EIR, we continue to have concerns that important issues are either not adequately addressed or are based on incorrect assumptions that alter the significance of the impacts. We address two: Flooding/Hydrology and Geology FLOOD /HYDROLOGY Current Storm Drain System The present storm drain system in Zone 2 and adjacent areas (shown below) is taken from the Draft EIR section on flooding and hydrology, figure 4.8-1. The storm drain system shown in red on the map is based on the City of RPV 2004 revised edition of the city's storm drains. Unfortunately, as shown it is incomplete and only covers the west side of the community. The 1 Draft EIR illustration omits the storm drain system in the rest of Zone 2, mostly the east side. In blue is the rest of the system covering Vanderlip Drive, upper Narcissa Drive, lower Cinnamon Lane, Sweetbay Road and lower Narcissa within the Abalone Cove landslide, all of which are important in conveying storm water runoff into Altamira Canyon. Also note that the 300 feet of Altamira Canyon located between the end of the culvert exiting Fig Tree Road and the 120" CMP culvert at the entrance (beneath the park) is included in the City/EIR's storm drain system. It is important to recognize the complete system because all of the streets and culverts in the community are involved in conveying storm water runoff from houses and open lots into Altamira Canyon. All parts of the system are important and must function successfully in order to prevent flooding and the type of problems that have plagued the community for years. 001$1�44'7N 1 t 7 �� I The storm drainage system in Zone 2 and adjacent areas. Outlined in red is the system illustrated in the revised Draft E!R report (fig. 4.8-1). Shown in blue is the rest of the functioning storm drain system in Zone 2 and adjacent community. 2 Under -capacity of the Current Drainage System, Flooding and increased Infiltration In the Conclusions and Recommendations (p.7), the EIR states that "flood/hydrology impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would: 1. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain storm water drainage systems 2. Increase infiltration which could affect the stability of existing landslides in the project vicinity." ACLAD believes that both statements are in fact correct and therefore each one constitutes a significant impact. In section A we present evidence of the inadequacies of the storm drain system and in section B discuss the impact of runoff on groundwater infiltration: Section A A.1 Under -capacity of the Existing Storm Drain System In the EIR, the hydrologic analyses determined that post -development conditions would result in an increase in storm drain runoff as a result of the increase in impervious area that would occur when the 47 lots are developed. However, they conclude that the combined impact from the development is insignificant for the following reasons: • The existing (natural) drainage patterns are maintained and the combination of natural and constructed drainage conveyance and the surface flow has the capacity to convey the runoff from the project site The EIR report assumes that because the current drainage system has existed for many years that it is adequate to convey rainfall runoff. This assumption is incorrect and in fact the system does not have the capacity to convey storm runoff from the project area in major rain storms. Background: The EIR statement that"the "existing drainage system was designed for the entire Portuguese Bend develo a t, including the 47 undeveloped lots" is an overstatement. The storm drain system i�i ZonX the streets in the community, with a few culverts that connect streets and convey storm water into Altamira Canyon. The streets in Zone 2 are simply the paved over dirt roads established by farmers early in the 20th century and addition and ' modification to the streets during development in the 1940-1950s was to maximize the number of buildable lots, not to improve storm water drainage. It is safe to say that the current street "system" was never "designed" for anything other than to provide access to the communit . -C I nc l2Jf !(4 k' The inadequacy of the streets as a storm drain system was recognized in the 1970s when a number of significant flood events occurred in the community. Following reactivation of the Abalone Cove landslide, the Panel of Experts recommended upgrading the culverts and other parts of the system W ��C In 1990ASL Consulting Engineers recommended eight major improvements to upgrading the storm drain system (left) but only two minor modifications to the then existing system were made and the system today remains basically as it was in pre - 1990. PLATE 3 to achieve better control of storm water runoff. In 1990 ASL consulting Engineers was retained by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of RPV to perform hydrology and hydraulic studies to determine the storm runoff for the area located in the Altamira Canyon watershed. The area they studied is the same as in the current EIR report. At the request of the City, the study examined the effects of runoff from storms having a probability of recurring once in 50 year and 100 year. The study highlighted serious deficiencies in the then existing storm runoff system and made major recommendations to improve it. Except for a few modifications, the recommendations were never implemented and the system remains a slightly modified version of 1990. It is basically a make -do series of paved streets with berms added over the years to bandage the biggest problems. The major problems occur during major storms when rainfall exceeds 0.5 in/hr and storm totals are over 6 in/24 hours. During these rain storms such as occurred in 2005 and 2010, storm water fills and overflows the streets, causing significant local flooding and erosion. The development of the 47 lots will, as stated in the analyses, increase storm water runoff from individual lots by 10-15% and for the project by 2.9-4.5%. There is good reason to believe that this increase will be the proverbial straw to an already over burdened/under-capacity system. Appendix thFor e ajorograph examples- f-the-.p�oblems and deficiencies in the storm drain system f 2005 and 201 Il A.2 Unresolved drainage problems There are two unresolved drainage problems that have affected the project area for many years and impact the adequacy of the current system. Both are old, natural drainage channels which collect rain water from upslope areas above Zone 2. They can be identified in old topographic maps, aerial photos and surface photographs and were never adequately addressed in development of the storm drain system. During major rain storms storm water flows through the channels, spills out on to adjacent lots and causes local flooding and erosion. Both channels cross open, undeveloped lots and should be addressed before development of the lots. y k rJ (Jj 1 yam, J 51,- �. The location of old, natural drainage channels (shown in blue) which drain upslope areas and convey surface runoff water in major rain storm events. Channel 1 drains subarea 143C (48.3 acres), and in some years, portions of 142C (23.3 acres) (see EIR fig 4.8-1 for location of subareas), the area generally south of the old Crenshaw Extension and Channel 2 drains upslope areas north of upper Cinnamon Road, subarea 154B (7.7 acres). Letters identify location of the photographs shown below). According to the hydrology calculations in the draft EIR, area 1, subarea 143C has a runoff potential (QB) of 122 cubic feet per second (cfs) and in excess of 200 cfs when storm water drainage from 142C jumps Crenshaw Extension and flows into subarea 143C. Area 2 drains subarea 154B and has a QB of 22.8 cfs. 5 A.2.1 Natural drainage channel at Location 1 which drains subarea 143C and in some years, portions of subarea 142C and conveys storm water to Altamira Canyon Aerial photograph of a portion of the Zone 2 area taken in 1954, prior to development on Narcissa Drive, showing the drainage channels. White "scar" in the upper part of the photo is the early excavation for the Crenshaw extension. Location 1a, (left) drainage ditch cut into the slope to direct water into the inlet (lower right) to the culvert that runs under upper Narcissa Drive. Sheet flow from upslope areas overflowed the ditch and culvert and flooded Narcissa Lane during high rainfall years in the 1990s (e.g. 1995, 1998) and 2000s (2001, 2005, 2010). In the February, 2005 storm runoff that originated in the area north of Peacock Flats, flowed (raced) down the Crenshaw Extension dirt road, jumping the road at the sharp curve east of Kelvin Canyon and flowed down the slope above Narcissa Drive. The storm water flooded upper Narcissa Drive and over whelmed the channels between Narcissa and Sweetbay Road. 0 F lb Channels crossing the open lots north of Sweetbay. The northern (left) channel was over two feet deep and conveyed a stream with 6-8 inches of water following the winter storm of 2005. in the area in the immediate foreground, next to Sweetbay Road, water ponds during storms and overflows onto the road. The two channels merge into one under the vegetation in the distance and eventually connect to the culvert that crosses Narcissa Drive (see 1a). Disking the fields for weed I/ control has partially filled in the channels over the years. (left) The California Water Service water main exposed by erosion in the northern channel following the 2005 storm (it remains exposed today). 1c (right) Storm water flows (west) across Sweetbay Road and exits at the trees (1c) into the continuation of the old channel. Storm water eventually flows into Altamira Canyon A.2.2 Natural drainage channel at Location 2, draining subarea 1548, and extending from upper Cinnamon to the five -points intersection to Sweetbay Road and Altamira Can on y Path of the drainage channelwh' begins above upper Cinnamon and extends acros -point intersection (a) , through the corral at "Right to Fly" and across the open lots (b) to the King property (c) that at Sweetbay Road, crosses another horse corral and finally empties into Altamira Canyon. 2b Portions of the channel which extends from the corral at "Ride to Fly" (left) behind the houses which front onto Sweetbay Road and to the King property at Sweetbay Road. 2b Flooded backyards of the houses adjacent to the channel when the channel overflowed in the winter 9 Sweetbay 2c Continuation of the channel, today(left) and flooded during the winter storm of 2005 (right). To the left of this channel (towards Sweetbay Road) is located dewatering well WW 13 which was partially flooded by overflow water which flowed as a sheet across the lot to Sweetbay Road (below). Storm water from the channel (above) which overflowed onto Sweetbay Road (in the background) 2C Detail of the 15" CMP culvert (usually filled) that drains from the King lot, under the adjacent property and empties directly in to the horse corral at 26 Sweetbay Road. During major winter rain storms the corral floods before the water flow exists into Sweetbay Road and Altamira Canyon. B. Increased infiltration 10 The EIR analysis indicates that "the addition of impervious areas (new houses) will reduce the total infiltration in the project site and due to the low permeability of the soils and steepness of the canyon sides, for a given storm event, the total infiltration will not exceed the existing condition". This hardly seems possible when, as the analyses states, more runoff water will be entering the streets with the development of the 47 lots and, eventually, into Altamira Canyon. Studies (Hill, 2000; Hill, et al, 2007) reveal that the infiltration in the bottom of Altamira Canyon is one of the major sources of recharging the groundwater. The photos below, taken about 15-20 minutes apart in December 2010, illustrate the problem: On the left is storm water discharging from the 120" CMP culvert in Altamira Canyon at the crossing with upper Narcissa Drive. Storm water discharge in Altamira Canyon, December 2010. Both photos were taken on the same day, the one on the left is discharge from the 120" CMP at upper Narcissa Drive and taken about 15-20 minutes earlier than the one on the right which is in Altamira Canyon at the inlet to the 120" CMP that extends under the park at the entrance. The two sites are about 0.6 miles apart. The flow is estimated at several hundred cubic feet per second. The photo on the right, taken 15-20 minutes later is the flow in Altamira Canyon at the inlet to the 120" CPM that extends under Narcissa Drive near the entrance to the community. Where did the discharge water go? It infiltrated into the bottom of the canyon between upper Narcissa and the entrance, especially where the Abalone Cove landslide and other major fractures cross the canyon. About 60-70% of the flow infiltrated over a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. Along that distance there are other sources of runoff water, from the Fig Tree Road drain (which drains all of the west side of the community) and tributaries entering the Altamira Canyon south of Sweetbay Road. Hill (2000) found that between 1-18% of the storm water discharge measured at the culvert at Sweetbay Road exVted into the ocean. Her investigation and later ones conducted by ACLAD, estimate that between 55 to 75% of the discharge water in Altamira Canyon is infiltrating into the bottom of the canyon to recharge the ground water. Even small increases in the rain storm runoff entering the street storm -drain system are important as they ultimately feed into the ground water. 11 d�' yl p� g,g wea ipR SLOPE -STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT" The draft EIR report (based primarily on the Geology in the LGC Valley report) concludes that development of the 47 undeveloped lots within Zone 2 will not -have a negative effect on the overall stability of the landslides, ancient and active provided that development of the lots is within the guidelines and conditions set by the City of RPV. They believe that the greatest threat to Zone 2 is the potential loss of lateral upslope support due to movement within the ACL and PBL. ACLAD is in general agreement with this conclusion but cautions that the older pre -2007 GPS data upon which their conclusion is based are of varying data quality. Since McGee Surveying began working with ACLAD and the City of RPV to improve and expand the GPS network in 2007, there has been a marked improvement in the GPS survey results. Damage or disturbances to monuments a �- ktento a collection and analysis have been eliminated. These results show that a of Zoneacent areas, with the exception of the area north of the anticline beneath Peacoc 1,52) and west of Fruit Tree Lane (AB17) are steadily creeping south-southeast at hundredths of a foot per year. It is GPS Stations AB = Abalone Cove PB a Portuguese Bend Ancient Altarnka KC = Klondike Canyon Landslide Cr = Crenshaw Ext. Ft = Frying Triangle ABB556 AB 6 AB �a AB AB, "2 24AB, T.. e12 Abalone C244\ 4 s Landslide 'CRSI ' t, ABS? X41 _♦ a Crenshaw � N9 • `Wension FII Landslide XW6 1,s Extremely slow_ .05 2a - GPS Based Horizon _ ^ Displacement Very Slow 711 1994-2011 ` —` �y contours in feet r 500.05ff=0.6in 0.20 ft = 2.4 in �V X11 1 H =. bin 0 12 In slow DS 20 li .5�.0 2.0 + Abalone Cove 2.D, D 1.0 ,0 Fast DO So 50 e Portuguese $ 12 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 —0CR07-CUM —F CR50-CUM f- CR51-CUM --f—CR52-CUM —B3—AB56-CU —�Ic—A857-CUM 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YEAR Distribution of the GPS stations in Zone 2 and adjacent areas (upper left). Of interest is the slow movement in the upslope area north of the Abalone Cove landslide, shown in cumulative movement in the seven northern stations (upper right graph) and contoured as "extremely slow and very slow" in the map that summarizes the GPS results of the past 19 years. safe to say that the entire area is undergoing slow movement and has been since the GPS network was installed and probably for much longer. Because most of these stations are located on fairly flat terrain, except for CR07 (located on Crenshaw Extension, next to Portuguese Canyon) the movement does not appear to be slope creep but rather primary movement. This interpretation indicates that the area, including portions of the Ancient Altamira landslide have minimum stability and by definition the FOS for the area is not greater than 1.0. The problem with slow moving landslides is that it takes decades to recognize and adequately diagnosis the level of instability. But, as illustrated by the Portuguese Bend landslide, they can be reactivated rather quickly (months) and once reactivated, the landslides have proven essentially impossible to stop. 13 Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics IT„ 1 I 1, I � la . I �.'1 � t• " ' In PACIFIC OCEAN IZ--Wayfarer ' . Chapel 6i. M III !W ' Inspiration Point Portuguese Point Basemap Source: Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. .f !^ Project Boundary ® Vehicular Corridors Path and Trail Corridors Enframements Structural Focal Points s-•�� Tree Groupings Canyons and Ridges — Vistas Qviews ® Viewing Sites r Viewing Points _ Natural Land Areas Large Land Areas to be Preserved Adjacent Land Areas to be Preserved -••� Adjacent Land Areas to be Restored _ Undeveloped Lands Impacting Views Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character NA 0 415 830 Feet J\ I r I N General Plan "Visual Aspects" for the Project Area Figure 4.1-2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes WW Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Section 2.0 Project Description . � �. #�;^ -Q -'� � ~� M:- .'"'SRI �%• .''�,;� r.+ �ilk •r. !'�• : . � � ,�- �P :�&��,, a � asp• q� • •� � `�,•f � � M ,Q'� • � .�i Vie' . M to -�. ,��' R i �� :'' .i rY. 79wie M' a Arra py'_`.` EFfo � s. M� •�,n c>.r 1 t. •w. � _ ,; h r�' I� �'i1• ,y1� •c. � .�� `.�" qM i.. ♦•. alt • � � 17��c • ` ray � �TC''- a. p^'J. � �. t �',. A � �►$ � � .max A �` �•, ""�' t, 8i R`� '+ S ''its r .�{i i �'Sv •F 'St wo, low -�, 41 r , y At 1p t'C 1 " ' . s.' i►t'' A • 'gib' Legend Project Boundary Vacant or Underdeveloped, Potentially Developable under Proposed Ordinance Revisions Map images copyright © 2010 SSRI and its licensors. Alt rights .reserved. Used by permission. Additional data layer from Los Angeles County Assessor, August, 2010. M Monks Plaintiff Lot N 0 290 580 Feet A Project Area and Affected Parcels � I I 6 � Figure 2-2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 'one 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions EIR Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Qualit�y%jj, ISS I - 125 jJ V� ,''--ll / �` �� .� / wily • ' `_ � I 11 GA x DPA -G N 0 600 1200 Scale in Feet ' Pq Drawing Source: Hunsaker & Associates, Los Angeles, Inc., December 2011. r DPA -6 0 �/'/� °� � f _ it Sm AMNow ROOD ZONE kMA AFFA �Stl=w %MP,4W.'T-1D;.9 a % MJpffFliS,.'8aa35 SD➢L iAcY {nreai' 4vsra; Cmac iPr>satc r3,+�nyY :YI+6 S ISCHM 'S0.'±7L :L E i,a41y tea J Z t=^ SUBAAFas NypE 2 500. iYPCS 2 h 4 %OSA S DE51M STGFJM- 50-Y.L 2 M 61 ! t 21 TIRE OF CD1.--ENTRA'11D11 ODZ 4.9 ( :3 518DND RE9D70UL - 470. ON -At UM-NDAP@ LOTS - 2X mu PROPOS AROA - 1X ��I�� C64F[LENCE NODE PROPOSED itESE1ENRA1 - 40% ORES NJa7l'1 MN CHAVNEL 5 DPA - S. 4%000 CV PER 50 40 E 5'Dc F.4"SOD . 1.61 VACQNT DA DEVELOPED WSTRIM RES QUIERPOTVN THAW 2 W2 4.9 16 913 j Y S13 1IIA I i } k1 1128 163 { k 074 4.9 16 231 2SA 313A8 ! 1148 236 j } Y'9 42 b 003 49 IS 436 436 I TSAR { J 116A 27.4 C04 4,9 24 442 442 1178 68 Ic 073 49 22 141 141 IT9A TA i ( 21 21 W4 49 0 212 212 zZV4 ! ! 1218 35 } } 21 21 036 49 6 IDS 19S 1=5 ! i MAS ( 162.9 } IZOO 170.0 :240. 1 we ( 1 t } 0% 4.9 4 156.6 2S24 156E 2524 45D7.0 1278 44,5 j 42 42 DDS 49 9 370 370 1298 1290 533 42 42 j 004 419 13 1124 1124 :35c lilac ( 67.8 } j 1475 urs 1328 68.7 I I OD2 49 9 2D00 3219 200.0 3:19 51525 133AB 638.5 { ( 53851 73rr 598.8 73rD 134A ! 1358 Ise 42 42 304 49 17 JO 290 13W ( { 1370 1.3 21 21 ! 044 4.9 5 44 4A 13880 17.1 32.7 322 1390 591 2 2 04 49 12 1326 2130 1320 2138 44325 14x8 165 36 40 ! 632 49 ( 9 ..... 141C 612 1 1 W2 49 12 1544 2465 1534 2466 4SSOO 142-- 233 ( 1 1 W2 49 5 910 1474 Oto 1474 17475 1430 46.3 5 5 O72 4.0 12 5215 19611 121.6 196.1 36225 14580. 225.5 ! 4992 7239 4902 7739 I4$ 1468 34,6 13 23 002 49 7 14TAS SO5.6 1076.0 1444.0 1076.3 14548 148% 182 22 40 006 49 8 4490. } 1508 :30 26 40 { W6 49 7 151s 21.6 1 2 2 Dos LII 70 539 845 no 615 :5875 1528 12.5 ( } to ap D04 49 7 153" 659.0 HOLT 44811 1165.7 ISOM 1548 77 ! 2 004 49 T 22,6 36.7 51.9 479 566.0 IBM 2t3 13 40 975 49 7 1568 64.9 2 2 W2 49 10 IM6 2$32 1605 2$32 47702 1578 1560 33.8 16 20 W4 4.0 12 45'9» } t69B 35.8 ( 36 35 W6 49 11 1616 } 10,"14 11.5 2 2 1 004 4.0 11 ZT.1 43.7 27.1 43.7 802.5 163AS me 15415 ZMr.2 15659 20615 164% } 4650. 219 } 42 42 D74 4,4 tt 16FA 1 1 15772 20875 1586.3 5/28.1 LEGENDS ROOD ZONE kMA DRAINAGE DESIGN CRffERiA. 5.0 LSPHTET �. 1. 50-78. 24-1 1 ISOHCSD 4.9 t=^ SUBAAFas NypE 2 500. iYPCS 2 h 4 Me 0.4' c S DE51M STGFJM- 50-Y.L 2 M Tt ID TIRE OF CD1.--ENTRA'11D11 4. PERLEH7 IMPERVIOUS VALLFS: - FLOW PATH 518DND RE9D70UL - 470. ON -At UM-NDAP@ LOTS - 2X mu PROPOS AROA - 1X ��I�� C64F[LENCE NODE PROPOSED itESE1ENRA1 - 40% ORES NJa7l'1 MN CHAVNEL 5 DPA - S. 4%000 CV PER 50 40 E 5'Dc F.4"SOD . 1.61 VACQNT DA DEVELOPED WSTRIM RES QUIERPOTVN THAW L� RESDER REST)omu Dom PRUP CGD DPA -6 DEM POTENM ARE& MM c ,.... ,,. v,... SPC L7255YIOAT1Ttt! BDUWD4iY . ,.. a. r.... _........:... r. ROOD ZONE kMA 5.0 LSPHTET �. +- COY 50W1:ARF Yf YAFs MC''Ti mr FGTd� PROJECT BOD1M%7Y WATu25NED 90t1.VPAR1' - FLOW PATH mu Pla Draft n .-...-� ��. �......-• •.•.•.... 5118)AFA BO:MIIARY MN CHAVNEL Fiaure 4.8-1 City of Palos Vermes CITY OF .�RANCHOPALOSVERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 5, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material E Emails from Kit Fox, Ron Conrow 1 Emails from Lewis Enstedt, Cassie Jones, Jim Knight, Gary Weber Respectfully submitted, 4, ulr2w: mz-", �a MCarla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 4, 2014**. MAGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140805 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late Correspondence for Item E. Kit Fox, AICP Cittj of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 5445226 kitf@ v.coxxi Kit Fox Tuesday, August 05, 2014 9:35 AM Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke FW: Comments on the Draft EIR for Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 20140805_DEIRComments.pdf From: Kit Fox Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 9:35 AM To: 'genplan@planning.lacounty.gov' Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: Comments on the Draft EIR for Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 Dear Ms. Chung: Attached, please find the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' comments on the Draft EIR for Los Angeles County General Plan 2035. A hard copy will follow via U.S. Mail Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 5445226 F. (310) 5445291 E: kitf@ruv.com m 5 August 2014 GITVOFL RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAG'ERS OFFICE ADMINISTRATION VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning ATTN: Connie Chung, AICD, Supervising Regional Planner 320 W. Temple St,, Rm. 1356 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SUBJECT Comments in Response to the, Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for, Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 Dear Ms. Chung: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above-mentioned project. We have reviewed the DEIR as it responds to the City's scoping comments of 26 July 2013, and find that it addresses the issues that we raised previously. As such, we have no further comments on Los Angeles County General Plan 2035. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com. Sincerely, Kit Fox, cp Senior Administrative Analyst cc: Mayor Jerry Duhovic and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager MABorder IssueskLA County General Plan Update120140805_DEIRComments.docx 30940 HAWTHORM'. Bwo. / RANCHO B\K)SVERDES, GA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 / FAX (310) 544--.-.i291 PRINTEiD oN RFx,,-,Y(q.E:D Ptwt 0_�L From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late Correspondence for Item E. Kat Fox, AICD Cittj of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 5445226 kitf@rpv.com Kit Fox Tuesday, August 05, 2014 1:45 PM Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke FW: EPA -LPG Advisory EPA -LPG Advisory Committee.docx From: Ronald Conrow [mailto:Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 20141:29 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Jerry Duhovic;'Hon. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.' Subject: EPA -LPG Advisory Kit, Please post the attached Rancho response concerning the SPPHU letter to the EPA -LPG Advisory Committee with regards to API 2510. Regards, IRM &tdl & Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Cl) July 31, 2014 Dear EPA -LPG Advisory Committee Member, It has come to our attention that Mr. Chuck Hart President of the San Pedro Peninsula United (SPPHU) sent the attached correspondence dated July 27, 2014 to your committee. As typical with the SPPHU, the correspondence contains copious uninformed and baseless allegations against the Rancho LPG Facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street in San Pedro, CA. In order to set the record straight, it is incumbent on Rancho to respond to these unfounded allegations with documented facts from applicable regulatory and legal sources. Items italicized are quoted directly from reference sources. 1. American Petroleum Institute (API) 2510 Upon review of the EPA advisory, it is clear the concerns mentioned in the advisory are specific and applicable to LPG installations at natural gas processing plants covered under the API 2510 code. As you know, this code contains different and more protective design criteria, including spacing and setback distances between LPG tanks and other equipment than does NFPA 58. The API 2510 standard specifically covers the design, construction, and location of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) installations at marine and pipeline terminals, natural gas processing plants, refineries, petrochemical plants, or tank farms. This standard covers storage vessels, loading and unloading systems, piping, or and related equipment within these facilities. Equipment setback and spacing standards in these types of facilities are greater than for Bulk Liquid Plants, such as Rancho LPG which is covered by NFPA 58. Refineries, natural gas processing facilities, and petrochemical plants typically contain multiple processes consisting of very high pressure, extreme temperature, and chemically reactive process units necessary to facilitate optimal processing of petroleum products. Additionally, these facilities contain large tank farms with numerous feedstocks and refined products and onsite storage for a variety of toxic chemicals. Thus more stringent equipment spacing and setback requirements are necessary to ensure safe operations. Upon review of several Risk Management Plans (RMP's), the adjacent Phillips 66 Wilmington and the Chevron Richmond refineries are perfect examples of the more stringent API 2510 spacing requirements as their RMP's indicate 16 and 26 processes respectively. Conversely, the Rancho RMP has only one process and does not store any threshold amounts of toxic chemicals. For the record, Rancho's RMP, including the "worst case" scenario has been vetted by the EPA as "being to the letter of the law" and is on file for public review at the LAFD/CUPA office in downtown Los Angeles. The Executive Summary in Rancho's RMP clearly states, "The Facility was designed in accordance with NFPA 58". Therefore, the EPA advisory is not applicable to the Rancho LPG Facility. 2. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58 As mentioned, the applicable code for the Rancho Facility is the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA #58) Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code ... not API 2510. This national code was first adopted in (S—) 1932 and is updated regularly every three years by the committee members. NFPA 58 specifically applies to the design, construction, installation, and operation of all LP gas systems. It incorporates, by reference, a number of other codes and standards. Chapter 1.1.1 of the NFPA 58 code clearly states, "This code shall apply to the operation of all LP -Gas systems including the following": (1) Containers, piping, and associated equipment, when delivering LP -Gas to a building for use as a fuel gas, (2) Highway transportation of LP -Gas, (3) The design, construction, installation, and operation of marine terminals whose primary purpose is the receipt of LP -Gas for delivery to transporters, distributors, or users, Exception No. 1: Marine terminals associated with refineries, petrochemical, and gas plants. Exception No. 2: Marine terminals whose purpose is the delivery of LP -Gas to marine vessels. (4) The design, construction, installation, and operation of pipeline terminals that receive LP -Gas from pipelines under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Transportation, whose primary purpose is the receipt of LP -Gas for delivery to transporters, distributors, or users. Coverage shall begin downstream of the last pipeline valve or tank manifold inlet. Conversely, Chapter 1.1.2(2) of the NFPA 58 code states the following with regards to non - application of the code, "Natural gas processing plants, refineries, and petrochemical plants". Additionally, NFPA 58 Appendix A.1.1.1(4) says the following: "For further information on the storage and handling of LP -gas at natural gas processing plants, refineries, and petrochemical plants, see API 2510, Design and Construction of LP -gas Installations". While the SPPHU commenter seems to have an awareness of some regulations affecting the petroleum industry, he clearly lacks an understanding concerning the specifics and applicability of these codes and standards as related to the Rancho LPG facility. 3. Petrolane Original Permit Process In September 1977, a comprehensive report was submitted by the California State Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at the request of Governor Jerry Brown for the agency to inspect the Petrolane (Rancho LPG) facility in San Pedro to determine its potential hazard to the surrounding area. The Report was based upon a joint effort by the Los Angeles Department of Buildings and Safety, The City of Los Angeles Fire Department, City of Los Angeles Harbor Department, United States Coast Guard, The Division of Industrial Safety, Coastal Commission, Petrolane, and coordinated by the CPUC. The agencies were charged with evaluating the facility and marine terminal and preparing conclusions related to address safety concerns. There were no findings indicating the facility was unsafe or that it should be shut down. Appendix 1 in the Report lists all 42 applicable permits from the respective agencies required to build the facility, including seven from the LAFD. Therefore, the commenter's claim that the Petrolane (Rancho) facility received numerous exemptions and an expedited permitting process is not supported by the documented facts. 4. Earthquake Fault Rupture Zone Rancho is fully aware that the facility is in a seismically active area and is near the Palos Verdes Fault. However, it is important to note the Palos Verdes fault has not been classified as an Alquist- Priolo "fault rupture zone" by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). The Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 Mw 6.6 San Fernando earthquake. The AP Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the AP Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. The closet designated Alquist- Priolo fault is the Newport -Inglewood fault, which is approximately 6.6 miles from the facility. CGS Special Publication 42, page 4 lists 64 -faults zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act as fault rupture hazard zones in California. The Palos Verdes fault is not listed. Also, page 3 of SP42 lists 104 -cities affected by earthquake fault zones and San Pedro is not among the cities. Moreover, Rancho's 2009 third party California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP) mandated 5 -year seismic revalidation report states on page 2-2, "The site is less than one mile from the Palos Verdes Fault as shown on page 3 of Appendix C, but is not within an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone. There is no identified surface fault trace that underlies or is in close proximity to the site". Furthermore, the EPA's third party geotechnical expert consultant report from Geotechnologies, Inc. serves to provide additional and unbiased validation concerning fault rupture. Page 7 of the Report dated December 20, 2012 declares, "The site is not underlain by the.surface trace of any known faults". Furthermore, the Report states, "The Palos Verdes Fault has not been designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS) with an Earthquake Fault Zone". In the State of California, an Earthquake Fault Zone is designated only if the CGS deems a fault to have a relatively high potential for ground rupture. Since only the CGS can designate a fault as an Alquist-Priolo "fault rupture zone", any claims to the contrary by the SPPHU or environmentalist Don May of the California Earth Corps are erroneous and are not supported by the CGS. 5. Seismic Adequacy of the12.5 Million Gallon Refrigerated Butane Tanks Chapter 1, page 1-6, #47 of the aforementioned 1977 CPUC Report stated, "The seismic safety design of the low temperature 300,000 Bbl. LPG tanks should be reviewed in light of the recent studies indicating the potential activity of the Palos Verdes Fault". The purpose of the re-evaluation was to ensure current tank design tanks would not rupture and tank contents will not be spilled during the maximum credible earthquake (6.5 — 7.2) associated with the Palos Verdes Fault. As a result, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) hired a third party Engineering Decision Analysis Company Inc. (EDAC) to conduct a seismic re-evaluation of the tanks based upon new seismic criteria. In December 1977, the final seismic re-evaluation report for the existing LPG Storage tanks was prepared for the LADBS by EDAC. Summation of the reevaluation is found on page 2-1 of the EDAC Report and states, "Criteria is given in this section for all critical modes of seismic tank response and for computation parameters such as tank and fluid period used in evaluating tank response. Compliance with the criteria given here will demonstrate that the Petrolane LPG storage tanks have an adequate factor of safety against rupture and the spillage of contents when subjected to maximum credible earthquake ground motions associated with the nearby Palos Verdes fault". As discussed in item #4, since 1998 the State has required seismic assessments be conducted and revalidated every 5 -years on hazardous facilities under the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP) to provide reasonable assurance that Regulated Substances (RS) would not be spilled due to a seismic event. In accordance with the regulation, Rancho in 2009 hired a third party expert consultant to perform the seismic assessment and issue the Report to LAFD/CUPA as required. On page 2-2 the Report concluded, "Based upon these results, the tanks are shown not to fail when subjected to the CaIARP specified seismic hazard". It should be noted, The Federal Risk Management Plan (RMP) under EPA regulation 40CFR68 does not contain a specified seismic component. Nonetheless, in 2012 the EPA hired Strong Motions, Inc. a third party expert seismic consultant to conduct a detailed site specific seismic hazard analysis of the Rancho tanks and issue a report of the findings. Page 15 of Report dated May 16, 2012 addressed to Mary Wesling of EPA Region IX stated the following: • With regards to sloshing, "Tanks with 67' of liquid are expected to remain operational following the 475 year MRP ground shaking". • With regards to uplift and/or sliding, "Tanks with 67' of liquid are expected to safely hold their contents following the 2475 year MRP ground shaking". The documented facts unquestionably show the Rancho tanks have been evaluated for their ability to withstand the maximum credible seismic event associated with the Palos Verdes Fault by the LADBS, CaIARP, and EPA regulatory agencies. A result, the baseless and inflammatory claims regarding seismic inadequacy, failure of the tanks, and subsequent cataclysmic event cited in the SPPHU letter are not supported by site specific seismic studies conducted by city, state, and federal regulators since 1977. 6. Impoundment Basin Before discussing details of the impoundment basin it is important note that at Rancho, LPG is stored in both pressurized horizontal vessels (bullet tanks) and vertical low pressure refrigerated tanks. Accordingly, it is important to understand how storage of these products potentially impacts the characteristics and behavior should a release occur at the Rancho facility. In the first case, butane and propane are stored in five 60,000 gallon high pressure horizontal vessels which exert adequate pressure in order to maintain it in liquid form at room temperature. Ir this case, to store LPG at a temperature of 77*F requires a pressure equal to its vapor pressure at this temperature, which is 35.2 psia (20.5 psig —1.4 atm gauge. Therefore, if a hole develops in the storage vessel below the liquid level, the liquid will be driven out of the hole at a high rate by the storage pressure in the vessel. Furthermore, since most of the LPG is stored at a temperature above its normal boiling point, a large fraction of the LPG will almost instantly flash into vapor as it escapes through the hole. This vapor will then mix with the surrounding air to form a potentially flammable mixture. If the mixture is ignited, an explosion or fireball (BLEVE) will result. This type of accident would have considerable impact on the surrounding area. With regards to impoundment for pressurized vessels, NFPA 58, A.3.2.2.7, states, "because of the anticipated flash of non -refrigerated LP -Gas when it is released to the atmosphere, dikes (impoundment basins) normally serve no useful purpose for non -refrigerated installations." The second approach (refrigeration case) is to refrigerate the butane to keep the temperature below its normal boiling point. Since the refrigeration — not the pressure maintains the butane as a liquid; the butane can be stored in a low pressure vessel. The pressure in this vessel must be maintained at a pressure equal to or above the vapor pressure of the liquid butane at 28*F, which is 0.94 atm absolute, which is slightly less than 1.0 psig. If a. hole develops in the tank below the liquid level, the discharge rate of liquid through the hole will be smaller than the discharge rate for the pressure case due to the lower pressure in the vessel. Furthermore, none of the butane liquid will flash into vapor until its temperature is increased to its boiling point of 31.1*F. The liquid will drop to the ground and form a pool of boiling butane with the boiling rate determined by the heat of the ground. The boiling point for this pool will be initially high since the ground is warm, but the boiling rate will diminish as the ground is cooled by the colder butane. The rate at which butane vapor is formed in this case will be much less than from the pressure case. Thus the geometric extent of the 09 vapor cloud will be less. If the vapor were ignited the explosion would be smaller. A flash fire and subsequent pool fire aremore likely. With regards to impoundment for refrigerated LPG, NFPA 58 (12.5.4) states, "impoundment for refrigerated LP -gas containers shall have a volumetric holding capacity, with an allowance made for displacement of snow accumulation, other containers, or equipment that is equal to the total liquid volume of the largest container served, assuming that container is full to the high -liquid level flow cutoff device." Clearly, the NFPA views the impoundment basin as an important safety feature in containing a release of refrigerated LPG and reducing the size should an ignition of the butane vapor occur. Therefore, the SPPHU claim that the impoundment basin at Rancho "would capture less than 1.0% of the tanks volume in the event of a rupture" is wrong and is not in accord with specific NFPA 58 requirements for containment of refrigerated liquid butane (LPG). In 2011 Mary Wesling of EPA Region IX requested Professor Daniel Crowl of Michigan Technological University to review and evaluate the risks associated with a potential "worst case" release at the Rancho facility. In his report to the EPA dated April 11, 2011, Professor Crowl expertly describes the advantages of refrigerated LPG storage and its behavior should a release occur. Furthermore, the following quote from Crowl explains the importance of the impoundment basin in capturing containing a potential product release and potential ignition. "The advantages to the refrigeration case over the pressure case are: 1) the storage vessel pressure is much lower, resulting in a discharge of liquid, and 2) very little of the cold butane liquid will flash into vapor until it reaches warmer ground and more will remain as liquid in the boiling pool. The consequences for the refrigeration case are less than the pressure case because the rate at which butane vapor is produced will be much less, resulting in a smaller vapor cloud than the pressure case. Since the consequences of the refrigeration case are less, so is the risk". Also, Crowl states, the refrigerated tanks cannot BLEVE. It should be noted that Professor Crowl is not only an expert consultant for the EPA, but serves in the same capacity for the United States Chemical Safety Board (CSB). His book "Understanding Explosions" is a source often quoted by the CSB in numerous final investigative accident reports. Additionally, Crowl serves on the AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Safety and Chemical Engineering Education (SACHE) Committee, and has previously chaired this committee for over ten years and is author/editor of several AIChE books on process safety. The CCPS serves as the primary research and resource base for the CSB in investigations of hazardous chemical accidents. In a letter to Andrew Helmlinger of EPA Region IX dated November 8, 2011, members of the SPPHU not only criticized the EPA of failing to adhere to its mission, but excoriated the findings and credentials of Professor Crowl. Consequently, the SPPHU's continued refusal to accept specific standards within the applicable codes and the expert report detailing the important safety features of the impoundment basin is misguided and irrational. EPA "Worst Case" Calculation In February 2009, shortly after assuming ownership of the Gaffey Street facility, Rancho submitted its Risk Management Plan (RMP) to the EPA. Using standards and methodologies mandated by the EPA, Rancho's identifies off site consequences for both "worst-case" and "alternative -case" release scenarios. Per regulation, our "worst-case" model assumes a complete release of one full tank containing a regulated flammable substance (butane) with an ensuing vapor cloud explosion at 1.0 psi overpressure to endpoint based upon criteria mandated in EPA regulation 40CFR68. Rancho's RMP "worst case" release scenario submitted to the EPA is 0.5 miles at a 1.0 psi over pressure to endpoint, potentially affecting 772 people. In correspondence to Rancho/Plains legal counsel dated December 10, 2013, EPA attorney Andrew Helminger clearly confirms Rancho's worst case was reviewed by the agency and stated according to EPA parameters, "it is in fact 0.5 miles and not 3.0 miles as asserted by SPPHU member Janet Gunter". Therefore, the blast radius associated with the "worst case" scenario does not decimate the Ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach as claimed in Mr. Hart's attached letter. While it is not our intention to marginalize any offsite impacts, the "worst case" scenario for the Rancho LPG facility per EPA regulation does not result in a cataclysmic event and has less potential for damage than the worst-case scenarios of other facilities in the immediate vicinity, a documented fact mentioned by the SPPHU in their September 2009 newsletter. The USEPA RMP guidance describes the 1.0 psi overpressure endpoint used for bounding the explosion hazard as follows: "An overpressure of 1.0 psi is unlikely to have serious direct effects on people; this overpressure may cause property damage such as partial demolition of houses, which can result in injuries to people, and shattering of glass windows, which may cause skin laceration from flying glass." Therefore, the comment attributed to Don May in the letter claiming "a Dresden like firestorm through San Pedro and into the Ports" is not only inaccurate... it is blatantly reckless. The documented regulatory standards and facts provided by Rancho clearly show that Ms. Hart's' correspondence contains numerous unfounded claims. In addition, the letter lacks technically valid data, contains physically impossible scenarios, and is absent the applicable regulatory and/or legal references. However, it does serve to ferment fear -mongering among uninformed citizens within community. Clearly, Mr. Hart's letter is worthless concerning the facts and true risks associated with the Rancho 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 your committee require any or all documentation referenced by Rancho in this letter or other information concerning our Gaffey Street facility in San Pedro, CA. Regards, ;ZM 6WW&A Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronaid.conrow@plainsmidstream.com cc: CD15 Councilman Joe Buscaino From: Lewis Enstedt <lewisenstedt@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 4:59 PM To: CC Subject: Portuguese Bend FEIR Comments Attachments: FEIR Argument 8-4-14.doc Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Attached, please find my comments regarding the FOR for Zone 2. Thank you, Lewis A. Enstedt E6 area, as part of the settlement of the Horan litigation. The list was ordered in priority, with the highest priority being given to lining of Altimira canyon to prevent groundwater recharge from runoff. The FEIR does everything it can to avoid addressing and dealing with this reality. This is nothing short of recklessness. Finally, one has to wonder about City Staff's competency to recommend approval of the FEIR. After all, their initial recommendation, after the Appellate Court's decision in the Monks' litigation, was to approve development in the entirety of Zone 2 with nothing more than a Mitigated Negative Declaration. I think this fairly impeaches Staff's credibility here. I strongly urge a NO PROJECT vote! Please show some leadership. We need a smart solution that works for everyone without compromising safety and well-being. I assume the city undertook the San Ramon project with the goal of protecting property and infrastructure. WE IN PORTUGUESE BEND DESERVE NOTHING LESS! Thank you, Lewis A. Enstedt August 4, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Council Members While much has been discussed and debated regarding further development in the Zone 2 area of Portuguese Bend, I offer a few more thoughts for your consideration. First, I think it's safe to say that the problems with development in Portuguese Bend boil down to surface drainage entering Altimira canyon, then, through fissures in the canyon's bottom, recharging the groundwater and destabilizing the area. It is ludicrous for the FEIR to state this condition will not be exacerbated by further development. Hardscape replacing absorbent soil will lead to vast amounts of additional runoff directed onto the community's roads. And, the city's recommendation is to place this runoff onto community roads, which can barely handle the current amount. Plenty of photographic and videographic evidence has been introduced into the administrative record documenting the relative lack of runoff from vacant lots (after multiple days of heavy rain), large amounts of runoff that can occur from just a single driveway, and the inadequacy our roads to handle drainage. For the FEIR to assume proper road -engineering studies were done in 1949, without producing such studies, and further assume they would be relevant today is both irresponsible and ridiculous. Even if such studies were produced, they would be irrelevant to today's situation, given the amount of geologic change in the area. Also, I'm sure that the standards used in such studies have changed dramatically in 65 years! It's hard to imagine that our community's roads, even if in pristine condition, would meet today's standards. Next, it is well document that groundwater recharge is directly correlated with instability in the area, especially in the area of zone 5, abutting and supporting Zone 2. Anything that contributes to the increase in groundwater levels has the ability to disrupt the fine balance/equilibrium that currently exists. The potential development of 47 additional homes in zone 2 (including the Monks' plaintiffs) will absolutely lead to substantial increases in water entering Altimira Canyon. If you recall, back in the mid 80's, a panel of geotechnical experts came up with a list of items necessary for the safe development of the From: Cassie <cassiej@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 6:08 AM To: CC Subject: Torrance Daily Breeze E -Edition Article Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I am sure you saw this last week. It is only a reminder that there is significant land movement at the entrance to Portuguese Bend. They speak of this movement as recent and ongoing. The main access road to Zone 2 is perched directly above the chapel. Keep this in mind when in your decision making when contemplating approving a project in this area that puts more water back in the landslide via Altamira Canyon. Who can say whether or not this more recent movement and cracking of windows is exacerbated by the recent onslaught of heavy construction equipment driving up and down Narcissa. If nothing else, it is further evidence of the fragility of the area and the geologic underlayment. Cassie Jones Marianne Hunter William Hunter Lewis Enstedt Rancho Palos Verdes Follow the link below to view the article. torrancedailybreeze.ca.newsmemoa.com/ up blink.php?shareid=21685c687 o � Is Wayfarers Chapel impacted by a neighboring landslide? - Torrance Daily Breeze Page 1 of 3 Torrance Daily Breeze I Page PA01 Is Wayfarers Chapel impacted by a neighboring landslide? Church staff need to raise money for a geological and architectural study to examine the glass chapel and surrounding property. By Mary Scott Peninsula News Wayfarers Chapel, the famous glass church in Rancho Palos Verdes. Designed with the protection of a building but open to the world above it and around it, the chapel is a divine marriage between man and nature. It took more than 20 years for a small group of local women to bring the dream of a Swedenborgian church to the Peninsula. They waited out a stock market crash, a great depression and a world war. In 1949, that wait was over. The cornerstone of the glass chapel — designed by architect Lloyd Wright, son of famed American architect Frank Lloyd Wright — was laid. Today, the internationally known church hosts about 400,000 visitors each year, said James Morgan, its director of operations. When it was completed in 1951, the ancient Altamira landslide complex was asleep. It wasn't until five years later, in 1956, when it was reactivated following a post -World War II building boom and grading to extend Crenshaw Boulevard to the ocean. In October 1956, approximately 200,000 cubic yards of dirt (according to geologist Martin Reiter's 1984 geologic guide to the Peninsula) gave way and destroyed 130 homes and portions of Palos Verdes Drive South and Yacht Harbor WAYFARERS, PAGE 3 Cracks, such as this one in the entryway, have formed in Wayfarers Chapel in Rancho Palos Verdes. Located next to an active landslide, Wayfarers' local leadership team is raising money to fund a geological and architectural study to determine what other affects, if any, the landslide is having on the property. Photo by Robert Casillas/LANG Staff Photographer WAYFARERS http: //torrancedailybreeze. ca.newsmemory. com/publink.php?shareid=21685 c687 Thursday, 24 July 2014 Click here to see this page in the eEdition: d (Login Required) 8/5/2014 Is Wayfarers Chapel impacted by a neighboring landslide? - Torrance Daily Breeze Page 2 of 3 FROM PAGE 1 Drive. Wayfarers Chapel sits along the western border of the Abalone Cove Landslide, just one of the smaller landslides that make up the Altamira complex, according to Ron Dragoo, RPV's senior civil engineer. While the chapel and the second Visitors Center are not located on active portion of the landslide, the chapel is showing signs of stress because of the land movement. Cracks are visible on the chapel floor and entryway. "We had two broken windows last year," Morgan said. "And obviously they are pretty hard to place." The church's board of directors wants a comprehensivegeologicaland architectural study to determine the affects, if any, the landslide has had on the chapel and surroundingproperty. The study will cost the church approximately $160,000. Wayfarers' leadership recently announced the receipt of a $10,000 grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to go toward the study. Church leaders must raise the remaining $150,000. "What we'd like to do is to prevent anything from happening," Morgan said. "It's not damaged yet, but we'd like to prevent [damage] rather than try to fix it afterward." According to Ernest Martin's book, "The Beauty of Holiness: Story of the Wayfarers Chapel," there were problems with cracking glass almost from the beginning. So much so that church leaders began replacing glass panes with acrylic in the early 1960s. However, the acrylic was easily scratched and it clouded over time. By 1972, they switched back to glass. Other buildings on theproperty have experienced far more than a few cracks. The original Visitors Center, built in 1957 and 58, was severely damaged by the moving ground. Significant damage was noticed in 1978; in 1979, the city of RPV had it closed. The center was finally demolished in 1995. Morgan's office, an addition of the original Visitors Center built in 1977, still stands. However, it slopes significantly. Once level, it now looks visibly tilted downward. "This has happened in the last decade and a half," he said. "We may not be able to save it." A new Visitors Center, in which Wright's son Eric Lloyd Wright worked on extensively, opened on a different part of the Wayfarers' property in 2001. The city continues to monitor the landslide complex and attempts to slow down the movement. Dragoo saidthe different portions move at different rates. There are two monitoring sites near Wayfarers. One is to the north on Narcissa, right above the chapel, and the other is to the east, close to PV Drive South. Since 2007 the land to the north has moved a little more than 8 inches and the land to the east has moved a little more than 22 inches. "[The land] turns and twists if you will - and that's where it affects buildingsand such; the cracks would become evident," Dragoo said. "The movement itself isn't significant enough to cause huge damage within a single year, but accumulatively over time, it'll take its toll on properties and foundations and the alignment of doors and windows." The church's leaders want to get ahead of the land movement and ensure the chapel's preservation. 1 0 http://torrancedailybreeze. ca. newsmemory. com/publink.php?shareid=21685 c687 8/5/2014 Is Wayfarers Chapel impacted by a neighboring landslide? - Torrance Daily Breeze Page 3 of 3 "It's a real local treasure.... It's a wonderful place,"Morgan said. "The chapel is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and has been voted as one of the 12 Most Beautiful Churches in the United States." Those interested in donating money to fund the Wayfarers' architectural and geological study should contact James Morgan at (310) 377-16500, ext. 222. mscottOpvnews.com Powered by TECNAVIA Copyright © 2014 Torrance Daily Breeze 07/24/2014 0 http://torrancedailybreeze.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=21685c687 8/5/2014 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Carla Morreale, CMC, City Clerk Carla Morreale Tuesday, August 05, 2014 10:00 AM Lorna Cloke FW: Zone 2 Post-FEIR Zone 2 comments.docx Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: Jim Knight [mailto:knightjim33@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 9:42 AM To: CC Subject: Zone 2 Attached are my comments on the FEIR for Zone 2. For the record I am recused from voting on this matter and my comments are being presented to you as a private citizen and not as Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Jim Knight Jim Knight Mayor Pro Tem RPV City Council i 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, CA 90275 310/544-5207 cell 310/318-4290 Post-FEIR comments 8/3/14 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Knight, as a private citizen REGARDING: Zone 2 FEIR DATE: Aug. 4, 2014 For the record I am recused from voting on this matter and my comments below are being presented to you as a private citizen and not as Mayor Pro Tem. I understand that it is unusual for residents to have the opportunity to ask for a response to their concerns over an FEIR, but this project is within a truly unique setting with many potentially damaging impacts that the community does not feel are being adequately addressed. The consultant has had months to prepare their responses and the public will have four and one half days including a weekend to comb over a 487 page staff report. I will do my best to respond as well as I can, but there is a lot of material and cross-reference research that really needs more time to provide a more extensive response from myself and the public. (NOTE: I will refer the attachment pages starting after P. 1-103 as "AP. 1-X") 1) Statement of code change (P. 1-6) is inconsistent with FEIR (AP.1-3) Proposed code amendment: "Structures... will be subject to all of the underlying development standards that apply to similarly zoned properties elsewhere in the city, including an approved geology report." FEIR statement: "Finally, it should be clear that neither the EIR nor the proposed ordinance revisions recommend that the city abandon the industry standard in lieu of the Monks Standard for any other project that is located outside of Zone 2". The consultant has stated that the Zone 2 Monks geology standard is a "special case" and should not be used by others in the city for establishing a new standard. These two declarations are in conflict with each other and make it hard for a citizen to understand the impacts to geologic safety standards and the city's land use policy. Which is it? One geological standard applying equally amongst all residentially zoned lots? Or a dual standard? A) If the city is applying geological standards equally to all residential zoning as stated in the ordinance language, then the city-wide industry standard of 1.5 Factor of Safety (FOS) for residentially zone properties was not analyzed in the FIER with respect to Zone 2. If anything, analysis by geologists as a part of this FEIR have concluded it is below the industry standard of 1.5 FOS. The City ordinance language is not following recommendations of the FEIR to treat Zone 2 with a different "special" Monks geologic standard. This discrepancy impacts the land use policy of this city and needs to be addressed by the FEIR. B) If the city follows the recommendations of the EIR consultants, they will have to change the language of the ordinance and find a way to justify two geological standards with the same zoning as well as address this impact to land use policy in the FEIR. C) To make things even harder for the public to understand the impacts of this project, there is no geotechnical definition in the FEIR as to what is the "Monks geology standard". At least the factor of safety used with other residentially zoned properties has numeric values and geotechnical evaluation based upon best practices of science. The project lot owners as well as affected downslope residents in this residentially zoned area are being asked to accept a fuzzy, non-scientific standard that allows for some personal injury and/or damage to their property as long as it is not a "loss of life or limb". This is unacceptable and is not on parity with other residentially zoned property under the 1.5 FOS standard. 2) (AP. 1-6, 1-7) 1949 subdivision and Co. Ordinance 4478 The FEIR quotes Co. Ordinance 4478 Sec. 191 which required the Portuguese Bend subdivider in 1949 to improve streets and drainage in a manner necessary to meet the needs of the general use of the lot owners. This is the basis for the FEIR assumption that the streets and drainage are designed for full build out today. This is a technical response and does not address real world circumstances, substantial evidence submitted to the contrary nor addresses the FEIR's acknowledgment of infrastructure deficiencies. A) Street structure Construction trucks in 1949 were much smaller and weighed less than equipment today. Neither the County nor the subdivider could have envisioned today's construction vehicle weights nor dimensions. Most 1949 dump trucks weighed about 4,000 pounds and had the capacity to carry about 8 yards of dirt. Today, there are 3 -axle tractor/trucks pulling a 2 -axle semi -trailers with a 40 ton capacity and can be as long as 35'. Cement trucks weigh about 26,000 lbs. and, with up to 10 cubic yards of cement, can weigh over 66,000 lbs. The street base is not thick enough to handle truck weights of today. On p. AP 1-4 the FEIR admits that the project's traffic will cause road damage. Where is the analysis and mitigation for this acknowledged impact? Must trucks today are wider than what was known in 1949. The street widths cannot handle truck sizes of today. The Monk's development entitlements have shown us already that our roads cannot handle trucks of today's dimensions. The Pinkhams have documented in this FIER large trucks that have cause community infrastructure damage as they try to squeeze through the Narcissa gate. We have lost an entry key pad and an historic wall at the Narcissa entrance because construction trucks of today's dimensions have trouble negotiating this narrow entrance. Further up the road, the street paving widths are at the maximum 11-12' wide on each side (as FEIR field observations have noted) forcing the larger trucks today to straddle the center line. In addition, longer trucks need to go over the center line to clear the many sharp (and I should note blind) curves in the community creating very dangerous conditions and have already caused collisions. B) Drainage There is substantial evidence presented in this FEIR that the current drainage system of this subdivision, before the addition of the proposed homes, is inadequate despite the Co. Ordinance 4478 of 1949. The original plan did not engineer for massive fissures in Altamira canyon, both above and below Zone 2, allowing stormwater to infiltrate into the subsurface that can cause geological impacts. Instead of addressing this issue, the FEIR decided to focus on analyzing flood impacts. The 1949 plans did not take into consideration several upstream developments subsequent to the Portuguese Bend subdivision that have increased the amount of stormwater. Again, there is substantial evidence to counter the argument of the FEIR that the original subdivision is adequate for full build out today. C) No engineering plan. There is no known copy of the 1949 subdivision engineering plans for streets and 'drainage so the only way to accurately determine impacts of the project is to do an engineering report of existing streets and drainage under today's conditions. The consultant has unfairly turned the burden of proof around onto the citizens to come up with an engineering plan that counters the consultant's assumptions the original 1949 map approval design meets the subdivision infrastructure needs of today. What is not acknowledged in the FEIR is that substantial evidence has been produced by the public, and it is common sense, that the original 1949 design never envisioned handling the impacts of this project in terms of street widths, dangerous sharp curves, subsurface street structure and drainage design. 3) AP 1-7,1-8 Road widths/emergency access The consultant now recommends that the Portuguese Bend roads be posted with "No parking -fire lane" signs. A) I see no analysis of this nor is it listed as mitigation in the FEIR. B) This would have a significant impact to the community. How is this going to be enforced? Is it a community responsibility? Or do we have to contract with the Sheriff? Many homeowners have cleared areas off of the paved road within the road easement for parking. Will they now not be able to utilize this space with these signs? The consultant suggests that there is additional road width beyond the pavement. But in order to utilize this space, many homeowners would have to tear out walls, fences and planters. 4) Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The FEIR response to all questions regarding the impact of additional hardscape stormwater runoff of the project is that pre and post construction runoff will be virtually equivalent. clo A) The percentages used on p. 4.5-17 of the FEIR were a ratio of new hardscape of the project compared to the entire watershed. This is not a realistic percentage seeing how the majority of the watershed is pervious. Evidence presented to this FEIR by the public has documented a substantial difference between storm water runoff of driveways compared to the pervious soils surrounding those driveways. A realistic impact study would calculate the percentage of the sq. footage of driveways of the project compared to the sq. footage of existing driveways in Zone 2. This percentage should be calculated separately for independent watersheds and would more accurately reflect the project impact. B) Mitigation measures have no quantification of what is "acceptable" runoff to the streets. No geologist can tell you exactly what amount of additional water introduced to the Abalone Cove Landslide would tip it over the balancing point to start it moving again therefore the public has no idea of what is an "acceptable" amount of added runoff from the project. This project is connected with a truly unique environment and the FEIR which has focused on flooding calculations misses this unique and potentially very damaging geologic setting. C) The mitigation includes the requirement for pervious hardscape surfaces but it is not clear if it applies to all hardscape areas including driveways. The mitigation needs to make this clarification making it more in line with the mitigation promise to "not result in an increase of runoff'. 5) The City will be adopting the new 2014 L.A. Co. Fire Code New 2014 Fire Code requirements demand that cities address geological, topographical as well as other challenges to the emergency or rescue operations of the L.A. Co. Fire Dept. It is not clear whether or not mitigations in this FEIR will comply with this new code. New requirements will most likely include: access for Fire Dept. to the Portuguese Bend Preserve (currently the vacant lots on upper Cinnamon allow full access to the areas right above that street), built-in fire suppressant systems, improved hydrant pressure, grounding of construction under power lines, chimney spark arrestors, more stringent turning radius and grade specifications as well as numerous other new requirements. The concerns expressed here by me, as well as concerns from the community at large, are significant and should be addressed if a defensible FEIR is to move forward. Residents of the Portuguese Bend community have a reasonable expectation that the City will protect them from potential negative impacts of development in Zone 2. Thank you, Jim Knight 09- Lorna Cloke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Carla Morreale, CMC, City Clerk Carla Morreale Tuesday, August 05, 2014 10:28 AM Lorna Cloke FW: Zone 2 Zone 2_EIR Ltr 8.4.14.pdf LI ary of AOS VERDES City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: Eduardo Schonborn Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 201410:18 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Cc: CarolyrJn Petru; Joel Rojas Subject: FW: Zone 2 Late correspondence for tonight. -e Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner City of Woncho (Paros Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/`index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f eduardos@rpv.com From: Gary Weber [mailto:gsweberconsulting@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 9:47 AM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Eduardo Schonborn; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Subject: Zone 2 Joel,. Please see the attached letter regarding the Zone 2 matter. Thank you. Gary 1 G( f WEBER CONS LTM P.O. BOX 7, IIDYLLWILD, CA 92349-0007 951-659-5544 TEL GSWEBERCONSULTINGQGMAIL.COM August 4, 2014 VIA E-MAIL Mr. Joel Rojas, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: ZONE 2 -LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE REVISIONS Dear Mr. Rojas: This letter is submitted on behalf of Mr. Jack Downhill, who owns a 6.94 acre parcel at 20 Vanderlip Drive. We have reviewed the staff report and associated materials associated with the Zone 2 FEIR and Moratorium Ordinance Revisions scheduled for tomorrow's City Council meeting. We are profoundly disappointed that the City continues to ignore important comments that relate to the treatment of the owners of the larger lots in Zone 2. To reiterate some of our major concerns: Nowhere in the EIR can we find any discussion of the guidelines or principles that established Landslide Zone 2. As pointed out in our last letter, these guidelines have been recognized since they were recommended by Dr. Ehlig in May 1993. The "Guidelines" for development in Zone 2 are entirely ignored, which we believe is a noteworthy deficiency of the FEIR. The proposed Ordinance revisions, which appear poised to be adopted, will accommodate a select group of lot owners. However, the rights and privileges of other Zone 2 owners have been ignored. We pointed out in our previous letter that the FEIR confirms that there are virtually no discernible increased impacts if the larger lots are permitted to use the same Ordinance provisions. Unfortunately, the FEIR does not include any response to this comment. We also noted that the FEIR does not define the larger lots as "underdeveloped". In the case of the 6.94 acre Downhill lot, we defy anyone to argue that this lot, which is zoned RS -1 (I DU/acre), is not underdeveloped. This comment may seem trivial to some, but in our thinking it clearly shows a predetermined lack of regard to a small group of owners. In summary, the current Ordinance revisions appear to have been crafted to allow a select group of Zone 2 owners the ability to develop their properties, however, it falls short of treating all Zone 2 owners equally. Respectfully, C�7� �p k)e4p- -- Gary S. eber Weber Consulting CC: Jack Downhill, Eduardo Schonborn AICP, Mayor Dubovic and City Council C-2 VIM .�RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 4, 2014 SUBJECT: 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 5, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Materials E Memo from Senior Administrative Analyst Fox; Emails from Janet Gunter, Marcie Miller, Peter Warren, Lisa Pinto, Bonnie Christensen 1 rd Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale Emails from Sunshine, Cassie Jones Email from Sunshine W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140804 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc ►i_ ►i•:0�� [RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: AUGUST 5, 2014 SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE RANCHO LPG BUTANE STORAGE FACILITY (BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT — AGENDA ITEM `E') Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro) Shortly after the completion of tonight's Border Issues Status Report, Staff received .confirmation from the State Lands Commission (SLC) legal counsel that the Rancho LPG rail spur permit issue would not appear on the SLC agenda of August 15, 2014 (see attached e-mail chain). At this point, SLC Staff anticipates that the matter will be considered again at the SLC meeting of October 14, 2014 (to be held in San Diego) or December 17, 2014 (to be held in Sacramento). Staff will continue to monitor upcoming SLC agendas, and will advise the City Council as far in advance as possible of the next SLC meeting item regarding this matter. Attachment • E-mail from SLC legal counsel regarding future meeting date for Rancho LPG rail spur permit issue (received 7/30/14) MABorder Issues\Staff Reports\20140805_CC_LateCorrespondence.docx Kit Fox From: Colson, Kathryn@SLC <Kathryn.Colson@slc.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:08 PM To: Kit Fox Cc: Lunetta, Kim@SLC Subject: FW: June 19th SLC Meeting - Rancho LPG Rail Spur Permit, Port of Los Angeles Ms. Fox, I just wanted to let you know that the Rancho LPG issue will not be on the August 15th agenda. The August 15th meeting will be up north in San Francisco. It is more likely that it will be on the October 14th meeting agenda which will be held in San Diego or possibly at the December meeting. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Kathryn Kathryn Colson Staff Attorney California State Lands Commission ioo Howe Ave, Suite loo South Sacramento CA 95825-8202 (9i6)574-2501 (916)574-1850 From: Kit Fox [mai Ito: KitF(abrpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:19 PM To: Lunetta, Kim@SLC Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting - Rancho LPG Rail Spur Permit, Port of Los Angeles Hi again, Kim: I just wanted to check in with you to see if the Rancho LPG issue will be appearing again on the August 15th SLC agenda. Thanks! Kit Fox, AICP Citic of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 5445226 kitf9wv.com From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, lune 26, 2014 2:55 PM To:'Lunetta, Kim@SLC' Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting - Rancho LPG Rail Spur Permit, Port of Los Angeles Hi Kim: At last week's hearing, the Commission directed that Item No. 91 be re-agendized for a future meeting. How soon do you think you will know at which upcoming meeting this will be heard? Also, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and our concerned residents would be very interested in participating in the meeting at a local venue if it is not held in the Los Angeles area (I see that the next 2 meetings are scheduled for the Bay Area and San Diego). I'm already subscribed to the Commission's agenda listserve, but advance notification of the date and time of the next hearing on this particular topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Kai Fes, AicP Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 5445226 F. (310) 5445291 E: kitf@ v.com LiRqU-0 ftos WRCM From: Lunetta, Kim@SLC [mailto:Kim.Lunetta@slc.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 9:43 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting You're very welcome. From: Kit Fox [mailto:KitF(&rpv.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 8:23 AM To: Lunetta, Kim@SLC Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting Thanks, Kim! Kit Fog, AicP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 5445226 kitf@rpvconi ------------- From: Lunetta, Kim@SLC [mailto:Kim.Lunetta@slc.ca.govl Sent: Saturday, June 07, 201411:47 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting III Hi Kit, Here's the link to the June 191h State Lands Commission meeting agenda: http://www.sic.ca.gov/Meeting Summaries/Agenda%20- %20FI NAL%20for%20Posting. Pdf Best, Kim Lunetta CA State Lands Commission From: Kit Fox [mailto:KitHd)rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:16 AM To: Lunetta, Kim@SLC Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting Thank you very much! Kit Fog, AicP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kitf@rpv.com From: Lunetta, Kim@SLC [mailto:Kim.Lunetta@slc.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 5:09 PM To: Kit Fox Subject: RE: June 19th SLC Meeting Hi Kit, I'm in the process of securing a meeting room in the Los Angeles area and hope to finalize the details next week. Once confirmed, the information will be posted to our website. In regard to the agenda, we anticipate sending it out sometime during the week of June 2"d. I will contact you when it's ready. Best, Kim K%wv Lu vietUtl California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 574-1397 direct From: Kit Fox [mailto:KitF(�i)rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:07 AM To: Lunetta, Kim@SLC Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: June 19th SLC Meeting Dear Ms. Lunetta: 11 Has there been any decision made yet regarding the location of the Los Angeles -area remote site for the June 19th Commission hearing? Also, how far in advance of that meeting might we expect to receive notification of the agenda? We have at least one City Council member (and possibly more) who may wish to attend and provide testimony before the Commission. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICD Senior Administrative Analyst City Managers Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 5445226 F: (310) 5445291 E kitfomv.com Rvcw FIA= k0 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 11:13 AM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: CNN Video of Taiwan's propane explosion.This is just a fraction of the force and inferno that Rancho LPG's tanks are capable of ... pls watch Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kit Fox, AiCP 7 Verdes C..ity of Rdllcho 1 7� tilos (310) 544-5226 kitf Owm.com From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10: 10 AM To: MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.het; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; rachel.zaiden@mail.house.gov; justin.vogt@mail.house.gov; jhwinkler@me.com; mandm8602@att.net; chateau4us@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; hvybags@cox.net; Kit Fox; leneebilski@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; igornla@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; billharris2275@gmail.com; darzavalney@aol.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; efsmith@cox.net; jnm4ej@yahoo.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; dpettit@nrdc.org Cc: jacob.haik@lacity.org; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; jduhovic@hotmaii.com; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; 1pryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared@epa.gov; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; fmillarfoe@gmail.com Subject: CNN Video of Taiwan's propane explosion.This is just a fraction of the force and inferno that Rancho LPG's tanks are capable of ... pls watch http://time.com/3071185/taiwan-_qas-explosion-foota-ge/ Taiwan's Crippling Gas Explosion Caught On Camera ( TIME WORLD TAIWAN Taiwan's Crippling Gas Explosion Ca Caught On mera TIME Video Aug. 2, 2014 SHARE Kaohsiung, Taiwan's second largest city, is currently in a state of disarray due to blasts caused by a gas explosion. The number of casualties has now surpassed 250, with bodies continuing to be discovered as the day progresses. Eruptions began around midnight Thursday and continued into the morning Friday. Taiwan's Central News Agency (CNA) announced that residents had been reporting smells of leaking gas to authorities prior to the explosions. Investigations are currently underway to uncover how the blasts could have occurred and who was responsible. It is currently assumed that the cause was underground gas leaks from petrochemical pipelines built alongside the city's sewer system. 02014 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 1 http://time.com/3071185/taiwan-gas-explosion-footage/ 8/4/2014 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04,2014 11:12 AM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Devastating pipeline leak identified as propane/LPG.... Rancho LPG- 42 yr.old tanks & pipelines 25 million gallons Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kit Fox, ACCP Citrj of Rancho Pa1os Verdes (310) 544-5226 kafgWy.com From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 8:41 AM To: det310@juno.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; mandm8602@att.net; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; igornla@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; jhwinkler@me.com; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobaI.net; darzavalney@aol.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Kit Fox; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com; donna.littlejohn@langnews.com Subject: Devastating pipeline leak identified as propane/LPG.... Rancho LPG- 42 yr.old tanks & pipelines 25 million gallons http://news. msn.com/world/gas-blasts-kill-25-iniu re-267-in-taiwanese-port-1 ?ocid=ansnews 11 #tscptme 13 From: Janet Gunter Sent: Friday, August O1,2O148:41AM To: Brian Campbell Kit Fox; Subject: Devastating pipeline leak identified as propane/LPG .... Rancho LPG- 42 yr.old tanks & pipelines 25 million gallons �� Gas blasts kill 25, injure 267 in Taiwanese port Gas blasts kill 25, injure 267 in Taiwanese port explosions from an underground gas leak in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, August 1. ^t 3 days ago I By GLADYS TSAI of Associated Press SHARE TWEET EMAIL 2,% 26 KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan (AP) — At least 25 people were killed and 267 injured when underground gas explosions ripped through Taiwan's second-largest city, hurling concrete and cars through the air and blasting long trenches in the streets, authorities said Friday, as they searched for the cause. The series of five explosions about midnight Thursday and early Friday struck a densely populated district where petrochemical companies operates pipelines alongside the sewer system in Kaohsiung, a southwestern port with 2.8 million people. Firefighters called to the neighborhood in the late evening to investigate a gas leak were among the victims when the blasts went off hours later, upending at least six fire trucks in the rubble of pavement and dirt. Four firefighters were among the 25 dead as well as some of 267 people injured, the National Fire Agency said. The death toll could rise, because many of the seriously injured were still being treated, officials said. Three people also were reported missing in the disaster, Taiwan's second in as many weeks following a plane crash that killed 48 people on July 23. "Last night around midnight, the house started shaking and I thought it was a huge earthquake, but when I opened the door, I saw white smoke all over and smelled gas," said Chen Qing-tao, 38, who lives 10 buildings away from the main explosion site. The fires were believed caused by a leak of propene, a petrochemical material not intended for public use, but the cause and source of the leak were not immediately clear, officials said. The exploded gas line belongs to government-owned CPC Corp., which told The Associated Press it showed no signs of problems before the explosions. CPC officials at the scene Friday declined to offer information about reasons for the blasts. Video from the TVBS broadcaster showed residents searching for victims in shattered storefronts and rescuers pulling injured people from the rubble of a road and placing Page 1 of 3 http://news.msn.com/world/gas-blasts-kill-25-injure-267-in-tiw,anese-port-1 ?ocid=ansnews... 8/4/2014 Gas blasts kill 25, injure 267 in Taiwanese port them on stretchers while passersby helped other victims on a sidewalk. Broadcaster ETTV showed rows of large fires sending smoke into the night sky. Chang Jia-juch, the director of the Central Disaster Emergency Operation Center, said the leaking gas was most likely to be propene. The source of the leak was unknown. Chang said, however, that propene was not for public use, and that it was a petrochemical material. One of the fires, along a 10 -meter (33 -foot) stretch of gas line, was still burning into midday Friday, the National Fire Agency says on its website. The government's disaster response center said it was trying to prevent any knock-on gas explosions in the same place or nearby. Vehicles are left lie in a destroyed street following multiple explosions from an underground gas leak in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, "In terms of what we can prevent, we're afraid another explosion could happen, as there is that possibility," said Hsu Lee-hao, an economics affairs ministry section chief staffing the disaster response center. "We're afraid it could be in the same place or elsewhere." Most of the injured were people outside on the street, often hit by rubble blown toward them or crushed by cars sent flying in the blasts, a police officer at the scene said. Police and firefighters were burned while trying to control blazes. "I wanted to check on my friend working in the night market, but she was hit by rubble and is now still in the hospital," said Chang Bi-chu, 63, the door to whose house was warped by one of the blasts. "On the way I saw dead bodies. I felt really bad. After all there was just the air crash in Penghu last week." August 1. A TransAsia Airways prop jet that took off from Kaohsiung crashed July 23 while trying to land in stormy weather in an archipelago in the Taiwan Strait. The crash killed 48 people and injured 10. "The power is cut off in my house, there is no light and the fan doesn't work," Chang added. "We don't have money to stay in a hotel and they're all booked anyway." Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu said several petrochemical companies have pipelines built along the sewage system in Chian -Chen district, which has both factories and residential buildings. She warned people Friday to stay away. "We have an intersection . that's still burning," Chen said at an emergency government meeting broadcast on television. She called the explosions Kaohsiung's worst gas - related accident in 10 years. "The city of Kaohsiung has opened nine relief shelters. We hope people can first evacuate to a safe place." More than 1,100 had evacuated overnight. Rescue workers expected to find few, if any, people in the rubble because no buildings collapsed, Hsu in the disaster response center said. When police officers and firefighters investigated the major leak on Kaixuan Road Thursday evening, they could not block it because they had not identified the source of gas. Those authorities were closest to the fire during the first explosion and therefore suffered burns. Page 2 of 3 http://news.msn.comlworld/gas-blasts-kill-25-inj ure-267-in-taiwanese-port-1 ?ocid=ansnews... 8/4/2014 Gas blasts kill 25, injure 267 in Taiwanese port People killed and injured elsewhere were standing, walking or driving in the streets, which are near a night market. On Friday afternoon, paramedics and a rescue dog combed the neighborhood for survivors. Power supplies to 12,000 people in the area were severed, and 23,600 lost gas service. People inspect vehicles tipped over following multiple explosions from an underground gas leak in Kaohsiung: Taiwan, August 1. The fire department received reports from residents of gas leakage at about 8:46 p.m., and the explosions started around midnight. Closed-circuit television showed an explosion rippling through the floor of a motorcycle parking area, hurling concrete and other debris through the air. Mobile phone video captured the sound of an explosion as flames leapt at least 9 meters (30 feet) into the air. One witness said he tried to help before paramedics arrived. " I was on my scooter just across the street, suddenly there was the explosion, a white car was blown toward me, and I saw the driver trapped in the car," said Wong Zhen-yao, 49, owner of a car repair shop in the disaster area. "There was still fire nearby. I tried to pull the guy out but couldn't," he said. "Only after the smoke was gone did I realize there was such a big hole in the middle of the road." The explosions left large trenches of up to a meter deep running down the centers of four of the hardest-hit roads. The trenches were littered with soot -covered cars and pieces of pipe and edged with pavement slabs torn apart by the blasts. Burnt walls and toppled signs of shops lined Sanduo Road, near an elementary school. The blasts affected an area of two to three square kilometers, much of it sealed off. Associated Press writers Ralph Jennings in Ta/pei, and Gillian Wong and Ian Mader in Beijing contributed. Page 3 of 3 7 http://news.msn.com/world/gas-blasts-kill-25-injure-267-in-taiwanese-port-1 ?ocid=ansnews... 8/4/2014 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 11:12 AM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Look at what Doane Liu says in this article about the homeless housing project in San Pedro Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kat Fox, AZCP Citi) of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544.-5226 kitf@) v.com From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:54 PM To: det310@juno.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; bonbon90731@gmaii.com; billharris2275@gmail.com; fbmjet@aol.com; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; hanslaetz@gmail.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; paulettemarie@gmail.com; bonbon90731@gmaii.com; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com; donna.littlejohn@langnews.com; darzavalney@aol.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; mandm8602@att.net; dirivera@prodigy.net; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; Kit Fox Subject: Look at what Doane Liu says in this article about the homeless housing project in San Pedro And how he found a 'loophole" into avoiding the 800 bed facility to be built on the Naval housing tract on Western Avenue! Liu found a loophole in the McKinney Act which prevents "homeless housing" from being placed less than 1000 ft. from "above ground storage tanks" for safety reasons!! That is how the "hero" Liu provided the leadership to divert the homeless housing project for San Pedro!!! Yet .... as Deputy City Mayor of Los Angeles... he has pushed steadfastly forward in establishing the Ponte Vista Housing project establishing over 600 homes in the same exact location for "families" disregarding any hazard posed by the explosive tanks!! AND ... he has done everything in his power to completely undermine any responsible action to be taken on the Rancho LPG issue over the past decade in his varied government positions! TALK ABOUT IRONIC!!! I guess only the homeless are to be protected. Where is the McKinney Act for the folks who CAN afford homes??? http://www.sanpedrotoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/spt 0814 full lores. df Sometimes "truth" is just stranger than fiction! Janet Gunter During a recent Saturday walk from their home off Summerland Avenue towards the Starbucks on Westmont Drive, Doane Liu and his wife Cristina stumbled upon an outdated sign planted in the grass on the Summerland side of Peck Park. "It says, Prop 50 brought to you by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger," says Liu, clearly irritated. "I've asked about it before, but the city's agreement with the state to get the money is that the sign has to stay for four years. So I'm thinking, how long has Governor Brown been in office? Oh, it's coming up on four years. So I took a picture of the sign and I'll email it to Rec and Parks and ask if we can get rid of it, because it's a grafffi magnet" Reporting outdated signs, potholes, fallen trees, and graffli, even on a Saturday, Liu's brain is wired to fix problems. Such is the life of a public servant. We met on that particular Saturday afternoon. The 51 -year-old Liu, a Seattle native who came to Palos Verdes when he was eight, invited me over to his impressive Cape Cod -style house in San Pedro, built by George Peck in 1936. It was originally owned by Dr. Warren Spires, a dentist and former L.A. Harbor Commissioner who also happened to be best friends with Vincent Thomas. "The rumor goes that Vincent Thomas, who lived across the street, and Warren decided to put the bridge where it is today just so they could see it from their homes," says Liu. "Before all the other houses were built, the view was a straight shot into the beautiful curve of the Vincent Thomas Bridge" The house would change hands just one more time, to John Olguin's son, John Jr., before the Liu's purchased it in 2002. We sat in his living room. The hardwood floors and the various nautical embellishments of the house, like porthole windows, are unique, but not necessarily rare for a town with a rich maritime history. Instead of small talk, we jump right into how he got into politics. "It's kind of a long story. I'll try to make it short; he says, smiling. The Concerned Citizen It wasn't always about potholes, outdated signs and community meetings for Liu. Originally a banker working for Security Pacific National Bank, he was involved in real estate development deals and gained an on-the-job education with the City of Los Angeles' land use process. "I always thought to myself, boy, if there's ever a development in San Pedro, I'll sure know how to grind the developer down," he laughs. In 1994, he got his chance. That year, on Taper Avenue, at the site of the former Naval N housing development where the new Mary Star High School now stands, plans were in place to open a large homeless shelter on 27 -acres of land. A South -Central Los Angeles homeless advocacy group was given permission to use the land for the shelter after the announcement of the closure of the Long Beach Naval Complex in 1991. "The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, at the time, said that whenever there's a federal excess property, they offer it to all other federal agencies. And if nobody wants it, it goes into the federal register, explains Liu. Homeless programs are given top priority on the land, and the advocacy group, Turner's Technical Institute, flew under the radar (even bypassing then L.A. City Councilman Rudy Svorinich's offce) and acquired the property. Liu, living nearby at The Gardens at the time, read in the News -Pilot that the group had plans for 880 beds; nearly quadruple the amount of the former multi -family naval housing units. In comparison, according to Liu, the largest homeless shelter in Los Angeles at that time only had 90 beds. "Pedro being Pedro, people got really incensed. It got kind of ugly," remembers Liu. "There were some unkind things, inappropriate things, being said at public meetings, which I wasn't too crazy about. And then there was also this insensitivity to the homeless. And I'm thinking to myself, boy, this doesn't make us look good" So Liu, only 27 -years -old at the time, took it upon himself to get involved. Using the knowledge he acquired working real estate deals at the bank, he began researching the McKinney Act. He wrote letters to then Congresswoman Jane Harman and Councilman Svorinich, whom were both struggling politically with the situation. He would also make contact with then City Attorney James Hahn. 'Jim lived just two blocks away from this Taper Avenue housing;' says Liu. "And he's like, 'Doane, we're stuck. There's nothing we can do. It's a federal law.' So I really concentrated on Harman, working with her staff. [San Pedrans] needed to not make themselves look bad while we're doing this. That was my biggest concern" Liu, while working full time at the bank, was organizing public meetings, leading committees and volunteering his time with both Svorinich's and Harman's of&es, all with the hope of disqualifying the mega -homeless shelter from opening. All his hard work paid off when he came across a loophole in the McKinney Act. In the small print of the 20•plus-page law, Liu discovered a caveat, which stated that the land could not be used for homeless housing if it was within 1,000 feet of above ground storage tanks. At the time, on the corner of Westmont and Gaffey, where Home Depot is now, were two Gatx storage tanks, less than 1,000 feet from the proposed housing site. He passed along the info to Harman, who spoke to the Naval authorities who would eventually disqualify the deal, and a political career was born. "I was obsessed with it, but in a very Pedro way," he laughs. Not wanting to leave the homeless issue unaddressed (because San Pedro still had a major homeless problem), Liu used his political expertise on the McKinney Act to help broker deals with the Port of Los Angeles and Mary Star of the Sea, where the Port would pay $1 million for a strip of land left over from the Naval Shipyard and Mary Star would pay $300,000 for the land where the new high school would be built. That $1.3 million then went to Harbor Interfaith Services to help the homeless. It was a true win-win. "At the time, Harbor Interfaith was in the basement.of the Presbyterian Church, just handing out food and giving out housing vouchers," says Liu. "Now they had a brand new facility on 9th Street" Career Change Realizing he had a flair for politics and getting bored with the banking world, Liu was wooed by Congresswoman Harman to become her district director in 1995, taking a big pay cut from his banking work. He would soon make the move into the City Attorney's office under James Hahn in 1999 and would become one of Hahn's deputy mayors when he won the mayor's seat in 2001. After Hahn lost his reelection bid to Antonio Villaraigosa in 2005, Liu dabbled in banking and public relations before jumping back into politics as Councilwoman Janice Halms chief of staff in 2011. Liu would then become Councilman Joe Buscaino's chief of staff in 2012 when Janice Hahn decided to run for Congress. Then, last year, he was quickly tapped by newly elected Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti to be his Deputy Mayor of City Services, overseeing the city departments that directly impact neighborhoods, such as the DWP, Department of Public Works, Recreation & Parks, and Transportation. "Mayor Garcetti's Back to Basics theme is really what I focus on," explains Liu. "We're tying to restore our city services to a level that our citizens expect" During our photo shoot for the cover of this issue, it was evident Mayor Garcetti and Liu have a very comfortable working relationship. Liu can't help but express his excitement for what the future holds with Garcetti in offce. "(The mayor] is just a great person to work for," says Liu. "It's not often that you get to work for someone 10 years younger than you that you really admire. He's so thoughtful, innovative and forward thinking. And I've worked for some brilliant politicians, but Eric's this new breed. It's so exciting." Even though political life is, as Liu describes it, a 24/7 job, he still finds it important to carve out much-needed family time. His wife, Cristinna, works at Holy Trinity School, and his four children are in various states of education and careers. Rebecca, 26, received her masters in urban planning and works for Councilman Buscaino as his port liaison; Maggie, 24, is studying for her masters in psychology counseling in San Francisco; Woody, 22, just started studying for his masters in education at Loyola Marymount University; and Kellie, 21, is a senior at Boston College. Having worked as a civil servant going on 20 years, Liu's knowledge, connections and experience begs the question: would he ever run for offce? "Never," Liu quickly replies, laughing. "Growing up, one of my best friend's family owned a bakery, and he never ate the donuts or the brownies or the cakes. I used to love going there and we'd have a key and go in afterhours and he'd sit there and watch us all eat like crazy. And wed ask him why he wouldn't eat anything. And he'd say, 'I work here: And now I understand that. I've seen it, you know? I've seen how the sausage is made. And I'm not going to eat the sausage." spt 3 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04,2014 11:12 AM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kit Fox, ACCP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kiti@xpv.com From: Marcie Miller[mailto:marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 5:58 PM To: Pinto, Lisa Cc: Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helm linger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared@epa.gov; jnmarquez@prodigy.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hem bacher@doj.ca.gov; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@sic.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don. holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosen berg@csb.gov; Rafael. Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobaI.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixtl@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; horsefaml@q.com; litaesq@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox; Rosenbaum, Samantha; Pinto, Lisa Subject: Re: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Dear Lisa, This is the most wonderful news! Thank you for your assistance in carrying our concerns forward and for understanding the urgency and gravity of these concerns. We look forward to having an open and honest dialogue Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pinto@,,mail.house_gov> wrote: Dear Friends, 0— I am writing to share an update on Congressman Waxman's work on the Rancho Tanks. He has asked senior staff from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters to come to the district for a community meeting about the status and steps moving forward on the risks at the tanks. DHS has agreed to come to the district and we will be arranging a time between August and October for the meeting. Our office will keep you posted as the details become arranged. As always, thank you for reaching out and for sharing your own updates. Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman 323/651-1040 z From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 11:12 AM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kit Fox, Aicp CitLJ of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544.-5226 kitfgWy com From: Peter Warren [mailto:pmwarren@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 11:21 PM To: Marcie Miller Cc: Pinto, Lisa; Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; Connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared@epa.gov; jnmarquez@prodigy.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosen berg@csb.gov; Rafael. Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burling102@aol.com; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixtl@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; lijonesin33@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; horsefaml@q.com; litaesq@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox; Rosenbaum, Samantha Subject: Re: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks WOW. tell me more. On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Marcie Miller wrote: Dear Lisa, This is the most wonderful news! Thank you for your assistance in carrying our concerns forward and for understanding the urgency and gravity of these concerns. We look forward to having an open and honest dialogue E Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pinto@mail.house.gov> wrote: Dear Friends, I am writing to share an update on Congressman Waxman's work on the Rancho Tanks. He has asked senior staff from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters to come to the district for a community meeting about the status and steps moving forward on the risks at the tanks. DHS has agreed to come to the district and we will be arranging a time between August and October for the meeting. Our office will keep you posted as the details become arranged. As always, thank you for reaching out and for sharing your own updates. Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman 323/651-1040 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04, 20141:16 PM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kit Fox, AICD City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kitf@r2v.com From: Pinto, Lisa [mailto:Lisa.Pinto@mail.house.gov] Sent: Monday, August 04, 201412:03 PM To: Peter Warren; Marcie Miller Cc: Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared @epa.gov; jnmarquez@prodigy. net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hem bacher@doj.ca.gov; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@sic.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don. holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosen berg@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; bonbon90731@gmaii.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixtl@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; horsefaml@q.com; litaesq@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox; Rosenbaum, Samantha Subject: RE: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks The date will likely be on September 10 but I don't have further details just yet. Stay tuned! Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director. Congressman Henry A. Waxman From: Peter Warren [mailto:pmwarren@cox.netI Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:21 AM To: Marcie Miller Cc: Pinto, Lisa; Janet Gunter; michael.picker@aov.ca.gov; rgb2510berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; 1 �. carl.southwell@gmaii.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.mcom; connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcymthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice lyles@boxer.senate.4ov; We chapman@boxer.senate.orq; laura schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared @epa.gov; jnmarquez@prodigy.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doi.ca.gov; subrooks08@gmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; knighUim330bgmail.com; jerry.duhovic@rpv.com; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don. holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosenbera@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure- Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw hotmail.com; lhermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; iwebb@usc.edu; c.iikondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goariene@cox.net; burling102@aol.com; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith(cbklct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid20020yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillagran@sbcgloba1.net; mandm8602@att.net; dlrivera@ prodigy.net; peter. burmeister@sbcglobal.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixti@yahoo.com; seinhorn@Drodtrans.com; rueskii@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; owsq_ueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.orq; horsefami@q.com; litaesq@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox (KitF@rpv.com); Rosenbaum, Samantha Subject: Re: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks WOW. tell me more. On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Marcie Miller wrote: Dear Lisa, This is the most wonderful news! Thank you for your assistance in carrying our concerns forward and for understanding the urgency and gravity of these concerns. We look forward to having an open and honest dialogue Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pintogmail.house.gov> wrote: Dear Friends, I am writing to share an update on Congressman Waxman's work on the Rancho Tanks. He has asked senior staff from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters to come to the district for a community meeting about the status and steps moving forward on the risks at the tanks. DHS has agreed to come to the district and we will be arranging a time between August and October for the meeting. Our office will keep you posted as the details become arranged. As always, thank you for reaching out and for sharing your own updates. Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman 323/651-1040 N From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04,2014 1:16 PM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Late Correspondence for Item E (Border Issues Status Report). Kit Fo.,r, AicP Citi) of Ranco Palos Verdes (310) 544.-5226 kitfgrpv com From: Pinto, Lisa [mailto:Lisa.Pinto@mail.house.gov] Sent: Monday, August 04, 201412:04 PM To: Marcie Miller Cc: Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared@epa.gov; jnmarquez@prodigy.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosen berg@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixtl@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; horsefaml@q.com; litaesq@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox; Rosenbaum, Samantha Subject: RE: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks It is truly our pleasure. Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman From: Marcie Miller [mailto:marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 8:58 PM To: Pinto, Lisa Cc: Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det3100juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helm linger.andrew@epa.gov; NA blumenfeld.jared @epa.gov; jnmarguez@prodigy.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; subrooks080gmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; knightjim3309mail.com; jerU.duhovic@rpv.com; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca^qo_v; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosenberg@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody_.james@sbcgloba1.net; bon bon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com, katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.iikondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002Oyahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillaaran@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; dirivera@prodigy. net; peter. burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixti@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; Ilionesin330yahoo.com; owsgueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.orq; horsefaml@q.com; litaesa@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox (KitF@rpv.com); Rosenbaum, Samantha; Pinto, Lisa Subject: Re: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Dear Lisa, This is the most wonderful news! Thank you for your assistance in carrying our concerns forward and for understanding the urgency and gravity of these concerns. We look forward to having an open and honest dialogue Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pintogmail.house.gov> wrote: Dear Friends, I am writing to share an update on Congressman Waxman's work on the Rancho Tanks. He has asked senior staff from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters to come to the district for a community meeting about the status and steps moving forward on the risks at the tanks. DHS has agreed to come to the district and we will be arranging a time between August and October for the meeting. Our office will keep you posted as the details become arranged. As always, thank you for reaching out and for sharing your own updates. Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman 323/651-1040 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:31 PM To: Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Late Correspondence for Item E. Kit Pox, AICD Citi] of Rancho Palos Verdes (310} 544-5226 kitf9my com From: Bonnie Christensen [mailto:bonbon90731@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:09 PM To: Pinto, Lisa Cc: Peter Warren; Marcie Miller; Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helm linger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld.jared @epa.gov; jnmarquez@prod igy.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth. Rosen berg@csb.gov; Rafael. Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmail.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixtl@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; horsefaml@q.com; litaesq@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us@att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox; Rosenbaum, Samantha Subject: Re: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks Fantastic. Thank you. Looking forward to September 10 or near that date. Bonnie Christensen Sent from my iPad On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:03 PM, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pint @mail.house.gov> wrote: The date will likely be on September 10 but I don't have further details just yet. Stay tuned! Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman From: Peter Warren [mailto:pmwarren@cox.net] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:21 AM To: Marcie Miller Cc: Pinto, Lisa; Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; rab251@berkeiey.edu; 1prvor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det3100bjuno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com, connie@rutter.us; jacob.haik@lacity.org; j_cynthiaperry@aol.com; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinaer.andrew@epa.yov; blumenfeld.jared C@epa.gov; inmarquez@prodigy. net; sally. magna ni@doi.ca.gov; brian.hem bacher@doj.ca.gov; subrooks080gmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; kniahtjim33@)gmail.com; jerry.duhovic@rpv.com; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; iennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@sic.ca.gov; apadilia(a)coastal.ca.gov; don. holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.,gov; Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; STsumura@elsegundo.org; gknatz@portla.org; jody.james@sbcglobai.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbeli.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthiink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; burlina102@aol.com; fbmjet@aol.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid20020yahoo.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; auillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net; mandm86020att.net; dlrivera@prodigy. net; peter. burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; roamerbill@yahoo.com; Zenponee@aol.com; tdramsay@gmaii.com; maltbielong@aol.com; Betwixtl@yahoo.com; seinhorn@prodtrans.com; rueskil@cox.net; adcanizales@yahoo.com; lijonesin33@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; john@nrcwater.com; d.pettitCainrdc.org; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; horsefami@q com; litaesa@aol.com; Maier, Brent; chateau4us(5)att.net; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox (KitF@rpv.com); Rosenbaum, Samantha Subject: Re: Rep. Waxman update on Department of Homeland Security and Rancho Tanks WOW. tell me more. On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Marcie Miller wrote: Dear Lisa, This is the most wonderful news! Thank you for your assistance in carrying our concerns forward and for understanding the urgency and gravity of these concerns. We look forward_ to having an open and honest dialogue Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pinto@mail.house. oovv> wrote: Dear Friends, I am writing to share an update on Congressman Waxman's work on the Rancho Tanks. He has asked senior staff from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters to come to the district for a community meeting about the status and steps moving forward on the risks at the tanks. DHS has agreed to come to the district and we will be arranging a time between August and October for the meeting. Our office will keep you posted as the details become arranged. As always, thank you for reaching out and for sharing your own updates. Lisa Lisa Pinto District Director Congressman Henry A. Waxman 323/651-1040 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 12:24 PM To: CC; Carolynn Petru; robert.cumby@cox.net Subject: August 5, 2014 City Council Item land Item 4 MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties RE: August 5, 2014 City Council Item 1. Zone 2 Code Amendment. Item 4. Consideration of Portuguese Bend Drainage Petition The map in the Staff Report provided as Attachment B under Item 4, page 4-15 is a wonderful place to start the "consideration". For starters, it does not indicate which petitioners' properties are under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Bend Community Association (PBCA) and which ones are not. PBCA cannot speak for those who are not. (Hint, the big, yellow parcels are not.) I have a bone to pick with whoever made this map. If it was the City, it should say so. (And, have a date on it.) If not, the City .should acquire the rights to correct it. As the maker of the map in the 2014 Portuguese Bend Directory, I learned that LA County's GIS data base represents public roadways and private easements inconsistently. Attachment B is even worse. This impacts the future of additional development, the collection of the RPV Storm Drain User Fee and who is responsible for maintaining the drainage infrastructure. Notice that a portion of Narcissa Drive and a portion of Vanderlip Drive belong to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in fee. And, is not a part of PBCA. Since acquiring "The Hon Property", what has the City done to maintain these roadways/water ways "up to standard"? (Hint, nothing.) All the petition asks for is some proactive thinking on Staff's part before increasing the burden of additional storm water run-off onto private infrastructure. Why has it taken more than a year for this petition to get onto the Council's Agenda? RE: Item 1. Do what you will with the EIR. It is the proposed change to the Municipal Code which will cause serious damage to the City's infrastructure both physically and fiscally. From: Carla Morreale Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 1:36 PM To: Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: FEIR final deliberation Tuesday Attachments: grading_mud_1-2013 jpg; mud_Jan_2013 jpg; planned_drainage jpg; FEIR_response.docx Late Correspondence for Item 1. Carla Morreale, CMC, City Clerk Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 201412:57 PM To: CC Subject: FEIR final deliberation Tuesday I am attaching my comments on the FEIR for Zone 2 along with some photos of the results of a brief rain last year and the current "plan" for not putting more water on the roads. If you remember, you have already seen a video of 5 days of rain, no flooding on this road, no mud slides, no erosion. Cassie Jones cassieiCcD,aol.com 8/4/2014 Honorable Mayor and Council Members; Re: Zone 2 FOR The comments on the comments took 3 months to write and do not say anything substantially more reassuring about the safety and appropriateness of this FEIR. If anything, the comments are highly insulting and continue to perpetuate flawed logic and erroneous thinking. I trust you found the time to read and digest the hundreds and hundreds of new pages over the weekend. The consultants insist on promoting that, because the factor of safety is unknown, but clearly less than 1.5, a qualitative evaluation should replace the lack of a quantitative one. Why not just spend the money and get some quantitative studies done? You have spent years and a whole lot of money to come up with this nonsensical, Illogical reason to build homes in an area with a factor of safety less than the industry standard. The analysis goes on to say, "...this special case is not intended to be used as a way to forego the work of researching and reviewing landslides and slop instability..." yet that is precisely what the EIR does. It takes a special case, the 16 lots in one law suit, and applies that special exception to 31 other lots and by extension all of the other 65 (+/-) lots in Zone 2. That lawsuit did not and does not even apply to these lots. This "parity to unique circumstances" is clearly not supporting the industry standard for safety and gives other areas; other zones for example, the green light to file for such treatment because of their unique circumstances. Remember, these zones are arbitrary lines drawn around tracts of land that may or may not accurately reflect reality. Again, here studies could have been done with the moneys spent to better characterize the various zones instead of spending it on more words that say the same thing... In the section discussing the stability of Zone 2, it is correctly noted that, "From a geotechnical perspective the item of greatest concern to Zone 2 and those areas adjacent to Zone 2 (especially Zones 5 and 6 as they are recently activated portions of the APBQ is the potential addition of water into the landslide mass, including through conduits (fissures) within Altamira Canyon in Zone 5, the main 12 drainage for Zone 2." Actually there are great fissures in Zones 2 and 1 as well, should the consultants have bothered to actually study the problem. There is a tremendous amount of water entering the canyon above Zone 2, part of the inadequate drainage existing now. The conclusion is drawn that, "Regardless, the EIR concludes that maintaining low ground water levels is the primary consideration for the entire Portuguese Bend Community; therefore it is recommended that all property owners who build within Zone 2 join the community in striving to maintain these wells." This statement speaks to a fundamental lack of knowledge about who is responsible for well maintenance and the roles and boundaries of ACLAD and the Portuguese Bend Community. It is not my place here to educate the people responsible for this FEIR, but I would have thought that by now the City Staff, who presumably reviewed it, and the consultants, who should have been studying it, would know who and what ACLAD is and does. Membership in ACLAD is not optional and does not have to be recommended, it also has nothing to do with the community. While well maintenance is paramount to maintaining the fine balance now, additional construction should be preceded by additional wells and to direct comments like this to the community is pointless. Remember, there are wells because homes were damaged in a landslide caused by excessive ground water from the canyon runoff. What has not been addressed is the fact that some of the lots in Zone 2 are NOT in the PBCA, yet the PBCA is assumed to be responsible for their drainage. The mantra repeated over and over again is that with building there will be no substantial change or increase in flow rate volumes, infiltration, and velocity after development of a lot. As there are no quantitative studies done to show how much or how little currently comes off the vacant lots, a simple qualitative analysis can be done to illustrate why a qualitative one should be performed. You have all seen, I presume, photos or video of vast quantities of water sheeting off driveways and pouring from drainage pipes during a rainstorm. You have also seen the naturally vegetated hillsides lots after 5 days of heavy rain with NO erosion, no mud and no pools of water. I have sent those several times over the last several years. You have also seen one short rainstorm's effect on that same lot after scraping and grading for construction began last year, included again here to remind you. This mud flow did not ever occur prior to development. I Di have also included today the visual end result of the "plan" for "no substantial increase in flow" with this letter. What you see is an extremely long driveway on extremely compacted soil and two large diameter drain pipes next to it. The pipes carry water from the driveway and hardscape and roof runoff. Even the tiny rain we had Sunday produced a trickle of water from the pipes (so they do seem to work). This is already looking like more than an insubstantial amount of runoff is expected to be put on the roads. So what are the recourses available should these projects put more water on to the roads than planned for? Again, there was no runoff after five days of heavy rains on naturally vegetated, non - compacted soil. With respect to the tremendous amount of water entering Altamira Canyon from developments above and disappearing into the ground before it hits the ocean, the consultants state that "Impacts from the existing offsite improvements are acknowledged but not analyzed as part of the proposed project as they are captured as part of the baseline condition." This EIR needs to include that tremendous volume of water in its analysis as more than baseline. Calling it "baseline" makes it sound like it is just background noise and that it is OK. The fact is, this "baseline" is already a problem and it doesn't matter how many times you read that the construction will not aggravate the current condition, there will be more water in the canyon, there are no plans for getting it out and the current condition is barely in a sustainable balance. "Baseline" is an already deplorable state. The discussion regarding the design of the roads is one of the most insulting and disingenuous plans ever thought up. The consultants, rather than showing that the roads are fine and have been properly engineered (or not), make the statement that "The Los Angeles County ordinance requirement to make improvements necessary to meet drainage needs, which was in effect when the subdivision map for the area was approved by the County, supports the statements and assumptions in the Final EIR. With no evidence to the contrary having been presented, it is reasonable to assume that the County enforced its requirements at the time of map approval, and that the drainage needs of the subdivision were accommodated in the subdivision design. "They are putting others in charge of researching the engineering of roads that were put in place over 75 years ago. When we try to find these documents, we cannot and are told they do not exist. How can we possibly provide "evidence to the contrary" when it does not exist? Is not that what you hired a consultant to do? Could they not find those documents either? I must insist that they provide evidence to support their claim rather than their requiring me to produce documents that do not exist! "...it is reasonable to assume that the County enforced its requirements at the time of map approval, and that the traffic needs of the subdivision were accommodated in the subdivision design." Even if this is true and one could find the documents to prove it, THERE HAVE BEEN LANDSLIDES SINCE THEN!!! The drainage into the canyon has been drastically modified since then! Those studies, even if they were done and do exist, are meaningless. I hate being treated like I am not bright enough to figure some of this stuff out and statements like that, with full knowledge that the landslides happened after any "engineering" was done are insulting beyond belief. You should feel the same way, too. Lastly, calling the Statement of Overriding Conditions for NOT putting in required traffic signals a "congestion" issue rather than a "safety" issue is an example of a City trying to shirk its responsibility. Anyone who regularly tries to turn on to PV Drive South at certain times of day will know that they may have to make a mad dash across an endless line of oncoming cars. Because there is a traffic light at Terranea, there will be a break in the traffic from that direction sooner or later, but from the direction of Trump National, there is no break. Whether that is "congestion "or a "safety" issue depends on whether you are trying to turn left or right and on whether you negotiate it correctly or not. You as a City cannot accept this "semantics" as a substitute for doing the safest thing. Thank you for your time and attention. I urge you to choose "No Project" for this EIR and to move on and come up with a project that makes sense and is one that we all can live with. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes 5- I a From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 12:24 PM To: CC; Carolynn Petru; robert.cumby@cox.net Subject: August 5, 2014 City Council Item land Item 4 MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties RE: August 5, 2014 City Council Item 1. Zone 2 Code Amendment. Item 4. Consideration of Portuguese Bend Drainage Petition The map in the Staff Report provided as Attachment B under Item 4, page 4-15 is a wonderful place to start the "consideration". For starters, it does not indicate which petitioners' properties are under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Bend Community Association (PBCA) and which ones are not. PBCA cannot speak for those who are not. (Hint, the big, yellow parcels are not.) I have a bone to pick with whoever made this map. If it was the City, it should say so. (And, have a date on it.) If not, the City should acquire the rights to correct it. As the maker of the map in the 2014 Portuguese Bend Directory, I learned that LA County's GIS data base represents public roadways and private easements inconsistently. Attachment B is even worse. This impacts the future of additional development, the collection of the RPV Storm Drain User Fee and who is responsible for maintaining the drainage infrastructure. Notice that a portion of Narcissa Drive and a portion of Vanderlip Drive belong to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in fee. And, is not a part of PBCA. Since acquiring "The Hon Property", what has the City done to maintain these roadways/water ways "up to standard"? (Hint, nothing.) All the petition asks for is some proactive thinking on Staff's part before increasing the burden of additional storm water run-off onto private infrastructure. Why has it taken more than a year for this petition to get onto the Council's Agenda? RE: Item 1. Do what you will with the EIR. It is the proposed change to the Municipal Code which will cause serious damage to the City's infrastructure both physically and fiscally.