The URL can be used to link to this page

20181107 Late CorrespondenceHAHN WASHINGTO. N-OFFICE SAN PEDO OffIGE: .JANICE 44TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA [�"� 404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 140 W. 6TH ST. - WASHINGTON, DC 20515 SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 (202)225-8220 (310)831-1799 COMMITTEE ON , TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE C-0MPTO.jy OFFICE: SOUTH GATE OFFICE: COMMITTEE ON 205 S. WILLOW13ROOK AVE. 8650 CALIFORNIA AVE. SMALL BUSINESS COMPTON, CA 90220 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 (310)605-5520 (323)563-9562 PORTS CAUCUS ConareAogot the Elttfteb &tateg FOUNDER AND CO-CHAIR eARSON OFFME. WILMINGTON OFFICE: g ouge oferegetltatibeg 701 E. CARSON ST. 544 AVALON BLVD:, STE. 307 CROATIAN CAUCUS CARSON, CA 90745 WILMINGTON, CA 90744 CO-CHAIR Wd8' ingtot1, OC 20515-0544 (310) 830-7600 EXT. 1038 (310) 549-8282 October 20, 2016 The Honorable Daniel R. Elliott III Chairman Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street SW Washington, D.C. 20423 RE: Docket # FD36065 Dear Chairman Elliott: 241849 ENTERED Office of Proceedings October 25, 2016 Part of Public Record Plains All American Pipeline, Rancho LPG LLC facility located in San Pedro, California stores liquefied petroleum gases. This dangerous facility is located near many pre-existing homes, shops, six youth soccer fields, and within mere feet of an elementary school and Jr. High School. Since I was a Los Angeles City Councilwoman, I have supported closing the facility and having the fuel now being stored there, stored at the respective refineries that generate the products but use Rancho for off-site storage. Currently, this gas is being transported from this facility via rail through the community and the Port of Los Angeles. I have been recently informed that their current rail contracts do not permit the transportation of hazardous material. I strongly support the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United call for a Declaratory Order finding the rail permit issued by the Port of Los Angeles to Plains All American Pipeline, Rancho LPG LLC is being improperly used. The Rancho LPG facility, and its rail operation pose a serious threat to the entire Los Angeles Harbor region. Sincerely, Janice Hahn Member of Congress Cc: Members of the Board www.hahn.house.gov Facebook: Rep. Janice Hahn Twitter: Rep_JaniceHahn ReqLPCHO Holdings LLC November 11, 2016 Honorable Janice Hahn Member of Congress 44`" District, California Washington, DC Office 404 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Hahn, We are deeply disappointed by the attached letter you wrote on October 10, 2016 to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in support of a Declaratory Order introduced by the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United (SPPHU) regarding the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage facility owned by Rancho LPG Holdings LLC in San Pedro, California. Consistent with past correspondence from your office, this letter contains flagrant mischaracterizations and inaccuracies regarding the facility. Below are some specific areas of inaccuracies and/or mischaracterizations from your letter: • Storage of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG). It is true that the Rancho facility stores LPG which is simply is a bi-product produced by the refining process. Consequently, all complex refineries do in fact process, store, and transport LPG as well. If your primary concern about LPG is safety, then we suggest you take a holistic review of all facilities in the harbor area that handle LPG instead of singling out Rancho. A cursory review of this matter may prove enlightening for you as LPG (such as butane) is not toxic, but flammable. If your office wanted to focus on materials that were a direct threat to the public, then toxic, rather than flammable, materials should be the focus of your efforts. The "worst case' scenario as contained in our RMP on file at LAFD/CUPA for public review is 0.5 miles. The EPA has vetted the "worst case" and declared, "It meets the letter of the law". While it is not our intention to marginalize any offsite impacts especially to schools, 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. • Close Rancho and have fuel (LPG) stored at the refineries. During your tenure as Councilwoman for CD 15, you co-sponsored a Motion (CF 04-16-45 Hahn/Cardenas) to have the Amerigas (Rancho) facility relocated. As a result, on September 15, 2005, a stakeholder meeting was held in San Pedro involving of representatives from Amerigas, Valero Wilmington Refinery, BP Carson Refinery, the Port of Los Angeles, PCAC, and three San Pedro Neighborhood Councils. Public records from that meeting indicate that executives from both the Valero and BP refineries explicitly confirmed that neither refinery had the footprint required to fully replace -the LPG capacity stored at the Amerigas facility. Additionally, a letter from the LA City Attorney declared; "there appears to be no legal basis at this time to compel Amerigas to relocate the subject facility". 1 • Current rail contract do not permit the transportation of hazardous materials. This statement is blatantly inaccurate. Pages 12 & 13 attached from the LA City Attorney to the STB declare; "In fact both permits POLA RP 10-05 and PHL 1989 by their terms allow for the transportation of hazardous cargo as required by both federal law regarding common carrier track serviced by a common carrier and the STB approved terms of the City's acquisition of the line". Additionally, "It is the City's understanding that PHL's common carrier obligations include the duty to transport hazardous materials (such as those handled by Rancho) and that PHL cannot refuse to provide this permitted service. The City understands of PHL's common carrier obligations are reflected in Permit No. 1989 section 15.3". Therefore, your claim that the rail permit is being improperly used by Rancho is inaccurate. In a prior letter dated January 18, 2016, you were provided with the attached Parcel Profile Report from the LADBS website for the Rancho facility job addresses located at 2110 and 2240 North Gaffey Street. The Parcel Report clearly shows the facility site is located in M2/M3 zones which are classified as light industrial and heavy industrial respectively ... not residential. Therefore, your continued inference that the Rancho facility is inappropriately located is untrue. Research indicates that immediately prior and during your term as CD 15 Councilwoman, several major building projects were undertaken such as; the Field of Dreams Soccer park, Home Depot, Target, and Port Distribution Center. As a former LA Council member you should know that the City of Los Angeles requires developments such as these to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which includes a risk assessment prior to approval of the project. The EIR addresses not only impacts of the project itself related to public health and safety, but also evaluates the potential impacts to the project from adjacent hazardous material upsets, releases, or spills from facilities like Rancho or refineries. Therefore, if Rancho is the risk to the community and schools you describe, then how did these projects obtain city approval? Please know that Rancho performs one vital task for the local refiners of gasoline in our area and for the Southern California market. That task is to store butane (which is both a bi-product and component of gasoline) during the warmer spring and summer months when it cannot be blended into the gasoline supply due to strict California Air Resources Board (CARE) regulations. During the cooler autumn and winter months, butane can once again be added to our fuel (to increase combustion performance). Hence, Rancho's primary role is as an environmental compliance service provider to the refiners of our gasoline supply. Without Rancho, refiners would have to flare the butane into the atmosphere, transport it out of our area by more trains or trucks or decrease production of gasoline which would have an adverse effect on prices, our local economy and the average Southern California consumer. lust as, if not more important, because of Rancho, our local refineries can comply with our strict air standards making our air better to breathe. Rancho LPG and its International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 26 workforce take pride in its safety record. The facility has experienced no major incidents, releases or accidents in the facility's 42 - year operating history. Rancho LPG maintains a robust program of mechanical integrity and inspection to ensure all vessels, tanks, piping and infrastructure is maintained in accordance with applicable regulations. The facility has been audited approximately 62 -times since the beginning of 2010 by City, and continues to perform well in these audits. We trust these facts highlight the inaccuracies from your October 10, 2016 letter. In order to obtain accurate information about the facility, we encourage you and your staff to come to us with any FN questions or to request a tour of the Rancho LPG facility instead of relying on inaccurate information provided by local misguided self-serving activists. Finally, we offer our congratulations on your recent election as 4th District LA County Supervisor. It is our sincere wish that we can forge a closer working relationship with you in this capacity. Regards, IT" &WON Ron Conrow Western District Manager Plains/Rancho LPG cc: CD 15 Councilman Joe Buscaino Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti CD 33 Congressman Ted Lieu From: Dave Aleshire U Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19 PM To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com' Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn' Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information Sharon— Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I gave you B as it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A. Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group— there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that. I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them). Like everything else—it's all controversial—but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need. Thanks again, Dave If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at o tmasterC)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. 12 SUMMARY TOTAL NON -LITIGATION $ 118,297 TOTAL LITIGATION $ 118,903 GRAND TOTAL $ 237,199 Non -Litigation Matters Annual Review $ 16,426 Closed Session Interpretation $ $ 25,840 CUP Appeal (Fall 2015) 36,561 Tolling ' $ 24,278 Inspiration Slope $ 17,497 $ 13,449 Planning SUBTOTAL LITIGATION $ 74,285 Vista Verde General $ 10,152 $ 13,974 Maps $ 3,397 Court Appearance $ SUBTOTAL PLANNING Damages $ $ 13,549 PRA REQUESTS 3,827 Writ Petition $ 15,580 Berkowitz $ 4,634 SUBTOTAL VISTA VERDE Daily Breeze $ 21 $ 118,903 Keye $ 738 Weiss $ 19,362 SUBTOTAL PRA REQUESTS $ 24,755 TOTAL NON -LITIGATION $ 118,297 Litigation Matters Litigation General $ 2,607 Interpretation $ 4,279 Settlement $ 36,561 Tolling ' $ 1,189 Indemnity $ 17,497 Mediation $ 12,154 SUBTOTAL LITIGATION $ 74,285 Vista Verde Administrative Record $ 13,974 Case Management $ 1,594 Court Appearance $ 1,450 Damages $ 7,504 Motions $ 3,827 Writ Petition $ 15,580 Other $ 690 SUBTOTAL VISTA VERDE $44,618 TOTAL LITIGATION $ 118,903 MGreenbergTraurig From: Dave AkaahkeC_ _QjLqe Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:47 AM To: Berkowitz, EUen(Sh|d-LA-LDZ-RE) Cc: Subject: RE: Green Hills She made apublic records act request. 8ybeing friendly and giving her summaries ofcosts I'm avoiding givingher actual bills which are disclosable once litigation isconcluded. Wanted tngive her summary I'd given toCouncil no consistent. (fwe'd gone back earlier intime would have been higher. From: Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:38 PM To: Dave Aksshire Cc: DWil[moreL&irpvca.gov Subject: RE: Green Hills | wasn't aware that our communications regarding costs were public, | was under the impression theywere discussed inclosed session, and that our correspondence was confidential. Please advise. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Greenberg Trauhg, LLP |1840 Century Pork East Suite 19OO|Los Angeles, CA9U0AJ-21%1 Tel +1 310 586 7703 | Mobile +1 3105923479 MGreenberjraurig From: Rebecca S. Burleson On Behalf OfDave AleSh|na Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:14 PM To: Berkowitz, E|len(3h|d-LA-LDZ-RE) Cc: DmuQVVi|inoura Subject: FW: Green Hills Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire Ellen —Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side, However, ! wanted to also send you an email | sent to Sharon Loveyoconcerning apublic records request that she made. Soitseems they will hemaking the claim that our costs inaddition tothe actual settlement amount was substantial. | wanted you tobeaware ofthis. Let me know if there is anything else you need, 5 From: Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 7:19 PM To: 'berkowitze@gtlaw.com' Cc: Doug Willmore Subject: RE: Green Hills Categories: Red Category, Responsive No—Those costs calculations are not confidential at this point. She asked for a summary of costs. This is in a form I've already organized it. In fact, it really only shows costs since we came on board. If I hadn't given her this, and probably satisfied her question, and if I went back over 3-4 years the summary would be far more. From: berkowitze@gtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze@gtlaw.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:29 PM To: Dave Aleshire Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov Subject: RE: Green Hills Do you think there's any problem with the fact that you gave her an exhibit that was presented to Council in closed session? Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 1 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Tel +1 310 586 7763 1 Mobile + 1 310 592 3479 berkowitze@gtlaw.com I www.gttaw.com mGreenbergTraurig I From: Dave Aleshire [mailto:daleshire(clawattorne sy com] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:14 PM To: Berkowitz, Ellen (Shld-LA-LDZ-RE) Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov Subject: RE: Green Hills I didn't know that. It sounds like Brian may have told her that as in closed session we did say that was the upper limit of what we could ask for. In my letter to you I put that number into the letter to show how reasonable we were being and then decided to take it out so that my letter wouldn't be used as evidence we were settling too low. Didn't know she already had it! From: berkowitze(aOgtlaw.com [mailto:berkowitze(fttlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:00 PM To: Dave Aleshire Cc: DWillmore@rpvca.gov Subject: RE: Green Hills Cc: Doug Willmore Subject: FW: Green Hills Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire Ellen—Here is follow up from your meeting with Doug where you discussed a possible settlement of our fee dispute. Green Hills requested a written offer from our side. However, I wanted to also send you an email I sent to Sharon Loveys concerning a public records request that she made. So it seems they will be making the claim that our costs in addition to the actual settlement amount was substantial. I wanted you to be aware of this. Let me know if there is anything else you need. Dave From: Dave Aleshire Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:19 PM To: 'sharon.loveys@yahoo.com' Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Juliette Tran; Rebecca S. Burleson; Doug Willmore; 'Emily Colborn' Subject: Green Hills: Request for Cost Information Sharon— Teresa has passed on to me your requests concerning costs in connection with the Green Hills litigation. I've attached a cost summary sheet we did with the Council. You'll see that it is labeled Exhibit B. There was an Exhibit A, of course. The difference is that Exhibit A excluded charges on the public records items which were about $25,000 and also another $25,000 which was time spent on researching and writing various closed session memos we did for Council. I gave you B as it was therefore about $50,000 higher than Exhibit A. Additionally, your email mentioned the investigation expenses before we came on board of the Lilley Planning Group— there were several consultants involved and I'm told the total cost of that personnel investigation was $24,535 which you can add to Exhibit B if you are going back to that. I should mention that in these costs we've included not only costs of answering your lawsuits, but also public record requests, and also research on various legal issues which arose. Another cost was negotiating an indemnification agreement with Green Hills. Green Hills claims that they are not responsible for many costs incurred before the indemnification agreement, and that other costs, like our researching memos for the Council and responding to public records requests, are not their responsibility (which is why we did an exhibit without them). Like everything else—it's all controversial—but I thought basically you wanted a simple over view of costs and I felt the attachment I used with council would be the simplest way to summarize. There are pages of bills supporting this, and I can talk to you or give you specifics on anything else you might need. Thanks again, Dave If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at post►naster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. NEWEST DEVELOPMENTS! * FIRST 100 FAMILIES TO CALL • GRLLN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK eT./wuYrtlon, .Ca.Y/cr Part of a project that won a world renowned Pinnacle Award for its use of stone. Beautiful granite niches located next to a cascading waterfall. Exquisite stone water walls which add peaceful, ambient, background sound. Predeveloped savings of $1,000 AM- M FAMILY NAME ivwn INTRODUCING NEWEST DEVELO As we are still in the planning phase, we invite you to www.GreenHillsMemorial.com Zi7Y�It-�lJ AllZIS org Majestic surroundings adorned with calming streams, rolling hills and serene water features. t -sic s "' -772,1 Y 7" R Beautiful, scenic vistas with panoramic harbor views. Exclusive, meticulously landscaped private family areas adjacent to a tranquil stream. Predeveloped savings starting at $2,500 (for the first 100 families). Sweeping views of the Vincent Thomas Bridge pMENTS FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY take advantage of these pre -development savings. 310-521-4331