CC SR 20191217 E - Border IssuesMEETING DATE: 12/17/2019 CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review the current status of Border Issues
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file the second biannual report on the status of Border Issues for
2019.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Interim City Manager
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Cal Water handout showing traffic control on Crenshaw Boulevard (page
A-1)
B. August 19, 2019 comment letter on the DEIR for the Butcher Solana
project (B-1)
C. November 4, 2019 RFP for the proposed commercial outlease of DFSP
(page C-1)
D. August 20, 2019 staff report regarding liquid bulk storage tanks (page D-1)
E. August 20, 2019 letter regarding liquid bulk storage tanks (page E-1)
F. August 22, 2019 correspondence from Janet Gunter (F-1)
G. September 3, 2019 correspondence from Ron Conrow, Rancho LPG
Holdings and attachments (F-1)
H. August 31, 2019 Los Angeles Times article on the Wilmington Blind-Thrust
fault (H-1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1
This biannual report includes:
An update on the Cal Water pipeline project in Rolling Hills Estates, the
unincorporated Westfield community and Rancho Palos Verdes
An update on the proposed 248-unit Butcher Solana apartment project at
Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Valmonte in Torrance
An update on the proposed leasing of the Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
for commercial fueling operations
An update on issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage
facility in San Pedro
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
This is the second biannual report to the City Council on various “Border Issues”
potentially affecting residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for 2019. The full current status
report is available on the City’s website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report
Please note that, with the approval of changes to City Council Policy No. 34, the next
Border Issues Status Report is expected to appear on a City Council agenda in June
2020.
Current Border Issues
Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Rolling Hills Estates/Los Angeles
County/Rancho Palos Verdes
In late June 2019, Cal Water began a major segment of the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Water Reliability Project, installing pipeline along Crenshaw Boulevard. Construction
began at Crest Road in Rancho Palos Verdes, moving north down Crenshaw Boulevard
toward the pump station site near Silver Spur Road. The work included partial lane
closures, sending all north and southbound traffic over the median to one side of
Crenshaw Boulevard during work hours, with one lane open in each direction.
In October, Cal Water announced it made a change to its project team and would re-
evaluate the sequence of construction to ensure timely completion .
Drivers began experiencing significant traffic delays when roadwork reached the
intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Indian Peak Road in mid-November. Traffic
control personnel were stationed in intersections impacted by the work to facilitate traffic
movement. Additionally, the City adjusted the timing of signal lights at the intersections
of Hawthorne Boulevard and Indian Peak Road as well as Hawthorne Boulevard and
Highridge Road to optimize traffic flow. The City of Rolling Hills Estates informed Staff it
2
would make necessary adjustments to the traffic signal light at Hawthorne Boulevard
and Silver Spur Road.
In late November, Cal Water announced a new construction sequence for the remainder
of work on Crenshaw Boulevard, with two phases of 24/7 traffic control:
Phase 1
Boundaries: Indian Peak Road to south of Chadwick Lane
Traffic control: Single lane of northbound and southbound traffic. Traffic control in
place at all times. Permanent (glued down) construction delineators and dual
yellow striping will be on the northbound lanes of Crenshaw Boulevard to indicate
the new flow of traffic
Work hours: Monday to Friday, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with intermittent Saturday
work
Completion: Approximately the end of December 2019
After Phase 1 is completed, traffic control between Indian Peak and Silver Spur roads
will be taken down and all lanes of traffic will re-open.
Phase 2
Boundaries: Silver Spur Road to south of Chadwick Lane
Traffic control: Single lane of northbound and southbound traffic. Traffic control in
place at all times. Permanent (glued down) construction delineators and dual
yellow striping will be on the southbound lanes of Crenshaw Boulevard to
indicate the new flow of traffic
Work hours: Monday to Friday, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with intermittent Saturday
work
Completion: Early 2020
Drivers are advised to expect traffic delays, drive slowly and with caution, and to take
alternate routes, such as Hawthorne Boulevard, when possible.
These changes are expected to result in significant time savings for the remainder of
work on Crenshaw Boulevard. Cal Water has produced a handout showing traffic
control for each of these phases (Attachment A). The pump station is expected to be
completed by the end of 2019.
Cal Water now expects all work for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project
to be completed by mid-2020. In total, seven miles of new drinking water pipeline will be
installed to serve residents of the Peninsula.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. For
additional information about the Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, visit
http://www.pvpwaterproject.com or call 310-257-1400 (mention the PVP Water
Reliability Project).
3
Butcher Solana Residential Development Project (Torrance)
On June 19, 2019, the City of Torrance released a draft environmental impact report
(DEIR) for the proposed Butcher Solana apartment project at the southwest corner of
Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Valmonte. The project would consist of 248 one- and
two-bedroom apartments in three five-story buildings with 484 parking spaces in a six-
story structure. The public comment period for the DEIR was extended from 45 to 60
days.
In early August, Staff attended a meeting with staff from the cities of Palos Verdes
Estates and Rolling Hills Estates to discuss the project and how each city intended to
comment. Several concerns were raised, including inconsistencies throughout the
document, purportedly outdated information, and erroneous analyses. Staff also
attended a community meeting about the project at the Red Onion restaurant in Rolling
Hills Estates.
According to planning staff at the City of Torrance, because the project falls in that city’s
Hillside Overlay Area, the applicant was required to construct silhouettes showing the
structures’ visual impacts. Due to heightened interest, Torrance planning s taff required
the silhouettes go up for a longer-than-usual period of at least 60 days before the
development’s first hearing at the Planning Commission.
Silhouettes were constructed in late July, but Torrance planning staff was unable to
certify them because they were damaged. The project application is therefore
considered incomplete.
On August 19, 2019, the City submitted its comments on the DEIR (Attachment B),
noting that although several issues the City previously raised were addressed in the
analysis, numerous other concerns were not, as well as inaccuracies that the City
identified.
According to the City of Torrance, more than 690 comment letters came in, and in mid-
September, the project developer notified planning staff it was putting the project on
hold while it reviewed them.
The project is not withdrawn and the developer is expected to touch base with the City
of Torrance about its next steps in the new year, according to city staff.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Additional information about the project is available on the City of Torrance’s website at
https://www.torranceca.gov/our-city/community-development/planning/butcher-solana.
Current Border Issues
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (Los Angeles (San Pedro))
4
On November 4, 2019, the U.S. Navy released a request for proposals (RFP) for a
proposed outlease of Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (DFSP), the sprawling,
inactive Navy fuel tank farm on North Gaffey Street (which borders the City on a stretch
of Western Avenue), and an 8-acre marine terminal about five miles southeast in the
Port of Long Beach.
The potential outlease of DFSP was studied in a draft environmental assessment (EA)
that was released in April 2019. According to the Navy, the lessee would not pay rent
for shared use of DFSP, but would provide in-kind services (improvements and
maintenance).This arrangement would enable the Navy to use the site for fueling
operations for its growing Pacific Fleet without having to cover the costs of rehabilitation
and maintenance.
The draft EA studied two alternatives: Alternative 1 p roposed renewing fueling
operations for a mix of commercial and Navy use on 311 acres at the San Pedro site,
the marine terminal and about 14 miles of underground pipelines; and Alternative 2
proposed renewing operations at the marine terminal and pipelines only. A No Action
Alternative was also studied, but the Navy determined this would not meet its needs.
The analysis assumed a maximum of 30 million barrels of fuel a year being transported
for commercial and Navy use, noting the historical use by the Navy of 4 million to 12
million barrels per year. The assessment found that, with mitigation, there would be no
significant impacts across 13 resource areas. Development would be limited to
previously disturbed areas and biological resources that support sensitive species,
including the Palos Verdes blue butterfly population, would not be disturbed.
On May 16, 2019, Staff submitted comments on the draft EA to the Navy raising serious
concerns with the proposal, including the unknowns of potential commercial uses and
the construction of new facilities at the San Pedro site, public safety hazards, increased
traffic, and biological and visual impacts.
A copy of the RFP is attached to this report (Attachment C) and can be viewed online at
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/5154a49bfb9b09f33f91a9eb276e3a03/view?index=opp&page
=1&sort=-
relevance&keywords=defense%20fuel%20support&date_filter_index=0&inactive_filter_
values=false
Proposals are due January 17, 2020. Prior to the release of the RFP, the Navy indicated
it had been approached by several local oil industries that expressed interest in the
potential outlease.
The RFP states that the Navy’s target lease execution date is August 31, 2020. All
federal, state and local permits and licenses required to meet the Navy’s fueling
requirement would need to be obtained by the end of August 2022, and the operator
would need to be capable of delivering fuel to the Navy via pipeline at the fuel pier by
the end of August 2023.
5
According to the Navy, the final EA is in a holding pattern as officials consider releasing
the document after proposals come in so it can fully analyze the most likely scenarios
for future use of the site. If the EA is released after responses to the RFP come in, the
Navy has indicated to Staff that this would likely not occur until March 2020. In any
event, the EA would be completed before any decision on outleasing is made.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
The Navy’s release of the draft EA of the proposed outlease of DFSP renewed
community discussion about longstanding concerns with the nearby Rancho LPG facility
on North Gaffey Street in San Pedro, where 25 million gallons of butane are stored in
two aboveground tanks, and another five horizontal storage tanks each hold 60,000
gallons of propane.
During a discussion of the Border Issues Status Report on June 18, 2019, the City
Council considered supporting H.R. 6489, a bill introduced in Congress in July 2018 by
U.S. Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-San Pedro), which would have authorized the use of up
to $500 million in federal grant funding to cover half the cost of relocati ng LPG storage
facilities that are within five miles of populated areas, homes or schools. The bill did not
advance in Congress.
After some discussion, the council decided instead to direct Staff to prepare a letter
more broadly supporting the relocation of Rancho LPG and other liquid bulk storage
tanks that are close to the public, without taking a stance on proposed funding. The
council also restated its concerns with the Navy’s proposal to resume storing millions of
barrels of combustible jet fuel in aboveground tanks at nearby DFSP.
The letter was approved at the August 20, 2019 City Council meeting and was sent the
following day to Rep. Barragán, Rep. Ted Lieu, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator
Kamala Harris, Senator Steven Bradford, Senator Ben Allen, Assemblymember Patrick
O’Donnell, Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, L.A.
City Councilmember Joe Buscaino and San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United.
Staff continues to reach out to Rep. Barragán’s office about efforts to relocate the tanks
or reintroduce the bill in the 116th Congress.
On August 22, 2019, Janet Gunter of San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United
distributed a news release about a new study by researchers from Harvard University,
the University of Southern California and the U.S. Geological Survey on the Wilmington
Blind-Thrust fault (Attachment G). The research found that the 12.5-mile long fault is not
dormant as previously believed and has the potential to cause a 6.4 magnitude
earthquake (see Los Angeles Times article on the study, Attachment H). The fault
6
stretches from Huntington Beach and runs beneath the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
On September 3, 2019, the City received an email from Ron Conrow of Rancho LPG
Holdings (Attachment E) expressing disappointment in the City’s letter, stating that
funding in Rep. Barragán’s bill would be insufficient to relocate the facility and casting
doubt on the bill’s likelihood to be signed into law if it were re-introduced. Mr. Conrow
disputed various concerns raised by members of San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners
United, including concerns about the new findings about the Wilmington Blind-Thrust
fault. Mr. Conrow included letters and reports from regulators and government agencies
over the years concerning the facility’s safety record and determinations of jurisdictional
authority.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
7
Cha
d
w
i
c
k
L
n
.
East
v
a
l
e
R
d
Cart
e
s
i
a
n
C
i
r
Roe
s
s
l
e
r
C
t
Pas
c
a
l
P
l
Westvale RdRousseau Ln
Academy
Dr
Eastvale RdSunnyridge RdSunnyridge RdRainbow Ridge RdCanyon View LnQui
n
l
i
n
D
r
Eastvale RdEastvale RdPal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
Pal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
Crensha
w BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw Bl
v
d
Crenshaw BlvdCrenshaw
Bl
v
d
Rolling Hills UnitedMethodist Church
Rolling Hills Country Day School
C
a
n
y
o
n
V
i
e
w
L
nEastvale RdEastvale RdMorgan
Ln
M
i
d
d
l
e
c
r
e
s
t
R
d
Middl
e
c
r
e
s
t
R
d
Deep
V
a
l
l
e
y
D
r
De
e
p
V
a
l
l
e
y
D
r
Middlecrest RdMeadowdale LnCrestridge Rd
Calle
S
t
e
l
l
a
r
eEstrella CtC
r
e
s
t
r
i
d
g
e
R
d
Mis
t
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
Golden Arrow Dr
Delcroix Rd
Beechgate DrLonghill
D
r
Longhill
D
rBrowndeer LnHawthorne BlvdSilver Arrow DrCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrensha
w
Blvd
Crens
h
a
w
B
l
v
d
Ind
i
a
n
P
e
a
k
R
d
Ind
i
a
n
P
e
a
k
R
d
Silv
e
r
S
p
u
r
R
d
Silver
S
p
u
r
R
d
Sil
v
e
r
S
p
u
r
R
d
Quality. Service. Value.®
Phase 1 Work Hours: Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. (Traffic control in place 24/7)
After Phase 1 is completed, traffic control between Indian Peak and Silver Spur roads will be taken down and all lanes of traffic will re-open
Work Hours: Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. (Traffic control in place 24/7)
After Phase 1 is completed, traffic control between Indian Peak and Silver Spur roads will be taken down and all lanes of traffic will re-open
A-1
Cha
d
w
i
c
k
L
n
.
East
v
a
l
e
R
d
Cart
e
s
i
a
n
C
i
r
Roe
s
s
l
e
r
C
t
Pas
c
a
l
P
l
Westvale RdRousseau Ln
Academy
Dr
Eastvale RdSunnyridge RdSunnyridge RdRainbow Ridge RdCanyon View LnQui
n
l
i
n
D
r
Eastvale RdEastvale RdPal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
Pal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
Crensha
w BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw Bl
v
d
Crenshaw BlvdCrenshaw
Bl
v
d
Rolling Hills UnitedMethodist Church
Rolling Hills Country Day School
C
a
n
y
o
n
V
i
e
w
L
nEastvale RdEastvale RdMorgan
Ln
Chestn
u
t
L
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
c
r
e
s
t
R
d
Middl
e
c
r
e
s
t
R
d
Deep
V
a
l
l
e
y
D
r
De
e
p
V
a
l
l
e
y
D
r
Middlecrest RdMeadowdale LnCrestridge Rd
Cr
e
s
t
r
i
d
g
e
R
d
C
r
e
s
t
r
i
d
g
e
R
d
Golden Arrow Dr
Delcroix Rd
Beechgate DrLonghill
D
r
Longhill
D
rBrowndeer LnHawthorne BlvdSilver Arrow DrCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrensha
w
Blvd
Cr
e
n
s
h
a
w
B
l
v
dCrenshaw BlvdInd
i
a
n
P
e
a
k
R
d
Silver
S
p
u
r
R
d
Quality. Service. Value.®
Phase 2 Work Hours: Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. (Traffic control in place 24/7)
A-2
B-1
CITY OF
August 19, 2019
City of Torrance
Community Development Department
Attn: Oscar Martinez, Interim Planning Manager
3031 Torrance Blvd .
Torrance, CA 90503
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S . MAIL
Email : DSantana@TorranceCA.gov
OMartinez@T orranceCA.gov
SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed Solana Residential Development Project (Also known as the
Butcher-Solana Residential Development Project)
Dear Mr. Martinez :
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the scope
of the proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned project which
consists of 248 one-and two-bedroom apartments in three five-story buildings with 484 parking
spaces. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and offer the
following comments :
1. The City has reason to believe that based on information it received (see attached letter
dated August 1, 2019) this site, formerly used as a quarry, may have been used by the
Montrose Chemical Corporation for the disposal of toxic chemicals (DDT and PCBs),
and the City demands additional analysis and soil testing be conducted to determine if
this is the case. Moreover, adequate mitigation measures must be provided in this
regard. Even without the Solana Residential Development project, the City of Torrance
Staff should take action to determine whether or not this site was the location of the
chemical disposal. Additional research should be completed and the DEIR is an
opportunity to do the necessary analysis and provide the public and the City's decision
makers accurate and up-to-date information.
2 . In addition to Comment No. 1 above, the City is concerned of the re-use of collapsible
soils when the site is known to have contaminated soils that will be left onsite. According
to Chapter 5. 7, Hazards, of the DEIR, there are three layers ("zones") of fill material that
has been backfilled since the 1960's with imported material from other construction site
in the Palos Verdes area including the Sunrise Senior Living site and the former Shell
gasoline station. The DEIR does not provide adequate discussion on how the
contaminates will be mitigated especially with the re-use of collapsible soils and how
this impacts drainage and groundwater.
3 . The discussion of Transportation!Traffic impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 77-79)
identified potentially significant environmental impacts related to this project,
30940 11AWTI lC lf\NE RULILEVAr\l .l I I~ ANt ~lllli'AU l~ VEI\DES. t ~A 90275-5391 I 1310l 544-5228 I FAX t3101 544-5293 VVWW f~PVCA GOV
0 Pi~INTED ON RECYCLED PAPEI~
B-2
particularly with respect to deteriorated level-of-service standards at certain nearby
intersections and inadequate emergency access. The revised traffic impact study that
was prepared for this project in April 2017 was also reviewed at that time. Hawthorne
Boulevard is one of the few major north-south roadways providing access to and from
the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As expressed in the City's comment letter on the Notice
of Preparation in 2017(see attachment), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains
concerned about the potential construction and operational traffic impacts that this
project may have upon Peninsula residents. To that end, we respectfully offer the
following suggestions regarding the analysis of transportation/traffic impacts in the
EIR:
• Please explain more fully the basis for the assumption that 80% of trips to/from
the site will be to the north along Hawthorne Boulevard. It has been our
experience that Palos Verdes Drive North is a common alternate commuter
route to/from the Harbor (1-11 0) Freeway for Peninsula residents, and we
anticipate that the same will be true of the future residents of the project.
4 . Numerous additional issues have been identified with the Transportation Section of the
DEIR. The following is a summary of these issues that the City seeks additional
information and/or analysis:
• The DEIR assumed a 2019 opening, when in reality the project would likely not
start construction until 2021 resulting in inaccurate projections;
• The traffic analysis did not follow significant impact criteria and did not do a
cumulative impact analysis;
• The analysis assumed pending road improvements that have not been built yet
and have been put on hold by the City of Torrance;
• Faulty queuing analysis was used ;
• A micro sim analysis should be conducted;
• Incorrect lane configurations were used;
• The Sight Distance Analysis is incorrect;
• The Transportation Section uses outdated baseline traffic counts from 2016 and
2017, resulting in inaccurate projections .
• Undercounted construction haul trips, resulting in an inadequate analysis of short-
term construction impacts which directly impacts the Noise and Air Quality sections
of the DEIR; and,
• Undercounted operational vehicle trips .
5 . The City believes that the inadequate transportation analysis directly impacts the air
quality analysis, greenhouse gas analysis, and noise analysis sections of the DEIR. The
City requests that these sections be corrected after the transportation section is updated
and the information recirculated for further public review.
6 . The City believes that the biological analysis is inadequate, as the biological
assessments/studies were conducted over two years ago . Also, it is possible that the
site contains the host plants for the PV Blue Butterfly , which are the locoweed
(Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus), also known as Santa Barbara milkvetch, and
common deerweed (Lotus scoparius), which has not been discussed in the Biological
Section of the DEIR. There should be a more detailed vegetation survey to determine
if these types of host plants exist on the site, because there would be an opportunity for
B-3
the reintroduction of the PV Blue Butterfly, which is listed as an endangered species
with the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service. Moreover, adequate mitigation should be
provided along with consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
7. The 2018 RPV General Plan Circulation Element states that one of the Goals is to
provide and maintain a safe, efficient, and comprehensive system of roads and trails,
and coordinate them with other jurisdictions and agencies. For this reason, the trails
and vista point at the top of Butcher Hill should be preserved and enhanced. A proposed
trail system should be incorporated into the project not only to link to neighboring cities,
but to provide project residents with an alternative mode of transportation.
8 . The project DEIR does not discuss whether any of the units will be available to very low
or low income occupants as a means of affordable housing.
9 . With respect to the consideration of project alternatives in the DEIR, we suggest
the inclusion of the following reduced-density alternatives:
• An alternative that is consistent with the current land use and zoning for
the site.
An alternative that reduces the number of dwelling units sufficient to eliminate
any significant adverse project impacts.
10 . Our neighboring cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes Estates and
Rolling Hills Estates, directly abut the project site. As such, their residents are likely
to experience more direct effects of the proposed project. We suggest that the
following potential impacts to nearby neighbors be adequately addressed in the DEIR:
• Operational noise, particularly related to residents' vehicles and the use of
outdoor recreational facilities;
• Adequacy of proposed resident and guest parking so as to avoid spillover
parking impacts in surrounding neighborhoods; and,
Short-and long-term effects of proposed open space area, including provisions
for fire safety, maintenance and public access.
11 . The City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes that a full project silhouette is essential to
assess a project's true aesthetic impact as it relates to mass and bulk, height, and scale.
Attached is the City's Non-Single Family Residential Silhouette Criteria handout for an
example of suitable silhouette construction. To that end, we believe that the silhouette
that has been constructed is insufficient to allow for a true analysis of the bulk and mass
of the proposed project. Although not required by CEQA, in order to properly assess
the mass and scale of the proposed buildings, full silhouettes should be installed. A
proper silhouette will be helpful for the decision makers, City of Torrance Staff, and the
public, to fully understand the scope of the project's aesthetic impacts.
12 . In accordance to AB 52, Tribal Cultural Resources, as part of the preparation of an
environmental document, the Lead Agency is required to consult with listed tribes.
Based on the DEIR and the City's experience with AB 52, it is not clear that the Kizh
Tribe of the Tongva nation was contacted . The City of Torrance must follow up with the
Native American Heritage Commission to ensure that their contact list is up to date, as
the original letters were sent out in 2017. It is also recommended that the site be re-
surveyed by a qualified and experienced archaeologist at a maximum of a 5-meter
B-4
interval.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project that has the
potential to adversely impact the residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula including Rancho
Palos Verdes. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to
contact Senior Planner Amy Seeraty at (31 0) 544-5231 or via e-mail at amvs@mvca. gov.
Ara Mihranian
Community Development Director
Attachments :
• August 1, 2019 letter from Stone Lions Environmental Corporation
• August 28, 2017 Notice of Preparation Comment Letter
• City of Rancho Palos Verdes Non-Single Family Residential Silhouette Criteria
c: Mayor Duhovic and the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner
B-5
STONE
liONS L ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION ____________________ _
August 1, 2019
Mr. Oscar Martinez
In t erim Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Bou levard,
Torran ce, CA 90503
Re : Solana Residential Development Project
Mr. Marti nez:
The purpose of thi s communication is to request that the 45 -day review public review period for the
Solana Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) be extended for at least an
additional ninety days. Please note the following:
1 . On or about May 18, 1998, the USEPA office in San Francisco Issued a report entitled "Final
Remedial Investigation Re p ort f o r the Montrose Superfund Site , Los Angeles, Ca l ifornia." On
page 1-26 of Vol u me I o f II of t hat r eport is a very interesting statement: "Acco rding to a Sta uffer
Chemical Co m pany approp(iat ion request d ated Apri l 14, 1970, Montrose undertook a project in
1970 attempting to eliminate the discharge of caustic and tar pot liquors into the county
sewer .......... in this project the caustic and tar pot liquors will be transported from the plant and
dumped. At the present time there are three places available for disposal. One Is a permitted
area in the ocean which is approxi mately 60 m i les from shore, one is a class (sic) I landfill that
permits a certain amount of liquid dumping, and one is an abandoned quarry."
There i s a substantial probability that the "abandoned quarry" mentioned above is in fact the
quarry at Butcher Hill. If that is the case, then the site at which the subject project may be built
i s likely contami nated with some of the most toxi c chem i cals known; please see below.
2. The primary purpose of the Montrose Chemical facility was to p roduce a pesticide known as DDT
(d l chloro -d i phenyl-tri chloroethane). DDT was a maj or co nsti tuent of the caustic and tar pot
liquors disposed of by Montrose as explained in paragraph 1 . above.
655 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 303 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 • (310) 377-6677
www.stonelions.com • jtarr@stonellons.com
B-6
Mr. Oscar Martinez
Page 2
August 1, 2019
Due to toxicity and persistence problems with DDT, effective on December 31, 1972 the pesticide
was banned by the USEPA for use on all crops in the United States . For more DDT related
information, see "DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975)," USEPA, July 1975. For
toxicity information related to DDT, see "Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) Factsheet,"
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April7, 2017.
3. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also contained in the caustic and tar pot liquors disposed
of by Montrose as explained in paragraph 1. above. PCBs are a possible cause of birth defects.
PCBs are also a suspected cause of cancer and adverse ski n and liver effects in humans. In 1979,
the USEPA banned the manufacture of PCBs in the United States, and began a phase out of most
uses of PCBs anywhere in the country. For more related information, see "EPA Bans PCB
Manufacture; Phases Out Uses," EPA press release , April 19, 1979. For toxicity related
information see "ToxFacs for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)," Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry, July 2014.
4. The manufacture of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds (like DDT) often creates a family of
chemicals known as dioxins and furans as impurities and/or waste products. One particular
dioxin, I.e., 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-para dioxin (TCDD), has been described as the most toxic
chemical known. TCDD is very similar to DDT in terms of chemical structure. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that dioxins and furans, including TCDD, were impurities created during
the manufacture of DDT, and that dioxins and furans were contained In the caustic and tar pot
liquors disposed of by Montrose as explained In paragraph 1. above.
For more Information about the toxicity of dioxins, see "Dioxins and Their Effects on Human
Health", World Health Organization, October 4, 2016. Note especially the possibility of
reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, and cancer
associated with dioxin exposure.
As explained in paragraphs 1. thru 4. above, if Montrose d id in fact dump caustic and tar pot liquors in
the quarry at Butcher Hill, then that quarry contains a group of toxic chemicals with the potential to
create a wide variety of extremely serious human health impacts. It follows that a thorough
investigation needs to be conducted to determine if in fact that problem exists at the Butcher Hill quarry.
At a minimum, that investigation should include a thorough review of Montrose related records at the
offices of the Sanitation Districts of los Angeles County, the office of the Department of Toxic Substances
Control, and the USEPA office in San Francisco. It is estimated that those three record reviews will take a
minimum of n inety days, given the massive number of records likely contained In the files of interest,
and the logistics involved in obtaining access to those records.
B-7
Mr Oscar Martinez
Page 3
August 1, 2019
If th e quarry d is p osa l of caus t ic and tar pot l iq uors problem Is not resolved, and if t hat disposal did occur
at Butcher Hill, th e n proceeding with the Solano Re si dentia l Development Project will likely generate a
toxic ch emica l expos ure problem ca pable of ruining the h ea lth and we llbeing of hundreds of families
who mig ht ch oose to live In the proposed facility as well as those who re si d e In the nearby
neighborhoods.
The truth of the matter needs to be thoroughly and completely documented for the good of our
community
Regards ,
Jim Tarr
Presrdent
(310) 377 6677
jtarr@s tonelro n s.com
cc: Danny Sa ntana, Director of Plann ing
Patric k Furey, Mayor of Torra n ce
Tim Goodrich, Co uncil Member
Geoff Rizzo, Council M ember
Mike Griffiths, Council Member
George Chen , Council Member
Milton Herrrng, Council Member
Aurelio Mattuccr, Council Member
Josey Vanderpas, Save Our Neighborhood Torrance
Joan Davrdson, Sierra Club
Nrck Green, Dally Breeze
B-8
C ITY OF
28 August 2017
Danny Santana, Planning & Environmental Manager
City of Torrance, Planning Division
3031 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CIT Y MANAGE R'S OFF ICE
AD MINI STRAT ION
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
Email: DSantana@TorranceCA.gov
SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report for the Proposed Butcher-Solana Residential Development
Project
Dear Mr. Santana:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the scope of
the proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned project. We have
reviewed the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (NOPIIS), and offer the following
comments:
1. The discussion of Cultural Resources impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 56 -58) does not
acknowledge the existence of the Mirlo Gate Lodge, which is located at 4420 Via
Valmonte in the City of Palos Verdes Estates and within the public notification radius
for this project. The Mirlo Gate Lodge was designated as a local historical landmark
by the Rancho de Los Palos Verdes Historical Society in 1988. As such, the analysis
of impacts to cultural resources in the EIR should include potential effects upon the
Mirlo Gate Lodge.
2. The discussion of Transportation/Traffic impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 77-79)
identifies potentially significant environmental impacts related to this project,
particularly with respect to deteriorated level-of-service standards at certain nearby
intersections and inadequate emergency access. We have also reviewed the revised
traffic impact study that was prepared for this project in April 2017. Hawthorne
Boulevard is one of the few major north-south roadways providing access to and from
the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is concerned about
the potential construction and operational traffic impacts that this project may have
upon Peninsula residents. To that end, we respectfully offer the following suggestions
regarding the analysis of transportation/traffic impacts in the EIR:
• Please explain more fully the basis for the assumption that 80% of trips to/from
the site will be to the north along Hawthorne Boulevard . It has been our
3 0 9 40 HAW THORN E BLVD. I RAN CHO PALOS VERD ES , CA 9 0 275-5391 I (3 10) 5 44-5207 I FAX (3 10) 5 4 4 -5291 I WWW RPVCA.GOV
i;'9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
B-9
Danny Santa na
28 August 2017
Page 2
experience that Palos Verdes Drive North is a common alternate commuter
route to/from the Harbor (1 -11 0) Freeway for Peninsula residents, and we
suspect that the same will be true of the future residents of the project.
• Related to the point raised above, we recommend adding the following study
intersections to the analysis in the EIR: Hawthorne Blvd./Palos Verdes Dr. N.,
Crenshaw Blvd./Palos Verdes Dr. N. and Rolling Hills Rd./Palos Verdes Dr. N.
3. With respect to the consideration of project alternatives in the EIR, we suggest the
inclusion of the following reduced-density alternatives:
• An alternative that is consistent with the current land use and zoning for the
site.
• An alternative that reduces the number of dwelling units sufficient to eliminate
any significant adverse project impacts.
4. Our neighboring cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula-Palos Verdes Estates and
Rolling Hills Estates-directly abut the project site. As such, their residents are likely
to experience more direct effects of the proposed project. We suggest that the
following potential impacts to nearby neighbors should be addressed in the EIR:
• Operational noise, particularly related to residents' vehicles and the use of
outdoor recreational facilities;
• Adequacy of proposed resident and guest parking so as to avoid spillover
parking impacts in surrounding neighborhoods; and,
• Short-and long-term effects of proposed open space area, including provisions
for fire safety, maintenance and public access.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Senior Administrative
Analyst Kit Fox at (31 0) 544-5228 or via e-mail at kitf@rpvca .gov.
Sincerely,
V1/Lv'~
Doug Willmore
City Manager
cc: Mayor Campbell and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst
M:\Border lssues\Butcher-S olana Project\20170828_NOPComments .docx
NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA
If a non-single-family-residential development project requires a Conditional Use Permit
application, the property owner/applicant will be required to construct a certified silhouette
that depicts the proposed project some time prior to the public hearing on the application.
In order to minimize costs involved in constructing a silhouette, please do not
construct the silhouette until directed to do so by the case planner. It is important
to note that a non-single-family-residential development project that requires a silhouette
will not be deemed “complete” for processing without the submittal of a signed statement
by the property owner that they agree to construct the required silhouette, provide a
silhouette plan, and obtain certification of the silhouette by a licensed land surveyor or a
licensed engineer.
The silhouette shall be constructed exactly as these guidelines describe unless the
applicant can demonstrate to the Director that strict adherence to these guidelines
will adversely impact the operation of the existing non-residential use and/or public
safety. The Director has the authority to allow deviations from these criteria, so
long as the intent of providing the silhouette to assist, Staff, the general public and
decision makers is reasonably satisfied.
1. The temporary silhouette shall, at a minimum, consist of wood posts (or other
sturdy and rigid material - 2” x 4”s are typical) at all corners of the structure(s)
and/or main building masses and at either end of all proposed ridgelines, with a
taut rope (of ½” diameter), marked by triangular flagging or ribbons connecting
the posts (see above diagram). If ribbons are used, the ribbons should be bright
colored at a minimum width of 3-inches and should be affixed to string at 12-inch
increments.
Paint black marks at level of
finished grades on all posts.
B-10
2. The top one foot of the posts shall be painted red or orange to better demarcate
the height of the proposed structure in photo analyses.
3. If the project proposes to exceed the “by-right” height limit of the underlying zoning
designation for the property, a similar mark shall be painted a yellow color on
the posts at the “by-right” height limit, as measured pursuant to the City’s code.
Please consult with your case planner regarding the applicable method for
determining the “by-right” height limit for your project.
4. If any grading is proposed such that the finished grade adjacent to the structure is
higher than the existing (preconstruction grade), the applicant shall paint a black
mark on all posts at the elevation(s) of the proposed grade(s).
5. The applicant shall, at the time of submittal of an application to the City, sign a
waiver (see project application) which absolves the City of any liability associated
with construction of, or damage by, the temporary silhouette. The applicant shall
not construct the temporary silhouette until instructed to do so by the case
planner and the waiver form is submitted to the City. The applicant shall notify
the case planner when the silhouette is in place.
6. Once the project silhouette is constructed, a licensed engineer or surveyor shall
certify that the silhouette accurately depicts the location and height (including the
color demarcation on the silhouette posts) of the proposed development. (See
attached certification form.)
7. The Silhouette Certification Form shall be accompanied by a silhouette plan
that identifies the location of the silhouette posts, the existing grade elevation call-
outs for the base of the posts (if posts touch existing grade), and the elevation call-
outs for the top of the posts. If the silhouette is constructed entirely above an
existing structure so that the posts supporting the silhouette do not touch existing
grade, then the silhouette plan must include the existing grade elevation closest to
the existing structure and the supporting silhouette posts. A project will not be
deemed “complete” for processing without the required silhouette plan.
8. City Staff will conduct a site inspection to review the adequacy of the silhouette’s
depiction of the proposed project. Adequacy will be based on an accurate
depiction of the proposed project’s envelope, accurate delineation of ridgelines,
and the proper flagging.
The silhouette must remain in place and be maintained in good condition
throughout the required 15-day public notice period for the Conditional Use
Permit, the decision process and, if necessary, any appeal periods. The frame
may not be removed until the City’s appeal process has been exhausted and a final
decision has been rendered. The applicant must remove the frame within seven (7)
days after a final decision has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has
been exhausted.
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR SILHOUETTE CERTIFICATION FORM
B-11
SILHOUETTE CERTIFICATION FORM
THIS CERTIFICATION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY A LICENSED LAND
SURVEYOR OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. THIS FORM MUST BEAR AN ORIGINAL
WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE IN ORDER TO BE VALID. THIS FORM MUST ALSO
BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SILHOUETTE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION
OF THE SILHOUETTE POSTS, THE EXISTING GRADE OR SUPPORTING
STRUCTURE ELEVATION CALL-OUTS AT THE BASE OF THE POSTS, AND THE
ELEVATION CALL-OUTS FOR THE TOP OF THE POSTS. ANY MISSING
INFORMATION WILL RENDER THE SUBJECT APPLICATION “INCOMPLETE” FOR
PROCESSING.
I have measured the location and height (including the color demarcation) of the
silhouette posts located at the project site (address)_____________________________
_______________________ on (date) ______________________ and I have found that
the project silhouette accurately depicts the location and height (including the color
demarcation) of the proposed structure presented on the architectural plans prepared by
(name of architectural firm) ___________________________________________on
(date) _____________________ for the proposed project currently being considered by
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Planning Case No. __________________).
Signature _____________________________________________________________
LS/RCE ______________________________________________________________
Date _____________________________________________________________
B-12
C-1DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. N6247320RP001 LEASE OF l . DEFENSE FUEL SUPPORT POINT (DFSP) SAN PEDRO, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA November 4, 2019 Real Estate Contracting Officer U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Division San Diego, CA When referring to tltis Solicitation, please note that it is Request for Proposals No. N6247320RPOOJ REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. N62~7320RP001
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Authority and Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Property Proposed for Lease and Assignment .............................................................................. 1
1.3 Vision and Business Opportunity ................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 3
2.1 The Leased Premises and Assigned Premises ............................................................................... 3
2.2 Historical, Cultural and Archaeological ........................................................................................ 5
2.3 Environmental Documentation ..................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Use of the Leased and Assigned Premises .................................................................................... 7
2.5 Utilities and Support Services ..................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Easements and Encumbrances .................................................................................................... 13
2.7 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act ............................................................................... 13
2.8 Davis-Bacon Act ......................................................................................................................... 14
2.9 Building Codes and Other Requirements .................................................................................... 14
2.10 Legislative Jurisdiction and Regulatory ...................................................................................... 14
2.11 Property Maintenance/Management ........................................................................................... 14
2.12 Taxes ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2.13 Insurance ..................................................................................................................................... 15
2.14 Financial Provisions .................................................................................................................... 15
2.15 Restoration Requirement ............................................................................................................. 15
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Provisions .................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Amendments to the RFP ............................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Oral Presentations ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Proposal Contents and Factors .................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Proposal Format .......................................................................................................................... 22
3.7 Proprietary Information: ............................................................................................................. 22
3.8 Offeror’s Cover Page .................................................................................................................. 22
3.9 Submission of Proposals: ............................................................................................................ 22
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS ....................................................................................... 23
4.1 Source Selection .......................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Evaluation Process ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Proposal Risk Assessments ......................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Negotiations Period ..................................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Legal Documentation .................................................................................................................. 24
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................ 25
5.1 No Obligation .............................................................................................................................. 25
5.2 Hold Harmless .......................................................................................................................... 25
5.3 Waiver ......................................................................................................................................... 25
5.4 Rights Reserved .......................................................................................................................... 25
5.5 Navy-Furnished Information ....................................................................................................... 25
5.6 Disputes ....................................................................................................................................... 25
5.7 Acquisition Requirements ........................................................................................................... 26
5.8 Protection Afforded to Proprietary or Confidential Information ................................................ 26
POINT OF CONTACT FOR INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATIONS ....................... 26
C-2
APPENDICES
A.Map of Proposed Leased and Assigned Premises
B.Sample Department of the Navy Lease
C.Sample Assignment of Permit No. 513
D.Sample Assignment of Rights Appurtenant to the San Pedro Fuel Depot and Long Beach
Fuel Complex
E-1. List of DFSP San Pedro Facilities, Buildings, and Structures Proposed for Lease
E-2. Facility Condition Assessment, Oct 2019
F.Draft Environmental Condition of Property Report, Oct 2019
G.Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Oct 2019
H.Main Terminal Record of Survey Showing Exception Areas 1-3, Dec 2018
I.Main Terminal Real Estate Summary Map/Existing Encumbrances Map, Jun 2014
J.Marine Terminal Future Encumbrances Map, Apr 2019
K.Offeror’s Cover Page
L.Past Performance Questionnaire
C-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND
1.1.1 AUTHORITY
The Department of the Navy (“Navy”) proposes to lease non-excess real property under the
authority of Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 2667 and assign its rights in offsite real property
related to Navy-owned fuel pipelines, for commercial and military fueling operations purposes at
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro, California (the “Installation”).
1.1.2 BACKGROUND
DFSP San Pedro is comprised of two Special Areas, the San Pedro Fuel Depot (“Main Terminal”)
and Long Beach Fuel Complex, including Pier 12 (“Marine Terminal”), and onsite and offsite
associated pipelines, assigned to Naval Weapons Station (“NWS”) Seal Beach. The areas at DFSP
San Pedro proposed for lease and assignment consist of the approximately 311 acres of the Main
Terminal and onsite pipelines, the approximately 11-acre Marine Terminal and onsite pipelines,
and the off-site network of pipelines totaling approximately 14 miles, and respective rights of way.
Operation of the DFSP San Pedro is currently the responsibility of the Defense Logistics Agency
(“DLA”), as DLA has been operating DFSP San Pedro since 1980.
As of May 2014, DLA placed DFSP San Pedro in a temporary closure status, which placed existing
fuel tanks in a non-active status (as permitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency), wherein
they could be re-opened or permanently closed depending on future mission requirements.
In February 2016, the Navy moved forward with the partial closure of DFSP San Pedro, and DLA
began the process of permanently closing all underground storage tanks (“USTs”) at the Main
Terminal. At the same time, the Navy began the process of planning for the long-term utilization
of the site and is currently pursuing a lease to a non-federal entity for commercial fueling purposes,
while establishing a separate fuel purchase agreement for the Navy’s operational fueling
requirements at the site. The Navy’s operational fueling requirements are described in Section 2.
1.2 PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR LEASE AND ASSIGNMENT
The Navy’s fee-owned property proposed for lease consists of the 311-acre Main Terminal in San
Pedro, California and the 11-acre Main Terminal, including Pier 12 fuel pier in Long Beach, CA,
both with associated fueling infrastructure and onsite pipelines. The rights of way the Navy holds
for its approximately 14 miles of Navy-owned offsite pipelines, are proposed for assignment to
the Selected Offeror. Section 2 of this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) provides additional detail
on the Leased and Assigned Premises (as defined below), and Appendix “A,” “Map of Proposed
Leased and Assigned Premises,” shows approximate location.
1.3 VISION AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
The Navy proposes to enter into a 25-year lease of its fee-owned real property and assign its
interests to its Navy-owned offsite fuel pipelines (for the same duration of 25 years), to allow for
renewed fueling operations for commercial and military purposes at DFSP San Pedro, California.
The vision of this opportunity is the reactivation and sustainment of the DFSP San Pedro facility
to the maximum extent practicable for commercial fueling use, with allowance for periodic and
C-4
contingency 1 fueling of Navy ships. The goal is to ensure the fullest possible use and maintenance
of the Navy’s assets through the commercial use of facilities and infrastructure while maintaining
capability to meet periodic and contingency Navy fueling needs via a separate fuel purchase
agreement. Navy fuel purchase is not a part of the lease or assignments.
Appropriate development of the leased and assigned premises (separately “Leased Premises” and
“Assigned Premises,” respectively, together, the “Leased and Assigned Premises”) is discussed
in Section 2 of this RFP. At all times, use of the Leased and Assigned Premises must be fully
compatible with the Navy’s operational and security requirements.
The offeror selected for implementation of this solicitation (“Selected Offeror”) will use,
operate, improve, develop, and maintain the Leased and Assigned Premises for the term of the
lease and assignments in accordance with the sample lease presented in Appendix “B” to the
RFP (“Sample Lease”) and the Sample Assignments presented in Appendix “C” and
Appendix “D” to the RFP (“Sample Assignments”). The Selected Offeror will provide in-kind
consideration (“IKC”) (or cash in lieu of IKC, at the discretion of the Navy) to the Navy in an
amount not less than the combined fair market value of the Selected Offeror’s leasehold interest
in the Leased Premises and the fair market value of the interests in the Assigned Premises.
Ownership of the Leased Premises shall remain with the Navy for the duration of the lease term.
Ownership of any improvements constructed or installed on the Leased Premises and Assigned
Premises by the Selected Offeror shall remain with the Selected Offeror for the duration of the
lease term.
The facilities to be developed on the Leased and Assigned Premises, if any, may be provided
directly by the Selected Offeror or through a third-party under a sublease or concession
arrangement that has been reviewed and accepted in advance by the Navy. The experience, past
performance, and financial capability of an anticipated sub-lessee, and the guarantees offered by
the Selected Offeror regarding the sub-lessee’s performance, are some of the factors the Navy
shall consider in determining its consent, or non-consent, to a sublet of all or portions of the
Leased and Assigned Premises to a third-party.
1.4. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been set:
•Entering into a long-term lease and pipeline assignment agreements with a responsible
party to provide maintenance responsibility and stewardship over the property and
improvements;
•Allowing for renewed fueling operations for commercial purposes;
1 An event, series of events, or line of effort that adversely impacts strategic sourcing of fuel for the U.S. Navy in the
Pacific region.
C-5
• Providing capability for regular fuel servicing of military ships during normal operations
and occasional surge capabilities during contingency operations, via separate purchase
agreement;
• Ensuring ongoing maintenance of existing Navy infrastructure;
• Disturbing only those areas historically used for operations and avoiding known natural
resources;
• Allowing for the enhancement of habitat for Palos Verdes blue butterfly (“PVB”) and
coastal California gnatcatcher (“CGN”) by the Navy;
• Accommodating the ongoing site cleanup pursuant to both the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and Clean
Water Act (“CWA”);
• Complying with all National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and Environmental
Condition of Property Report and Checklist (“ECP”) requirements;
• Maintaining the safety and security of the Leased and Assigned Premises;
• Maintaining positive relations with the communities surrounding the property; and
• Employing the best commercial practices to the benefit of both the Navy and the Selected
Offeror.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
This Section describes existing conditions and development considerations associated with the
Leased and Assigned Premises Information and/or documents pertaining to the property and
provided to prospective offerors are believed to be correct; however, the Navy does not warrant
this information. The Leased and Assigned Premises, detailed below, will be offered “as is, where
is” and the Navy does not warrant the condition of any of the land, structures, equipment, etc.
offered for lease or assignment. Proposals not including the entirety of the Leased and Assigned
Premises will be disqualified.
2.1 THE LEASED PREMISES AND ASSIGNED PREMISES
The Leased Premises consist of the approximately 311-acre Main Terminal, with onsite pipelines
and improvements, and the approximately 11-acre Marine Terminal, with onsite pipelines and
improvements. The Assigned Premises consists of a network of approximately 14 miles of offsite
pipeline and associated rights of way corridors.
2.1.1 THE LEASED PREMISES
For additional information, refer to Appendix “A,” to this RFP, “Map of Proposed Leased and
Assigned Premises”.
2.1.1.1 THE MAIN TERMINAL
An approximately 311-acre fuel depot located in San Pedro, California.
• Located at 3171 North Gaffey Street on the eastern slope of Palos Verdes Hills,
between Gaffey Street and Western Avenue, in the City of San Pedro.
C-6
• Primarily located in the City of San Pedro, California, County of Los Angeles, while a
small portion is located in the City of Lomita. It is surrounded by the cities of Carson
and Torrance to the north, City of Long Beach to the east, the community of San Pedro
to the south, and the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates to the
west. The Main Terminal is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the City of
Los Angeles urban center.
• Land uses around the Main Terminal primarily include residential properties to the
north, south, and west. A cemetery borders the Main Terminal on its western boundary,
and a high school borders the facility to the south. A local community college and
commercial fueling operations border the Main Terminal to the east.
• Primary improvements include administrative facilities, storage facilities, guardhouse
and main gate, magazines, and extensive fueling infrastructure including aboveground
fuel storage tanks, truck rack, pump house, pipelines, and closed underground fuel
storage tanks.
• The adjacent ball fields and firing range are NOT included within the proposed Leased
Premises boundary.
2.1.1.2 THE MARINE TERMINAL
An approximately 11-acre fuel terminal and fuel pier (Pier 12) located in Long Beach,
California.
• The Marine Terminal is located within the Port of Long Beach and adjacent to the Port
of Los Angeles. The Marine Terminal is located on Nimitz Road on the former Long
Beach Naval Station Mole Pier on Terminal Island in Long Beach, California.
• Primary improvements include an office and lab controls building, a multipurpose
building that includes locker rooms, electrical distribution equipment, and a fire pump
control room, and extensive fueling infrastructure including a fuel pier, aboveground
fuel storage tanks, pump house, fire water tank, substation, and pipelines.
2.1.2 THE ASSIGNED PREMISES
Approximately 14 miles of Navy-owned offsite fuel pipelines serve the Leased Premises.
The Navy holds a series of permits, easements, and other rights of way from the property
owners for the installation, operation, repair, and maintenance of the Navy-owned
pipelines. The Navy’s interests in the pipelines are proposed to be assigned to the Selected
Offeror under two assignment agreements, attached to this RFP as Appendix “C” and
Appendix “D” and are to be executed simultaneously with the lease. The term of the
pipeline assignments will be coterminous with the term of the lease. Please refer to
Appendix “C” and Appendix “D” for additional information, including specific terms
and conditions as well as Land Use Controls (“LUCs”). Please note the Navy had a survey
performed in 2018, identifying the Navy’s property interests for its fuel pipelines, and
identifying gaps in property interest. The Navy is working to secure the proper real property
interest for its pipelines in several areas, and the actions are planned to be completed prior
to lease award and assignment execution. The fuel pipelines proposed for assignment
consist of the following:
C-7
2.1.2.1 LONG BEACH PIPELINES
• Two 14- to 18-inch fuel pipelines commonly referred to as the “Long Beach” pipelines
or the “JP-5” and “JP-8” pipelines.
• The Long Beach pipelines connect the Main Terminal to the Marine Terminal.
2.1.2.2 G-LINE
An 8-inch fuel pipeline commonly referred to as the “G” pipeline, running offsite from the
Main Terminal to the east.
2.1.2.3 R-LINE
A 12-inch fuel pipeline commonly referred to as the “R” pipeline, running offsite from the
Main Terminal to the east.
2.1.2.4 NOTE
The G, R, and Long Beach pipelines are the pipelines proposed for assignment to the
Selected Offeror. If the Navy acquires interest in additional pipelines in the future, such as
a fuel pipeline running north, from DFSP San Pedro toward Norwalk, California, the
Selected Offeror may be offered assignment of the Navy’s interest.
A list of the facilities available for lease, is in Appendix “E-1” of this RFP. Appendix “E-2” of
this RFP is an excerpt from a 2019 Facility Condition Assessment (“FCA”) and provides further
detail on the primary improvements on the Leased and Assigned Premises.
2.2 HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Based on the results of studies conducted at DFSP San Pedro as part of the 2016 partial closure
action, the Navy found that there were no archaeological sites at DFSP San Pedro eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”). The Navy also initiated Section 106 consultation
for the partial closure with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (“SHPO”) who
concurred that the 65 buildings and structures comprising DFSP San Pedro (Main Terminal and
Marine Terminal) are ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Thus, no further action is required under
the National Historic Preservation Act.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
An ECP Report and Environmental Assessment (“EA”) are underway and will be completed by
the Navy prior to lease execution. The Draft ECP is attached as Appendix “F” to this RFP, and
the Draft EA is publicly posted online at www.cnic.navy.mil/SanPedroEA. The Selected Offeror
will be responsible for compliance with the necessary environmental mitigation measures and
LUCs after lease execution. The environmental mitigation measures and LUCs are scheduled to
be finalized prior to lease execution, upon completion of the ECP Report and EA.
C-8
Please refer to Appendix “F” of this RFP, for a full description and discussion of the draft,
anticipated environmental conditions and LUCs on the property. Several LUCs are summarized
below:
• There are several ongoing environmental investigation sites on the Main Terminal,
approximated on Appendix “A” of this RFP, “Map of Proposed Leased and Assigned
Premises”, requiring access to the property by Navy, DLA, and federal, state, and local
regulatory agencies. The Selected Offeror will be prohibited from using the areas until
cleanup is complete and a bilateral modification to the lease is completed to allow for
use of the areas, and will also be responsible for complying with any LUCs established.
• Groundwater monitoring wells remain on the Main Terminal. The Navy and DLA
require retained, unfettered access to the wells through approximately 2024, prohibiting
development, or otherwise impeded access, by the Selected Offeror on these areas.
Approximate locations are shown on Appendix “A,” Map of Leased and Assigned
Premises.
• Buildings 107 and 108 on the Main Terminal are cordoned off and access is prohibited
due to the environmental concerns of lead-based paint, asbestos, and other safety issues.
The Navy and DLA are currently working on a demolition contract. If available, the
date of project completion will be provided to the Selected Offeror prior to lease
execution.
• Approximately 104 acres of Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (“PVB”) and California
Coastal Gnatcatcher (“CGN”) habitat, a native plant nursery, and habitat opportunity
areas, are present on the Main Terminal and will be permanently unavailable for
disturbance or use by the Selected Offeror throughout the term of the lease. LUCs are
in place for the minimization and offset of potential impacts to the PVB and CGN.
LUCs and mitigation measure responsibilities are to be divided between Selected
Offeror and the Navy prior to lease execution. The table of “Impact Avoidance and
Mitigation Measures” from the EA is included as Appendix “G” to this RFP, with
draft division of responsibility between Navy and Selected Offeror. The mitigation
measures are sourced from the NWS Seal Beach Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (“INRMP”) and Biological Opinions, available publicly for
reference at the following website:
https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/om/environmental_support/environmental_
core_support.html
• Sediments below and adjacent to Pier 12 at the Marine Terminal are part of a Navy
remediation site and are prohibited from being disturbed or exposed (i.e. dredging is
not permitted) throughout the term of the lease. Refer to Appendix “F” for additional
detail.
• With regard to the Assigned Premises, property adjacent to the Long Beach pipelines
has been investigated for potential munitions and explosives of concern (“MEC”) use
and storage. Please refer to Appendix “F,” the Draft ECP, for more information and a
map showing the exact location along the Long Beach pipelines. In this location on the
C-9
Assigned Premises, due to the MEC investigation on the adjacent property, there is a
LUC in place requiring the Selected Offeror to have an unexploded ordnance (“UXO”)
technician (or equivalent) present during any/all intrusive activities conducted.
2.4 USE OF THE LEASED AND ASSIGNED PREMISES
The following stipulations for use of the Leased and Assigned Premises apply:
The Navy is seeking a lessee to operate, maintain, develop, and otherwise use the Leased Premises
for commercial fueling purposes on previously disturbed property (i.e. habitat areas are prohibited
from use by the lessee) and for ancillary purposes, including, but not limited to administrative,
warehouse, and parking.
2.4.1. FUELING REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The Navy retains the ability to fuel military ships at the fuel pier on the Marine Terminal,
via a separate fuel purchase agreement which will be separately competed. As procurement
of fuel for the Navy at the Marine Terminal is external to the proposed lease, offerors are
not to rely on fuel delivery to the Navy as a source of revenue in the business model
proposed, in response to this RFP. Military ships require fueling on a periodic basis to
maintain proficiency, thereby ensuring fuel supply during times of contingency.
The Navy’s fueling requirements are as stated below:
• During normal operations, periodic fueling at the fuel pier includes a maximum of
six (6) ships per quarter and requires a combination of dual product (F-76 diesel
fuel and JP-5 fuel jet fuel types) in the amount of 14,500,000 gallons per quarter,
or, approximately 1,380,952.38 barrels (bbls) per year. The Selected Offeror will
be required to maintain the capability of the Navy’s ability to receive these fuel
types and quantities via pipeline during normal operations. The Navy will follow
the Selected Offeror’s scheduling procedures, will fuel during the Selected
Offeror’s normal operating hours, and will coordinate in advance with the Selected
Offeror with a minimum of 30 days notice as available. The delta between
commercial product and military product moving through the pipelines (flushing
the line, fuel barges to receive the flushed commercial product,) will need to be
factored into the Selected Offeror’s operations and timeline of events, to be
completed by the Selected Offeror prior to the Navy’s fueling evolution. During
normal operations, the Navy may choose to fuel at the pier via Government-
contracted barge instead of via pipeline.
• During contingency operations, Navy customer ships will require dual product (F-
76 diesel fuel and JP-5 fuel jet fuel types) and priority scheduling, with a temporary
potential surge of up to five (5) ships per week. The Navy will provide the
maximum advance notice to the Selected Offeror possible, targeting 3-7 days notice
or more. During contingency fueling events, the Navy requires priority over
Selected Offeror operations to ensure certainty and primacy in fueling when
needed. Upon conclusion of the contingency, operations will return to the normal
operations construct. The approximate fuel quantity required will vary depending
C-10
on the frequency of use and could range from 14,500,000 gallons to 162,000,000
gallons a quarter, or, approximately 1,380,952 bbls to 15,428,571 bbls annually.
The Selected Offeror will be required to maintain the capability of the Navy’s
ability to receive these fuel types and quantities via pipeline during contingency
operations.
• Operations on the Leased and Assigned Premises will involve fuels required for
military use (i.e. F-76 and JP-5 jet fuels). The Navy may potentially approve the
use of other products at the site; however, if a potential lessee proposes an activity
or use that would involve anticipated environmental impacts beyond those already
analyzed by the Draft EA, and if the Navy chooses to consider allowing any such
activity or use beyond the analysis of the EA, additional environmental analysis
would be required before any decision could be made regarding award of a lease
incorporating that activity or use.
The Navy’s specifications for fuel receipt are as stated below:
• The Selected Offeror shall provide for the fueling system to have precise control of
the flow rate, as Navy ships with water-compensated fueling systems may have
flow rates less than or equal to 550 gallons per minute, and flow rates exceeding
550 gallons per minute increase the risk of a fuel spill.
• The Selected Offeror must provide for the fueling system to have the capability for
Navy ships with non-water-compensated fueling systems to receive F-76 at the rate
of 3,000 gallons per minute and JP-5 at 10%-100% of that rate, depending on the
type of ship and fittings installed.
• The Selected Offeror must provide the ability for Navy tankers and oilers to accept
both fuel types at a rate of 4,300 barrels per hours, or, 3,010 gallons per minute, per
hose.
• The Selected Offeror will be required to provide the capability for a range of fittings
to be accommodated, as some Navy ships may have non-North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (“NATO”) fittings. The fittings may be in the range of 3-inches to 8-
inches in diameter, requiring the system to be capable of having the corresponding
connections available prior to the planned fueling evolution.
The Selected Offeror will be responsible for establishing the capability for fuel delivery
via pipeline to the fuel pier at the Marine Terminal on the Leased and Assigned Premises,
for fulfillment of the Navy’s mission fueling requirement bulleted above in this Section.
The Selected Offeror will be required to obtain all federal, state, and local permits and
licenses required for the Navy’s fueling requirement to be met, within two (2) years from
the commencement date of the lease, and must have established the capability for Navy
fueling via pipeline within three (3) years from lease commencement date. Fuel purchase
is not a part of the lease consideration. The Navy will purchase fuel under a contract to be
separately competed using established Department of Defense fuel procurement
procedures.
C-11
The Selected Offeror will be required to extend to the Navy its standard husbanding support
services that are provided to commercial fueling customers. The Navy may also provide
additional, specialized husbanding support services to Navy vessels and ships as needed,
via a separate contract.
2.4.2 OPERATIONAL LIMITS
As discussed in Section 2.3, “Environmental Documentation,” above, a draft EA has been
completed, and, accordingly, maximum allowable operational limits for the purpose of the
environmental analysis have been established. The Navy retains the right to approve all
plans for improvements and operations on the premises, including the plans for
improvements and operations proposed in response to this RFP. The Selected Offeror
operations are prohibited from exceeding the below-defined limits without Navy approval
and completion of any additional environmental impact analysis that may be required with
respect to operations that may be proposed that exceed the limits set forth below. The Navy
will evaluate operations proposed to determine whether the environmental impacts are fully
encompassed by the EA’s analysis. If operations are proposed that would involve
anticipated environmental impacts beyond those analyzed by the EA, and if the Navy
wishes to consider allowing any such activity or use beyond what has been analyzed by the
EA, additional environmental analysis would be required before any decision could be
made to award a lease that would allow the operations proposed. The following
summarizes the maximum operations environmentally studied:
• Annual fuel throughput on the Leased Premises and Assigned Premises may not
exceed 30 million barrels (combined Selected Offeror and Navy throughput.)
During contingency operations, the Navy’s fueling requirement will supersede that
of the Selected Offeror and the volume of fuel throughput available for commercial
customers would be limited during the duration of the contingency. Selected
Offeror will be required to submit monthly fueling activity reports, due by the 1st
of every month, to NWS Seal Beach on a per fueling activity basis, documenting
fueling activity including but not limited to fueling receipts, transfers, types, and
quantities of fuel.
• A maximum of 12,291,100 barrels of fuel is permitted to be stored on the Leased
Premises, 13,722,000 square feet of administrative and/or warehousing space
permitted on the Leased Premises, and 1,653,102 square yards of parking areas on
the Leased Premises. A maximum floor to area ratio of 1.5 to 1 is permitted.
• A maximum of 24 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), up to 280 feet in diameter
and up to 50 feet tall may be constructed on the Main Terminal, and on the Marine
Terminal, a total of 4 ASTs, up to 180 feet in diameter and up to 45 feet tall may
be constructed.
• No changes to pier structure or appurtenances, to facilitate commercial vessels, are
permitted at Pier 12 at the Marine Terminal without approval by the Navy
subsequent to and dependent upon any separate environmental impact analysis that
may be required to be performed by Selected Offeror.
C-12
• A maximum of 375 annual vessel calls (Navy and Selected Offeror vessel calls
combined, comprised of tankers, barges, and combatant or non-combatant ships)
are permitted. This could include, for example, up to an estimated 350 ships (with
a capacity of 149,000 barrels or less), 70 mid-size vessels (with a capacity between
150,000 and 177,000 barrels), and 10 fuel barges with a capacity of 300,000 barrels
visiting Pier 12 throughout the year to transfer fuel. Navy ships would also visit
Pier 12 at the Marine Terminal in order to receive fuel as part of normal and
contingency operations. As described above, the Navy will have no more than six
(6) ships per quarter at the fuel pier during normal operations and will have the
potential for up to five (5) ships per week at the fuel pier during contingency
operations.
• A maximum of 40 fuel trucks per day at the Main Terminal, and 20 per day at the
Marine Terminal.
• Selected Offeror will be strictly prohibited from conducting ground-disturbing
activities including but not limited to ground-disturbance in connection with
inspection, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or maintenance of
the Assigned Premises (pipelines), without approval by the Navy subsequent to and
dependent upon any required additional environmental impact analysis as
determined by the Navy, to be performed by Selected Offeror.
2.4.3 ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR USE
Approximately 43.1 acres of the 311 acres of the Main Terminal are immediately available
for use by the Selected Offeror, with a total of 163.9 additional acres becoming available
in subsequent fiscal years 2, as Navy and other government agency remediation on the
property completes. All property is subject to current and future LUCs. In total, 207 acres
of previously disturbed property are anticipated to be available for use by the Selected
Offeror when remediation efforts are complete in approximately 2024. This timeline is
subject to fluctuation dependent upon timeline of the remediation actions. 104 acres will
remain permanently unavailable for disturbance or use throughout the term of the lease, as
they include PVB and CGN “Listed Species Management Areas”, the native plant nursery,
and “Habitat Opportunity Areas” shown on Appendix “A” of this RFP, “Map of Proposed
Leased and Assigned Premises.”
2.4.4 ONGOING GOVERNMENT REPAIR AND REMEDIATION
Navy and DLA repair, demolition, and cleanup actions will continue on the Leased and
Assigned Premises throughout and after lease execution. Appendix “E-1” notes the
facilities planned for Government repair or demolition, and Appendix “E-2” provides
detail on the nature of the Government repair and demolition effort. The FCA in Appendix
“E-2” will be updated as repair and demolition efforts progress, and finalized prior to lease
award. The Navy, DLA, and their respective contractors, subcontractors, agents, and
officers will require access to the Leased and Assigned Premises during and after lease
award, for the completion of these projects.
2 A fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year
C-13
Access for the repair and demolition work is anticipated to be required through
approximately November 2021, and access for environmental cleanup activities is
anticipated to be required through 2024. These approximations are subject to change and
subject to update as the efforts progress. The Government’s repair and demolition contract
is anticipated to be awarded by May 2020. As available, the Navy will provide scopes of
work, priority of projects, and period of performance for each project, to the Selected
Offeror, for work schedule coordination and deconfliction. The Selected Offeror’s
inspection, testing, repair, improvement, or other work on the Leased and Assigned
Premises must not interfere with the Navy’s repair and demolition work. The Selected
Offeror will be required to work with the Navy to confirm Selected Offeror’s ability to
inspect, test, repair, improve, or otherwise work on the Leased Premises when in proximity
of a repair or demolition site.
The Main Terminal and Marine Terminal will not be fully operational for fueling upon
lease execution nor upon completion of the Navy and DLA repair and demolition
work. Additional inspections, repairs, and cleaning will be required by the Selected Offeror
to bring the fuel facilities to operational status in compliance with governing regulations
and industry standards. The FCA in Appendix “E-2” includes information on
recommended repairs.
The nature of the further repairs may include but are not limited to: repairing or replacing
external floating roof seals and drainage piping; repairing or replacing safety equipment
(e.g. eyewash stations); pipeline and piping valve replacements; pipeline and piping
repairs; pump and valve instrumentation replacement; fuel tank floor, shell, and roof
repairs; and various repairs for non-fuel system structures, such as generator replacement,
lighting improvement, and wall/roof repairs.
The nature of further inspections and cleaning required for integrity management and
deficiency resolution may include but are not limited to: hydrostatic pipeline testing;
leak/pressure testing of the underground piping segments; pneumatic pipeline testing;
American Petroleum Institute (“API”) Standard 570 inspection of all Class 1 piping
(marine pier piping); in-line inspection of the cross-town pipelines (smart pigging); diving
inspection of the underwater pipeline; cathodic protection analysis of the underground
piping; and flushing and cleaning pipelines.
2.4.5 PERMITTING AT SOLE COST AND EXPENSE OF THE SELECTED
OFFEROR.
Aboveground Storage Tanks (“ASTs”) and pipelines on the Leased Premises are currently
classified as “out of service” and may require inspection, testing, and repair to bring back
into service, at Selected Offeror’s sole cost and expense, subject to all federal, state, and
local permitting and/or licensing requirements. As detailed in the FCA, Appendix “E-1”
and Appendix “E-2” of this RFP, the Government plans to conduct API Standard 653
inspections on Tanks 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the Marine Terminal (also called Facilities
838, 836, and 837, respectively) and will provide the results to the Selected Offeror, as
available. On the Main Terminal, the Government plans to make wastewater recovery,
C-14
containment, electrical, and other repairs to Tanks 48, 49, and 50 (common name and
inventory names are the same.)
2.4.6. USE RESTRICTED BY ENCUMBRANCES
As discussed in Section 2.6 below, “Easements and Encumbrances,” known third-party
current and future real estate encumbrances exist at the Leased Premises. The Selected
Offeror will be prohibited from planning and constructing improvements that will disturb
reasonable rights of use of or access to the property encumbered.
2.4.7. LEASE PAYMENT PROVISIONS
A specific price/consideration proposal shall be submitted. Consideration proposed to the
Navy will be evaluated against the Fair Market Value rental range determined by an
Appraisal completed in 2019 for the sole use of the Navy, not available to offerors, that
includes a) a leasehold interest in the Leased Premises b) the easement, permit, and right
of way interest in the Assigned Premises, and c) use of the Navy-owned pipelines,
facilities, and appurtenances on the Leased and Assigned Premises. The Navy requires
IKC in the form of Long-Term Maintenance projects at Navy installations that may
include, but are not limited to, NWS Seal Beach, pursuant to those allowed for the Navy to
accept per 10 U.S.C § 2667, and will determine the specific long term maintenance
projects to be delivered. However, at the discretion of the Navy, the Selected Offeror may
be required to pay rent in cash on a quarterly basis in advance.
As a part of the IKC and in accordance with Appendix “C,” “Sample Assignment of
Permit No. 513”, Selected Offeror is responsible for payment of the annual permitting fee
for the fuel pipeline right-of-way described therein.
As additional consideration, the Selected Offeror will be responsible for paying to the
Navy a one-time payment in the amount of Forty Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($40,000.00) for administrative expenses. Per Title 10 U.S.C. 2695, the Navy is entitled
to reimbursement of funds from non-federal entities to cover administrative expenses
related to real estate transactions.
As part of the consideration for the lease, the Selected Offeror shall obtain legal
descriptions and surveys for “Exception Area 1,” “Exception Area 2,” and “Exception
Area 3,” shown on Appendix “H” of this RFP, no later than nine (9) months after the date
of lease execution, at its sole cost and expense.
Consideration for the fuel pipeline rights of way assigned to the Selected Offeror in
Appendix “D,” “Assignment of Rights Appurtenant to the San Pedro Fuel Depot and
Long Beach Fuel Complex” of this RFP, as well as for use of the Navy-owned fuel
pipelines and appurtenances located within such rights of way, is also to be included in the
total consideration owed the Navy under the lease.
2.4.8. PROHIBITED USES
The following uses and activities are prohibited on the Leased and Assigned Premises due
to security and operational incompatibility:
C-15
• Any use or activity that adversely affects the health, safety, welfare, morale,
security, or discipline of the Armed Forces (Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine
Corps, and Navy).
• Any use or activity that adversely affects the health, safety, welfare, morale or
security of residents and businesses adjacent to the Leased and Assigned Premises;
• Structures, activities, and operations that adversely affect installation security
and/or force protection.
• Any hazardous uses or activities involving the storage, treatment, transportation,
disposal or manufacture of hazardous materials, hazardous substances or hazardous
wastes, other than for commercial fueling purposes specifically authorized under
the lease.
• Residential uses.
• Illegal Activities.
• Any use or activity that is incompatible with environmental, operational or land use
constraints.
2.5 UTILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES
The Leased Premises are served by local utility service providers, not the Navy. The Selected
Offeror will be responsible for coordination and funding of all utilities and support services needed
for the operation and management of the Leased Premises and Assigned Premises. The Selected
Offeror will be responsible for procuring first responder (police, fire protection) services to the
Leased and Assigned Premises from the appropriate local providers.
2.6 EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES
Known third-party current and future real estate encumbrances or constraints existing at the Leased
Premises are provided in Appendix “I” and Appendix “J” of this RFP. The Selected Offeror will
be responsible for determining and coordinating its use with all third party holders of easements
and encumbrances encumbering the Leased Premises.
If improvements to the property are proposed by the Selected Offeror, the Navy may require the
Selected Offeror to provide a Title Report or conduct review of and update Appendix “I” and
Appendix “J” at the Navy’s discretion and at the Selected Offeror’s sole cost and expense.
2.7 MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
In accordance with Title V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a Federal Register
screening notice regarding the Leased Premises has been completed by the Navy wherein the
property was found unsuitable for use in programs to assist the homeless.
C-16
2.8 DAVIS-BACON ACT
Davis-Bacon wage requirements apply to elements of projects constructed on behalf of the Navy.
Davis Bacon wage requirements may apply to specific IKC projects constructed for the Navy’s
sole benefit.
2.9 BUILDING CODES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Construction on the Leased and Assigned Premises shall comply with all local, city and county
building codes and all applicable governmental laws, codes, rules and regulations. Construction
on the Leased and Assigned Premises shall also comply with the appropriate National Fire
Protection Association (“NFPA”) Standards, National Electrical Code (“NEC”), and National
Electric Safety Code (“NESC”), then in effect for the type(s) of occupancy proposed, or such other
more stringent fire protection, electrical and other life safety codes, if any, then in effect and
adopted by the city and county. All uses and development shall be in accordance with applicable
federal, state, and local laws rules, regulations, and ordinances, including building codes, as they
may be amended from time to time. Development and construction may be subject to Department
of Defense and/or Navy Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection requirements, including but not
limited to the following: Unified Facilities Criteria (“UFC”) 4-010-01 “DoD Minimum Antiterrorism
Standards for Buildings;” UFC 4-020-01 “Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual;” UFC 4-
021-02 “Electronic Security Systems;” and UFC 4-025-01 “Security Engineering.”
At the Navy’s discretion, construction and/or improvements to the Leased and Assigned Premises
may be required to adhere to NWS Seal Beach construction requirements as well as the UFC,
particularly for facilities handling fuel required to meet military specification or having the
potential to handle military fuel. In addition, improvements are prohibited in habitat areas,
remediation sites, atop monitoring wells, and across the surface of active faults, locations for which
are approximated on Appendix “A”, “DFSP San Pedro Main Terminal and Marine Terminal
Map,” of this RFP. Selected Offeror’s plans for improvements to the property must be submitted
to the Navy for review and consent, must include certification of compliance with federal, state,
and local laws, regulations, and building codes associated with construction near fault lines, and
must include comprehensive engineering studies identifying the location and characteristics of
active faults and liquefaction zones.
2.10 LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION AND REGULATORY
The current legislative jurisdiction of the Main Terminal of the Leased Premises is partial and
proprietary. The Main Terminal is located within the city limits of Los Angeles and Lomita. The
current legislative jurisdiction of the Marine Terminal is concurrent. It is located within the city
limits of Long Beach. Construction permits will be issued/controlled by the local regulatory
agencies having jurisdiction.
2.11 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT
The Selected Offeror will have responsibility for all property maintenance and management of
items on the Leased Premises and Assigned Premises for the term of the lease, and for compliance
with all applicable laws, regulations, codes, standards, and criteria.
C-17
2.12 TAXES
The Selected Offeror shall be independently responsible for any and all taxes, assessments, or
payments in lieu of taxes that may be levied against its interest, activities, or operations on the
Leased Premises and Assigned Premises.
2.13 INSURANCE
The Selected Offeror shall ensure appropriate insurance will be in place for the term of the lease
and assignments. The Navy shall be named as additional insured, and property insurance coverage
against loss or damage shall be in an amount not less than One Hundred Percent (100%) of the full
replacement cost of the buildings, building improvements, improvements to the land, fixtures, and
personal property on the proposed Leased Premises. The cost of such coverage will be included in
the financial plan and pro forma section of the offeror’s proposal.
2.14 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
The Navy will require that all financing be in place on or before the date of lease and assignment
execution. The Selected Offeror shall not cross collateralize and/or cross default the lease, or the
assets or revenues from any improvements. Moreover, Selected Offeror will be prohibited from
assigning, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise transferring its interest in the net cash flows or
ownership of any improvements, in part, or in entirety, without prior written approval of the Navy.
Prior to the commencement of any phase of construction, the Selected Offeror shall deliver to the
Navy performance bonds in an amount, and subject to, conditions deemed acceptable to the Navy.
2.15 RESTORATION REQUIREMENT
Except as otherwise stated, upon expiration or earlier termination of the lease and assignments, the
Navy has the option to cause title to all improvements to be vested in the United States, or to
require the Selected Offeror to remove the improvements and restore the Leased and Assigned
Premises to the condition that existed when the term began, or to a condition that is acceptable to
the Navy.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
3.1 PROVISIONS
Offerors are required to comply with the following instructions while developing a proposal.
Where instructions conflict, and no order of precedence is specified, the most stringent requirement
applies. A reference to, or direction to comply with, a particular Section shall include, as
appropriate, all subsections thereunder. Oral explanations or instructions will not be binding.
Additional provisions the offeror should note include:
• The information provided by the offeror may be used by the Navy to conduct a
comprehensive background and credit check.
• The offeror may joint venture with another party. A joint venture shall meet the following
requirements:
o All proposals submitted by joint ventures must include an original of the executed
joint venture agreement.
C-18
o Members of the joint venture must sign the lease.
• The Concourse Group, LLC (“TCG”) is serving as an advisor to the Navy on this project
(and has recused itself from the competition). Each offeror must certify they are not using
nor have they used TCG, or any of its subcontractors or affiliates, to assist in the preparation
of any proposal related to this project. A “no-conflict-of-interest” certification to be
executed by the offeror and returned with its proposal is included as part of the offeror’s
cover page in Appendix “K.”
3.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE RFP
This RFP may be amended by a formal amendment document, letter, or electronic message. If
this RFP is amended, then all terms and conditions, which are not modified, remain unchanged.
Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendments to the RFP by the date and time specified
in the amendments(s). Acknowledgement shall be made by signing and returning each
amendment, or sending a letter or electronic acknowledgement.
3.3 QUESTIONS
At the discretion of the Navy, clarifying questions may be asked via email, regarding specifics
within offeror’s proposal. Clarifying questions may be asked of any or all offerors. Offerors are
required to submit written submissions in response to clarifying questions, limited to material
requested in the clarifying questions.
3.4 ORAL PRESENTATIONS
Oral discussions with all offerors who submit proposals are not anticipated. At the Navy’s option,
however, offerors may be required to present their proposals orally to a Navy evaluation team in
the event that the Navy decides to include all or several offerors in a competitive range for
subsequent discussions.
3.5 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FACTORS
Offerors shall provide the information listed in this section as part of the proposal, and format the
proposal in accordance with the requirements in this section. Proposals should be concise, provide
only relevant material, and contain all information that the offeror deems is needed by the Navy to
make its selection. This section lists the minimum compliance with Navy’s goals and must be
submitted in order for proposals to be considered complete. It is the desire of Navy that offerors
attempt to exceed these minimum requirements where possible. Proposals will be evaluated based on
five factors, A through E:
FACTOR A: Capabilities and Qualifications
SUBFACTOR A1: Offeror Overview and Organization
Demonstrate the ability to undertake the proposed terms and conditions of the Sample Lease and
Assignments, and establish a business structure that functions effectively over the term of the lease
and assignments.
• Offeror shall provide a narrative detailing its ability to lease, operate, maintain, develop,
and manage the Leased and Assigned Premises.
C-19
• Offeror shall describe its history and corporate organizational structure, including legal
form of ownership and management. If the offeror is submitting as a joint venture, or is
teaming or subcontracting with other business organizations, a narrative shall be provided
of the extent to which the team has worked together in the past, along with the relevant
teaming/joint venture agreement(s).
• Offeror shall provide documentation evidencing its legality, authority, ownership, control,
and management.
• Offeror shall explain its ability to assemble a qualified, experienced team with the
experience and workload capacity necessary to manage all the disciplines required to
develop and manage the proposed Leased and Assigned Premises. Offeror shall detail the
corporate structure of its team.
• Offeror shall identify the key personnel and legal counsel designated and authorized to
represent the offeror in all negotiations with Navy, and throughout the negotiations,
transaction execution, and financial closing process.
SUBFACTOR A2: Financial Qualifications
Demonstrate financial strength, and provide evidence that your company possesses the financial
capability and capacity to carry out the terms and conditions of the Sample Lease and Assignments.
• Offeror shall indicate which entity/entities are responsible for financial performance and
the extent to which corporate or other such guarantees of performance will be provided to
the Navy by each.
• Offeror shall provide evidence of sufficient funds or financing (e.g. letter of commitment)
to support the lease and assignments and any planned improvements.
• If improvements are proposed for the Leased Premises, as applicable, the Offeror shall
describe its approach to Payment and Performance (P&P) bonds, provide evidence of P&P
bonding capacity, and show how the bond amount(s) are derived.
• Offeror shall provide financial statements complete with notes and accompanied by an
auditor’s assertion of accuracy or reviewed by Certified Public Accountant for the most
recent two (2) complete calendar years, 2017 and 2018, and other documentation, for the
offeror and any equity contributors or other team member organizations or entities that will
be financially accountable for performance, in order to demonstrate the offeror’s financial
strength.
• If any submitted information notes any litigation, disputes, claims, UCC filings or similar
circumstances, offeror shall describe the current status and background of each matter in
full detail and its potential impact on the offeror’s ability to fulfill the terms and conditions
required by the Sample Lease and Sample Assignments.
FACTOR B: Relevant Experience and Past Performance
C-20
Demonstrate the qualifications, experience and past performance of your company or team with
respect to the development, operations, management, and maintenance of fueling-related projects
and properties of a similar nature, scope and scale to those proposed in this RFP. Of particular
importance will be experience and past performance with commercial fueling assets in the local
area.
• Offeror shall provide a narrative of at least two (2) but no more than five (5) most recent
and relevant examples of operations, improvements, and projects completed or in progress
by the offeror that are similar to the Sample Lease and Sample Assignments. The submittal
shall provide details explaining financing; design; construction; management; and
operation, and specifically state how the offeror accomplished them directly or if they were
accomplished by another party, list the name of said other party, and the extent of the other
party’s involvement. The submittal shall also include information describing cost,
schedule, and performance.
• For each of the projects submitted pursuant to the above subparagraph, offeror shall
provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire in the form provided in Appendix
“L.”
• Discuss offeror’s experience in development and operations similar to the Sample Lease
and Sample Assignments, including in the vicinity of DFSP San Pedro or similar complex
urban environments.
• Describe offeror’s experience managing community relations and interacting with the
applicable local and state government officials (i.e., zoning, environmental, Certified
Unified Program Agencies, local community, etc.)
FACTOR C: Operational Concept
SUBFACTOR C1: Market Analysis and Feasibility
Offeror shall demonstrate viability, reasonable commercial market (non-Navy) demand, and a
market feasibility analysis for the proposed operations on the Leased and Assigned Premises, while
meeting the Navy fueling requirements detailed in Section 2.4.1 of the RFP, “Fueling
Requirements.” The submitted narrative shall include at least the following:
• Substantive data and facts, which demonstrate the current and anticipated market demand
for the proposed operations and/or any planned improvements;
• Facts and data describing the current market availability of commercial activities/services
that will compete with the market demand for the proposed operations and/or any planned
improvements;
• Facts and data detailing projected target market consumption/use that would result from
the proposed operations and/or any planned improvements;
• A narrative detailing the marketing strategy for the proposed operations and/or any planned
improvements.
C-21
SUBFACTOR C2: Development, Construction and Operations
Demonstrate that the proposed operations and any construction activities are consistent with and
responsive to the Navy vision, project objectives, and requirements of the RFP.
Offeror shall submit a narrative describing the proposed concept for the Leased and Assigned
Premises including a plan for development, construction, operation, management, and
maintenance of the Leased and Assigned Premises. This narrative shall demonstrate compliance
with the vision in Section 1.3, the project objectives in Section 1.4 and the existing conditions and
development considerations outlined in Section 2 of this RFP. The narrative shall also include the
following:
• Description of how the proposed approach and how Navy’s vision and project objectives
will be achieved during the term of the Sample Lease and Sample Assignments.
• Description of the proposed development, size, type, performance or capacity, site
considerations, engineering and construction work to be performed;
• Description of the anticipated leases, easements, agreements, permits, etc., needed to
develop and operate the proposed development;
• A development and construction (including any phases if applicable) plan and milestone
schedule;
• A conceptual site plan depicting, identifying, and describing all proposed improvements,
including but not limited to proposed facilities, fences, infrastructure, areas of
ingress/egress, and stormwater management areas;
• Philosophy and specific approach to managing community relations and interacting with
applicable local and state government officials (i.e., zoning, environmental, CUPA, local
community, etc.) for the operation and maintenance of the Leased and Assigned Premises
and any planned improvements.
• A conceptual environmental management plan and understanding of existing land use
controls and DLA and Navy access requirements;
• An understanding of existing natural resource-related requirements, as described in
Appendix “G”;
• Plan to operate, manage, and maintain the Leased and Assigned Premises for the duration
of the lease and assignments, including capital repair and replacement, grounds
maintenance, and other considerations necessary to ensure proper stewardship of the assets.
• Description of the quality control processes and corporate systems employed to maintain
quality control of the design, permitting, financing, construction and operation of any
planned improvements;
• Description of operational and property improvement impact(s), if any, on surrounding
communities, local government, and governmental authorities;
• Proposed emergency services plan; and
C-22
•Property security and access management plan.
SUBFACTOR C3: Navy Fueling Requirement and Specifications
Offeror shall submit a narrative demonstrating how it proposes to accommodate and meet the
Navy’s fueling requirements.
The narrative shall include the following:
•Specific description of the work to be provided to accommodate the fueling of Navy
vessels, and associated cost estimates. As available, offeror shall provide no less than a
“Class 4” parametric cost estimate, with the desired objective being a “Class 3” parametric
cost estimate. Parametric cost estimating is defined in Unified Facilities Criteria 3-740-05
paragraph 2-4. Specific guidelines for “Class 4” estimates are described in the Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering Standard 56R-08, Cost Estimate Classification
System – Building and General Construction.
•Specific description of how the Navy’s fueling requirement in Section 2.4.1 of the RFP
would be accommodated. Include a description of costs, if any, passed through or otherwise
assessed to Navy or its fuel provider(s) if the Navy’s separately competed fuel contract is
awarded to an entity other than the Selected Offeror;
•A description of the extent to which the proposed fueling activities relate to the maximum
allowable operational limits established for the purpose of the EA as described in Section
2.4.2 of the RFP and, if applicable, the extent of any additional environmental analysis the
offeror believes would be required to accommodate the proposed concept.
FACTOR D: Financial Plan and Pro Forma
Demonstrate that the proposed operations on the Leased and Assigned Premises are financially
viable and provide consideration to the Navy that appears realistic.
Offeror shall provide a narrative describing relevant assumptions necessary to understand the
funding and construction planned for the Leased and Assigned Premises. Offeror shall also provide
a pro forma illustrating the economic viability of the plans for the Leased and Assigned Premises,
described in the narrative which details all cash inflows and outflows, to include consideration to
Navy, for the entire proposed lease term. The pro forma shall be in a Microsoft Excel file format
with intact formulae so that cell references and calculations can be verified, and contain the
following elements:
•Assumptions (i.e., schedule, square footage, rental rates, interest rates, internal rate of
return, discount rates, weighted average cost of capital, cost of insurance, etc.)
•Development and Construction Budget including all expected hard and soft development
and construction costs.
•Operational Sources and Uses Statement that reflects all expected transaction costs and the
sources to fund these costs.
C-23
•Annual Cash Flow Statement that reflects line item revenues and expenses on an annual
basis for each year of the lease presented in offeror’s proposed order of payment priority.
•Consideration – a statement that illustrates the dollar amount of consideration paid to Navy
in each year of the lease and calculates the net present value of the proposed consideration
to the Navy over the lease term.
FACTOR E: Lease Schedule and Execution
SUBFACTOR E1: Lease Schedule
The proposal must reasonably demonstrate an understanding of the milestones required to achieve
lease execution on or before the Navy’s target lease execution date of August 31, 2020. It must
also reasonably demonstrate an understanding of the milestones required to sustain the proposed
operations, including obtaining all federal, state, and local permits and licenses required to meet
the Navy’s fueling requirement within 2 years of lease execution (approx. August 31, 2022), and
the capability for the delivery of fuel to the Navy via pipeline at the fuel pier within 3 years of
lease execution (approx. August 31, 2023), as described above in this RFP.
Offeror shall describe the approach, activities, and agreements necessary to interact with the Navy
and other stakeholders to achieve the above target milestones. Offeror shall provide a
corresponding schedule with critical path milestones. Information shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
•Agreements anticipated to be necessary for lease execution (such as negotiation of
transaction documents, permitting, financing, lease closing, construction and operation,
etc.);
•Permits and approvals anticipated to be necessary for the development, construction, and
operation of the Leased and Assigned Premises (including development of a transportation
management plan for commercial truck operations, emergency access/contingency plan,
pipeline integrity management plan, etc.); and
•Financing, off-take, throughput, fueling, or other such agreements anticipated to be
necessary for the development, construction, and operation of the Leased and Assigned
Premises including any planned improvements.
•Offeror point of contact for all lease negotiation matters.
SUBFACTOR E2: Lease Signature
Offeror will confirm ability to sign the Sample Lease attached in Appendix “B,” and, if unable to
sign as-is, will provide a redline copy of the Sample Lease explaining its inability to sign, including
calling out the specific provisions with which it has issues. Inability to sign the Sample Lease will
not necessarily remove an offeror from consideration; however, such inability will be considered in
the Risk Assessment (See Section 4.3).
FACTOR F: Consideration to Navy
A specific price/consideration proposal shall be submitted. Consideration proposed to the Navy
will be evaluated against the Fair Market Value rental range determined by an Appraisal
completed in 2019 for the sole use of the Navy, not available to offerors, that includes
C-24
a) a leasehold interest in the Leased Premises b) the easement, permit, and right of way interest in
the Assigned Premises, and c) use of the Navy-owned pipelines, facilities, and appurtenances on the
Leased and Assigned Premises.
The consideration will be paid in the form of IKC.
3.6 PROPOSAL FORMAT
The offeror’s proposal shall consist of the five (5) sections indicated below provided behind a
separate tab or divider page. Within each section, factors and subfactors should be clearly labeled.
All sections of the offeror’s submittal shall be provided in a ten (10) font size or greater.
Section Description of Section
A Capabilities and Qualifications
B Relevant Project Experience and Past Performance
C Operational Concept
D Financial Plan and Pro Forma
E Lease Execution and Schedule
F Consideration to Navy
NOTE: All sections of the proposal should be submitted on the same disk/CD ROM.
3.7 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION:
The offeror shall mark all information that is proprietary and not releasable to the public as proprietary.
3.8 OFFEROR’S COVER PAGE:
The offeror’s proposal must include a completed Cover Page which shall consist of a completed and signed
copy of Appendix “K” to this RFP.
3.9 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS:
Proposals are due at 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time on the date and at the address specified below.
The words “REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS No. N6247320RP001” must appear clearly and
legibly on the proposal package. In addition, the sealed package should be labeled with the
offeror’s name, address, contact person, and time specified for the receipt.
Proposals must be received No Later Than:
Time: 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time)
Date: January 17, 2020
C-25
Ten (10) copies and one signed original of the Proposal, plus one CD copy, shall be submitted in
sealed packages addressed to:
If submitted via U.S. Mail:
Department of the Navy
Attn: Kimberly Spencer, Real Estate B127
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92132-6186
If submitted via a Parcel Delivery Service:
Attn: Kimberly Spencer, Real Estate B127
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92132-6186
Electronic or facsimile offers or modifications will not be considered. Any submission received
after the time and date specified above will be rejected and returned to the sender unopened.
All inquiries concerning any part of this RFP shall be made to Kimberly Spencer at
kimberly.spencer@navy.mil.
NOTE: Inquiries and Requests for Information (RFI) shall be submitted in writing no later than
fourteen (14) business days prior to bid due date.
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
4.1 SOURCE SELECTION
It is the intent of the Navy that after a thorough review and evaluation of all responsive proposals
received, a single offeror will be selected for negotiation of the lease and assignments, and ultimate
award. The Selected Offeror for the period of negotiations will be that offeror whose proposal
provides the best overall value to the Navy and is determined to be most advantageous to the Navy;
provided, however, that the Navy may at its option, and without any liability, choose to reject any
and all proposals without justification.
4.2 EVALUATION PROCESS
A Navy evaluation team comprised of civilian employees of the Navy and uniformed military
personnel will evaluate each proposal. The team will determine the overall value of the proposal
to the Navy, based on the factors set forth in Section 3.5, “Proposal Contents and Factors” and
Section 4.3 below, “Proposal Risk Assessments.” Proposals will be evaluated on their own merit,
independently and objectively. Factors A through F are approximately equal in importance. The
degree of importance of consideration (Factor F) offered to the Navy could become greater
depending upon the equality of the proposals for other factors and subfactors evaluated. In order
to ensure fair and reasonable consideration, the offeror’s proposed consideration will be compared
to the Fair Market Value rental range determined in the Appraisal of the leasehold interest and
C-26
assignments, completed in 2019. The Appraisal is for the sole use of the Navy and is not available
to offerors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation
and represents the best value to the Navy, consideration and non-consideration factors and
subfactors considered.
4.3 PROPOSAL RISK ASSESSMENTS
The Navy will evaluate risk by assessing the likelihood that the offeror will be able to satisfy the
requirements of this RFP and be able to carry out the development, maintenance, operations and
other plans as proposed. A proposal will be considered to be low risk if there appears to be little
likelihood that the offeror will be unable to satisfy the requirements of this RFP or carry out its
proposal. Conversely, a proposal will be considered to be high risk if there appears to be a
substantial likelihood that the offeror will be unable to satisfy the requirements of this RFP or carry
out its proposal.
4.4 NEGOTIATIONS PERIOD
During the negotiations period, the Selected Offeror shall: (i) work towards finalization of required
project and environmental documentation; (ii) pursue any required approvals and permits; (iii)
develop necessary design plans and working drawings; (iv) reach an agreement with Navy officials
regarding all aspects of the proposed development, maintenance, and operations for the Leased
and Assigned Premises.
Negotiations of the Sample Lease may result in terms and conditions that differ from the terms
and conditions originally submitted by the offeror. This does not mean that a new offer has been
submitted as the basic framework of the original offer shall remain the same.
The Navy requires the Selected Offeror to provide adequate and appropriate personnel resources,
including supporting firms and organizations, during the negotiations period in order to efficiently
and expeditiously carry out the negotiations and related document preparation and development.
The decision to implement and execute the lease will be made solely by the Navy at its discretion.
In the event the Navy and the Selected Offeror cannot agree on implementing the lease or other
required documents, or if the lease is not accepted by Navy Headquarters, the Navy, at its sole
option, may terminate negotiations with the Selected Offeror and direct the Selected Offeror to
cease all work on the project.
If the Selected Offeror’s participation in this leasing opportunity is terminated, the Navy shall not
be responsible for the payment of any fees or have any liability, financial or otherwise, to the
Selected Offeror. Additionally, the Navy shall have the right, at no cost to itself, to make full use
of the work products and to proceed to negotiate and work with a replacement offeror.
4.5 LEGAL DOCUMENTATION
To operate on or perform improvements on the Leased and Assigned Premises, certain legal
agreements and transaction documents will be necessary or required. The Selected Offeror shall
prepare and provide all agreements, documents and information requested by the Navy that are
reasonably necessary or otherwise required.
C-27
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
5.1 NO OBLIGATION
While the Navy intends to enter into a lease and assignments with an offeror selected through the
process set forth in this RFP, the Navy is under no obligation to do so. The Navy reserves the right
to cancel this RFP at any time, or to reject any and all submissions prepared in response to this
RFP.
5.2 HOLD HARMLESS
By participating in the RFP process, offerors agree to hold the United States of America, its
officers, employees, and advisors harmless from all claims, liabilities, and costs related to all
aspects of this RFP. Under no circumstances shall the United States of America be liable for any
“bid and proposal” costs, real estate brokerage commissions, finder’s fees, or other forms of
compensation related in any way to activities undertaken by any person as a result of the
submission of the RFP proposal.
5.3 WAIVER
The Navy reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received if it
is determined that it is in its best interest to do so.
5.4 RIGHTS RESERVED
The Navy reserves any and all rights in connection with this RFP, including, but not limited to, the
right to hold negotiations with a Selected Offeror which may result in terms and conditions that
differ from those specified in this RFP and/or from terms and conditions originally proposed by
the offeror. Furthermore, the Navy reserves the right to terminate negotiations with the Selected
Offeror, and initiate negotiations with another suitable offeror if the Navy, at its sole discretion,
determines that the Navy will be unable to successfully conclude negotiations with the Selected
Offeror. The decision to execute a lease will be made by the Navy at its discretion. In no event
will the Navy be responsible for the payment of any fees or have any liability to any offeror for
fees or expenses incurred in connection with submitting a proposal in response to this RFP or
during negotiations.
5.5 NAVY-FURNISHED INFORMATION
The Navy does not warrant the accuracy of any site-related information provided. Site-related
information furnished by the Navy and/or its representatives in support of this RFP shall be
considered as informational only. Such information may include historical utilities usage
quantities, locations and capacities of existing utility systems, technical reports and studies,
building conditions reports, or other technical information intended to support the offerors’
development applications. Offerors are expected to verify all site-related information provided by
the Navy to avoid unforeseen costs.
5.6 DISPUTES
All disputes arising under or related to this RFP, which are not disposed of by agreement, shall be
resolved and decided by the Navy pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, as amended, (41
U.S.C. § 601-613). The Navy shall mail or otherwise furnish a written copy of the decision to the
offeror.
C-28
5.7 ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS
This acquisition is not governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”).
5.8 PROTECTION AFFORDED TO PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Information contained in materials submitted to this RFP may be afforded protection from public
disclosure if the offeror identifies the same as “proprietary” or “confidential” with supporting
justification, and requests such protection at the time of submission. Each page that is considered
proprietary or confidential must be clearly marked as such.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATIONS
All questions, clarifications and general information requests shall be submitted in writing to:
Office Name Address E-mail
Naval
Facilities
Engineering
Command,
Southwest
Ms. Kimberly
Spencer
Senior Real Estate
Specialist
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92132-
6186
Kimberly.spencer@navy.mil
Naval
Facilities
Engineering
Command,
Southwest
Mr. Jeff Burke
Senior Facilities
Planner
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92132-
6186
Jeffrey.s.burke@navy.mil
C-29
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/20/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to send a letter to U.S. Rep. Nanette Barragán and
other South Bay and Harbor Area elected officials supporting the relocation of liquid
bulk storage tanks near the public
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Rep. Barragán and other South Bay and Harbor
Area elected officials supporting the relocation of liquid bulk storage tanks near the
public
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. June 18, 2019 Border Issues staff report (page A-1)
B. Draft letter in support of relocating liquid bulk storage tanks (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Over the years, residents of San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have raised
longstanding concerns to the City Council about the potential for a catastrophic
explosion at the Rancho LPG facility on North Gaffey Street, which is less than a mile
from the City’s Eastview neighborhood. The complex in San Pedro consists of two,
12.5-million-gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane, as well as five smaller,
horizontal storage tanks that each hold 60,000 gallons of propane. Plains All American
Pipeline LLC, the facility’s parent company, has defended its safety record and
procedures.
At various times, the City has taken action in response to these concerns, sending
letters in 2011 and 2013 to local, state and federal lawmakers calling for safety
compliance reviews, more accessible public information, and raising questions about
D-1
jurisdictional authority and the facility’s insurance coverage. These inquiries are detailed
in the June 2019 Border Issues Status Report (Attachment A).
During a discussion of the report on June 18, the City Council considered supporting
H.R. 6489, a bill introduced in Congress in July 2018 by U.S. Rep. Nanette Barragán
(D-San Pedro), which would authorize the use of up to $500 million in federal grant
funding to cover half the cost of relocating LPG storage facilities that are within five
miles of populated areas, homes or schools.
After some discussion, the council decided instead to direct Staff to prepare a letter
more broadly supporting the relocation of Rancho LPG and other liquid bulk storage
tanks that are close to residents, without taking a stance on proposed funding. The
council also restated its opposition to a proposal from the Navy to resume storing
millions of barrels of combustible jet fuel in aboveground tanks at the nearby Defense
Fuel Support Point depot.
Staff has prepared a draft letter (Attachment B) and has reached out to Rep. Barragán’s
office about whether the legislation will be re-introduced in the 116th Congress. Rep.
Barragan’s office indicated staff is working on the effort, but has not said whether the bill
will be re-introduced.
Staff recommends that the council consider sending the letter as drafted or with
revisions.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter in support of relocating liquid bulk
storage tanks that are near the public
2. Take other action as deemed appropriate by the City Council
D-2
E-1
JERRY V 0UHOVIC, MAYOR
JOHN CRU IKSHANK , MAYOR PRO TEM
ER IC ALEGR IA, COUNC ILMAN
SUSAN BROOKS, COUNC ILWOMAN
K EN DYDA, COUNC ILMAN
August20,2019
CITY OF
The Honorable Nanette Barragan
1030 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Via Email
SUBJECT: Support for Relocating Liquid Bulk Storage Tanks near the Public
Dear Rep. Barragan:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports efforts to relocate liquid bulk storage tanks
near homes and populated areas in the Harbor Area, including the Rancho LPG facility,
which stores 25 million gallons of butane less than a mile from the City's Eastview
neighborhood.
Our City's concerns with the potential hazards that come with storing high volumes of
combustible fuels near the public and a fault zone are well-documented, and they were
only strengthened by the recent magnitude 7 .1 and 6.4 earthquakes in Ridgecrest that
rattled the Southland.
In addition to longstanding concerns with Rancho LPG, we are troubled by the Navy's
proposal to reactivate and significantly increase fueling operations at the nearby
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro.
It is clear that these types of facilities do not belong so close to communities, and that
local residents are subjected to significant exposure to potential hazards due to their
concentration in the Harbor Area.
30 940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RAN C HO PALOS VERDE S, CA 90275-5391 I (310) 544-5207 I FAX (310) 544-5291 I www.RPVCA.GOV
0 PRI NTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
E-2
We also recognize the challenges posed by jurisdictional limits in addressing these
concerns. That is why our City applauds your efforts to make relocation possible, and it
is our hope that this strategy gains momentum for the benefit of all our communities.
Sincerely,
cc: Ted Lieu, U.S. Representative, 33rd Congressional District
Dianne Feinstein, U .S. Senator, California
Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator, California
Steven Bradford, Senator, 35th State Senate District
Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Patrick O'Donnell, Assembly Member, ?Qth Assembly District
AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Janice Hahn, L.A. County Supervisor, 4th District
Joe Buscaino, L.A. City Councilmember, 15th District
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United
1
Megan Barnes
From:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:38 PM
To:news@cbs2.com; news@socalnews.com; news@fox11.com; news-tips@nytimes.com;
kcbstvnews@cbs.com; news@citynews.ca; newstips@kpcc.org; ktla@ktla.com;
ronkil@aol.com; adrienne.alpert@abc.com; robert.kovacik@nbcuni.com;
toni.guinyard@nbcuni.com; mgk@cbsnews.com; jonathan.mahler@nytimes.com;
emily.alpert@latimes.com; rong-gong.lin@latimes.com; dlittlejohn@scng.com;
paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com
Cc:det310@juno.com; caneyarnold@gmail.com; gwendolynhenry@hotmail.com;
hvybags@cox.net; caneyarnold@gmail.com; connie@rutter.us; burling102@aol.com;
pmwarren@cox.net; havenick@cox.net; igornla@cox.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
jnm4ej@yahoo.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
sallyhayati@gmail.com; councilmanrcf@gmail.com; sunkistpete@yahoo.com;
james@randomlengthsnews.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; Megan Barnes;
forfuturefukushima@gmail.com; jody.james@sbcglobal.net;
Francisco.Carrillo@mail.house.gov; joey.apodaca@mail.house.gov;
jsw.spiritcruises@sbcglobal.net; evelazquez@bos.lacounty.gov
Subject:MEDIA RELEASE: DISCLOSURE OF CONCEALED & POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING
WILMINGTON FAULT
Attachments:Wilmington Blind-Thrust Fault - Southern California Earthquake Center -
Presentation - July 27. 2018 Earthquake Fault Under Port (1).pdf
MEDIA RELEASE
AUG. 22, 2019
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
FRIDAY, AUG. 23, 2019
1 PM – Sheraton Gateway Los Angeles Hotel, 6101 W. Century Blvd. Los Angeles, 90045
ATTENTION!
*The Wilmington Blind-Thrust Fault: An active, concealed
earthquake source beneath Los Angeles, CA.!!
In the aftermath of the Ridgecrest earthquake, representatives for the Los Angeles Harbor communities had
planned yet another appearance before the State Lands Commission tomorrow pleading their intervention with the Port of
Los Angeles over the chronic disregard of potential disaster stemming from an antiquated 46 yr. old 25 million gallon
highly explosive liquefied petroleum gas storage facility located on the precipice of the port and the literal doorsteps of
homes, schools, children’s ball fields, shopping centers and busy traffic corridors. However, discovery…just today of a
“non-disclosed seismic report” has radically amplified their concerns
The attached report states:
“The Wilmington blind thrust fault may represent one of the largest deterministic seismic hazards in the United States, in that
it extends for more than 30 km along strike beneath the densely populated Los Angeles metropolitan area and the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. The fault has been known for decades (it underlies one of the largest oil fields in southern
California), but is not currently included in earthquake hazard assessments.”
F-1
2
Please read the attached documents to understand the study findings in 2017-2018 that underscore the high danger from this
undisclosed earthquake fault in the Harbor area affecting a multitude of hazardous operations within the area and at the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach.
*This information has been withheld from the public for far too long!
For decades, our residents have pleaded for intervention by the SLC for action on the mismanagement of the City & Port
of Los Angeles in their uses of public trust lands servicing a “private” and highly explosive 25 Million Gallon liquefied
petroleum gas storage facility (propane and butane) that sits in the “only” acknowledged “earthquake rupture zone” in the
Los Angeles harbor area. This facility is now owned by Plains All American Pipeline (criminally convicted for the Santa
Barbara oil spill) and lies within 150 ft. of the active Palos Verdes Fault (mag. 7.3) on land designated as “liquefaction and
landslide zones”. EACH 12.5 million gallon butane gas tank has a blast radius (using the EPA formula for “flammables”)
of over 3 miles! The City and Port of Los Angeles have never conducted a comprehensive risk analysis of this facility, nor
of its rail and pipeline transport that endangers residents, schools, shops, traffic corridors and children’s sports fields
located within 1,000 to 1,300 feet from the tanks and its rail line. The port of Los Angeles itself, with its own highly
explosive marine oil terminals are located within a scant ¼ mile of the site. Having acknowledged the danger of the
facility, the City of LA approved over 600 new homes being currently being constructed in the shadow of those tanks.
*As of this evening, our residents are now confronted with the news of the “Wilmington Fault” and its incredible
vulnerability to the entire region!
The complexion of this already grave issue has now taken a major turn for the worse!
For info: Jesse Marquez: Coalition for a Safe Environment (310) 590-0177
Janet Gunter: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC. (310) 251-7075
F-2
1
Southern California Earthquake Center
www.scec.org
GeoScienceWorld
geosiceneworld.org
The Wilmington Blind-Thrust Fault: An active, concealed earthquake source
beneath Los Angeles, CA.
Poster Presentation at July 27, 2018 SCEC Annual Meeting.
Wolfe, F. D., Shaw, J. H., Plesch, A., Ponti, D. J., Dolan, J. F., & Legg, M. R. (2018, 07).
Analysis of 2D and 3D offshore seismic reflection profiles, petroleum and water wells, and recent
mapping of groundwater aquifers in the southwestern Los Angeles basin indicate that the Wilmington
blind-thrust fault is tectonically active and capable of generating large, damaging earthquakes. This
overturns the long-held view that the fault became dormant in the Late Pliocene, barring its inclusion
in state-of-the-art regional earthquake hazard assessments. The size of the fault suggests that it is
capable of generating moderate-magnitude earthquakes (M 6.2-6.3), while potential linkages with
other nearby faults (e.g., Huntington Beach, Torrance, Compton) pose the threat of larger, multi -
segment events (M > 7). These earthquakes would directly impact the Por ts of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, as well as the broader Los Angeles metropolitan area.
F-3
2
Southern California Earthquake Center
www.scec.org
Activity and earthquake potential of the Wilmington blind thrust, Los Angeles,
CA: The largest earthquake source not on current southern California hazard
maps?.
Poster Presentation at August 15, 2017 SCEC Annual Meeting. SCEC Contribution 7772
Wolfe, F. D., Dolan, J. F., Plesch, A., & Shaw, J. H. (2017, 08).
Abstract
The Wilmington blind thrust fault may represent one of the largest deterministic seismic hazards in the United
States, in that it extends for more than 30 km along strike beneath the densely populated Los Angeles
metropolitan area and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The fault has been known for decades (it
underlies one of the largest oil fields in southern California), but is not currently included in earthquake hazard
assessments. This reflects a long-held view that the fault became tectonically inactive in the late Pliocene.
However, offshore 3D seismic reflection data and recent mapping of aquifers in the southwestern Los Angeles
basin (Ponti et al., 2007) suggest that Late Quaternary strata are folded and uplifted above this structure.
In this study, we used 2- and 3-D geophysical surveys, well data, and modeling techniques to define the
geometry and displacement history of the Wilmington fault. This analysis suggests that the overlying
Wilmington anticline is a fault propagation fold with a steep forelimb that is constrained by well picks and dip
meter logs. The fault dips ~48-52° NE, and has ~1200-1400m of reverse offset. Footwall ties from the adjacent
seismic surveys in the Inner Borderlands and associated wells show an upward decreasing displacement of
Miocene and Pliocene units along the fault. Lastly, forward and inverse modeling tools were employed to
develop balanced and retro-deformable cross sections that are consistent with these findings and suggest the
fault tip does not reach the surface (i.e., the structure is blind).
Mapping of shallow aquifers and axial surfaces on the forelimb of the Wilmington anticline within the Los
Angeles Harbor and San Pedro Shelf region clearly demonstrate that folding above the tipline of the
Wilmington blind-thrust uplifts and deforms Quaternary strata. The youngest of these strata thin onto the crest
of the Wilmington anticline, implying they were deposited syn -tectonically. This suggests that reactivation
occurred at ~450ka and has continued in recent times (youngest unit resolvable is ~30ka).
Results of this study will directly contribute to the improvement of regional earthquake hazard assessments and
shaking hazard maps by defining how the Wilmington thrust should be considered in such analyses.
Representations of the Wilmington blind-thrust fault will also be incorporated into the SCEC CFM, California
Reference Fault Parameter Database, and the USGS Fault and Fold database.
F-4
1
Megan Barnes
From:Doug Willmore
Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 3:34 PM
To:CC
Subject:FW: Rancho LPG Facility
Attachments:Attorney General Letter_CSLC-Rancho LPG.pdf; Surface Transportation Board (STB)
decision against SPPHU.pdf; LAFD-CUPA Seismic Inspection Report.pdf; LA City
Attorney 05-31-2012.pdf; Activist Blast Radius Claims for Rancho-Janet Gunter.pdf;
State Land Commission-Rancho EPA RMP Validation.pdf; HR Bill 6489.pdf; Letter from
CSFM 2.pdf
Importance:High
From: Ron Conrow <Ron.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 2:51 PM
To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Rancho LPG Facility
Importance: High
Dear City Manager Willmore,
Please know that Rancho LPG is disappointed in the letter dated August 30, 2019 from Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Jerry
Duhovic to Congresswoman Nanette Barragan concerning the relocation of the Rancho LPG facility located at 2110
North Gaffey Street in San Pedro, CA. As you are aware, Congresswoman Barragan sponsored the attached HR Bill 6489
with regards to establishing a grant program for the relocation of certain petroleum storage facilities. It appears this HR
Bill if passed would be voluntary by application to the Secretary of Transportation and grant amounts may be only used
for activities related to a qualifying LPG storage facility. For the record, the Rancho LPG facility is on private property not
on land owned by the City of Los Angeles or the Port of LA. Moreover, the HR Bill has appropriations for $500,000,000
of which only 50% can be used to facilitate any activity. To relocate the entire footprint of the Rancho facility, including
purchasing new property, dismantling all equipment, purchasing like new equipment, installation of pipeline(s) to
refineries, and full remediation of the existing site would easily consume the allocated funds for the
activity. Furthermore, given the core activists long standing anti‐Rancho rhetoric, be assured they will then coalesce
with other NIMBY’s by attempting to block any required permits and CEQA Environmental Impact Report for a new
relocated facility. Finally, in discussions with my local Congressman Kevin McCarthy, given the issue of funding, it is
unlikely it would pass even in the Democratic House of Representatives even so the HR Bill is dead on arrival in the
Republican controlled Senate. The opinion of our well informed DC lobbyists is that regardless of the make‐up of
Congress, should President Donald Trump be re‐elected in 2020 he would never sign such legislation.
It should be mentioned that Rancho is not the only facility in the greater Harbor Area that stores LPG within 5‐miles of a
populated area, home, or school. This fact is easy to confirm by simply visiting the Certified Unified Program Agency at
the City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD/CUPA) located at 200 North Main Street, 16th Floor in Downtown
LA. There any citizen can view the Risk Management Plan (RMP) for any facility in California to find out the type and
amount of hazardous materials onsite including with the “worst case” blast radius scenario and how many residents
would be impacted. This might be an eye‐opening experience for RPV City Council members and staff. I would welcome
the opportunity to accompany any of you to LAFD/CUPA and review all harbor area hazardous facility RMP’s with you.
As mentioned several times by Councilmember Susan Brooks during recent RPV City Council meetings it appears the
activists and now the City Council is “singling on the fat kid”…in this case Rancho. Rancho’s RMP as mandated by law is
G-1
2
on file for public review and the EPA vetted ‘worst case” scenario will clearly show not one RPV resident including
Eastview is within the blast radius. From a public perspective viewpoint it may be prudent for the RPV City Council and
staff to find out which facilities do in fact impact your constituents.
Most disappointing of all is the fact that over the years some RPV City Council members have yielded to the ongoing
untruths from activists like Noel Weiss and Janet Gunter. It should be noted that both of these individuals have a history
of knowingly disseminating false information about the Rancho facility. I have on numerous occasions resisted the
impulse to refute these claims during your ‘public comments” period. Instead I have elected to send several letters to
you to correct numerous false claims. My correspondence always contains supporting documentation from city, state, or
federal regulatory or legal authorities with oversight over the facility which clearly refutes the activists
allegations. While we support first amendment rights and understand public comments under the Brown Act, it is hard
to imagine the RPV City Council would give Weiss and Gunter any credibility by writing a letter to Congresswoman
Barragan.
Concerning Noel Weiss’ ongoing allegations that Rancho and the rail spur servicing the Rancho facility is on public trust
lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission attached is a the letter from the State Attorney General
Xavier Bercerra dated February 20, 2018. Both Weiss and Gunter received a copy of this letter during a State Lands
Commission meeting held in RPV on February 27, 2018. The following is a summation of the attached letter:
1. Neither the Rancho LPG facility, nor the rail spur that serves it, falls within the Commission's direct jurisdiction
over ungranted tidelands under Public Resources Code section 6301. As a result, the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to take direct administrative action to address safety concerns about these facilities.
2. That the Commission has no jurisdiction to take direct administrative action concerning the Rancho LPG facility or
the Port owned rail spur.
Clearly the facility is located on private property, not on land under the Commission's jurisdiction or on land
under the Port's jurisdiction.
Additionally, In 2016, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) considered a petition from The San Pedro Peninsula
Homeowners United (SPPHU) requesting a declaratory order against the Port for issuing the Rancho Permit without
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Furthermore, in the attached decision dated March 06, 2017 the STB ruled that it had exclusive jurisdiction over the
regulation of rail transportation pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of
1995.8. The STB noted that federal law broadly preempted state and local regulation to avoid interference with
interstate commerce. The ruling acknowledged that state and local entities retained police powers to protect public
health and safety. The STB Decision also acknowledged that any exercised police power must be exercised in a way that
(1) is nondiscriminatory and generally applied; and (2) does not unreasonably interfere with rail transportation1.1 In
summary, the STB found:
1. The railroad spur track is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB.
2. PHL is a common carrier, subject to STB's jurisdiction.
3. Common carriers such as PHL have an obligation to transport hazardous materials.
4. Any terms in Port permits attempting to restrict the transportation of hazardous materials are preempted by
federal law.
It should be noted that both Weiss and Gunter were party to the SPPHU petition to the STB and thus aware of the
decision.
Prior to State Lands and STB legal rulings, the Los Angeles City Attorney findings from the attached letter dated May 31,
2012 are as follows:
The City Attorney's Office finds that the Harbor Department has contractual authority to terminate RP No. 10‐05
pursuant to paragraph 3 of RP No. 10‐05. Termination of RP No. 10‐05 would result in a loss of insurance,
indemnification, and rents to the Harbor Department that are provided under RP No. 10‐05. Moreover, termination of
RP No. 10‐05 would not terminate rail service to Rancho as such service would continue to be provided by PHL pursuant
to the San Pedro Bay Harbor Rail Operating Permit (Permit No. 1989). The City Attorney's Office has
G-2
3
reviewed and analyzed the relevant legal authorities and has found that the Harbor Department is not authorized to
abandon or discontinue the railroad spur track that is the subject of RP No. 10‐05. Abandonment or discontinuance of
the railroad spur track that serves Rancho requires the approval of the STB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such
matters.
Over the years, local activists (primarily Janet Gunter) have stated numerous false blast radius estimates emanating from
the Rancho facility illustrating cataclysmic disasters in order to propagate fear‐mongering within the
community. Therefore, it is our ambition to present facts about what is the “worst case” scenario that can occur at the
Rancho facility based upon the applicable law and regulatory program governing offsite consequence events versus
erroneous claims broadcasted by activists. The following is a sample of Ms. Gunter’s claims.
Minutes attached from the November 25, 2014 Green Committee meeting indicate Janet Gunter stated, “A recent
private risk analysis estimates a 10‐mile blast radius” emanating from the Rancho facility. To my knowledge, the
Sustainability Committee, the NWSPNC Board, or Rancho has been provided with this analysis for review? Also,
attached are activist memos stating alleged blast radius estimates emanating from the Rancho facility such as: 3.0 miles
(October 14, 2013), 6.0 miles (November 03, 2013), and 6.8 miles (July 8, 2013 flyer). Confusing, but what is the correct
answer…none of the above!
The governing regulation for “worst‐case” scenarios related to offsite consequences is the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 40CFR68. This regulation was passed by the United States Congress in 1990 under the authority of section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act, the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and requires facilities that produce, handle,
process, distribute, or store certain chemicals to develop a Risk Management Program, prepare a Risk Management Plan
(RMP), and submit the RMP to EPA. According to the EPA website, approximately 12,800 businesses are subject to this
regulation. An essential requirement in this regulation mandates these covered facilities include a “worst case” release
analysis for any potential offsite consequence event. Using specific standards, methodologies, and software mandated
by EPA 40CFR68, Rancho LPG’s RMP “worst‐case” model assumes a complete release of one tank of refrigerated butane
into a passive mitigation system with an ensuing vapor cloud explosion at a 1.0 psi overpressure to endpoint.
Chapter 4 of 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.” The RMP Guidance further states, “Vapor cloud
explosions are also unlikely events; in an actual release, the flammable gas or vapor released to air might disperse
without ignition, or it might burn instead of exploding, with more limited consequences”.
Attached is legal validation from EPA Region 9 Attorney Andrew Helmlinger and Plains third party legal counsel Cliff Mc
Farland dated December 10, 2013. EPA Attorney Helmlinger clearly states the EPA has in fact calculated Rancho's RMP
“to be 0.5 miles and not 3.0 miles as Ms. Gunter asserts“ based upon the EPA regulatory formula.
Attached from the State Lands Commission Staff Report dated 08/17/2017 item #80 illustrates that activists again
petitioned the EPA concerning the accuracy of Rancho’s RMP “worst case” scenario and again EPA validated Rancho’s
RMP. “As part of a risk management program, Rancho LPG is required to submit an Offsite Consequence Area
determination or "OCA" which must be calculated based on federal regulations to show the area around the facility that
would be impacted in the event of an accidental chemical release, before the chemical dissipated. This calculation is used
to determine what schools should be notified and which emergency response agencies Rancho LPG should coordinate
with in responding to incidents. In May 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a petition from
community members requesting a re‐examination of the risks associated with the Rancho LPG facility requiring Rancho
LPG's parent company to resubmit Rancho LPG's OCA, colloquially referred to as its "blast radius". EPA staff have
confirmed that it has completed review of this petition and has confirmed that Rancho LPG's OCA or blast radius was
accurately calculated at approximately .5 miles, according to governing federal regulations. EPA staff noted that the
Rancho LPG facility's OCA is reduced due to the presence of a passive mitigation system, in the form of a large pit, that
would collect most of the butane in the event one of the larger tanks failed. EPA staff also noted that the facility is safer
G-3
4
than many other butane storage facilities because the butane is refrigerated and is not stored under pressure”. 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
our “worst case” scenario as being “to the letter of the law”.
In closing, it should be noted that the Facility is located in Congressman Ted Lieu’s 33rd District and not Congresswoman
Barragan’s 44th District. Contrary to Janet Gunter’s “late correspondence” letter Maegan Barnes, Congressman Lieu has
not been absent on the Rancho issue. In fact, in 2013 at RPV residents urging, Lieu wrote a letter requesting the State
Fire Marshall (SFM) investigate the facility and render a decision with regards to its safety and compliance. The
subsequent attached letter from the SFM clearly stated the office had in fact inspected the facility and found it was in
compliance and had “no safety violations”. Later, Lieu toured the Rancho facility and acquired numerous
audit/inspection documents from regulators and legal authorities. Additionally, Rancho keeps both Councilman Buscaino
and Congressman Lieu informed as to regulatory inspections of the facility. Lastly, Rancho’s legal, government affairs
consultant and I have in the past been to Washington, D.C. to meet with Congressman Lieu and to provide an update on
the facility.
Most likely, the activists will bring up the issue concerning the Wilmington Thrust Fault and related it to Rancho. Since
1998 Rancho and all California businesses (approximately 898) with threshold amounts of regulated chemicals onsite are
to submit a seismic assessment and revalidation every 5‐years under the California Accidental Release Prevention
(CalARP) Program. CalARP’s must be performed by a third party Civil Engineer registered by the State of
California. Rancho’s last CalARP seismic assessment was submitted in 2014 with the 5‐year revalidation due in Q4 of
2019. The seismic parameters typically change every 5‐years based upon the latest California Building Code (CBC) and
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE/SEI‐7) as mandated by the State. The Rancho facility was compliant with the
2014 parameters and expects compliance with 2019 standards as well given there are only minor changes. The
Maximum Considered Event (MCE) is associated with an earthquake on the nearby Palos Verdes fault is 7.3. New data
for the Wilmington Thrust Fault indicates a potential earthquake at 6.3‐6.4 range at intervals of every 3200‐4700
years. Therefore, despite impending activist hysteria about the Wilmington fault, it cannot produce an MCE greater
than for the nearby Palos Verdes Fault and thus will not impact Rancho’s CalARP.
In the future, I trust that RPV City Council members and staff would contact me concerning any issues or questions
related to the Rancho LPG facility. Unlike the activists, I will provide the correct response with supporting
documentation. Please share this correspondence with the RPV City Council members and legal counsel.
Regards,
Ron Conrow | District Manager, US LPG West
Plains LPG Services L.P. | 19430 Beech Avenue | Shafter, CA 93263
P: 661.368.7917 | C: 661.319.9978 | F: 661.746.4037
www.plainsmidstream.com
From: Ron Conrow
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'Jennifer.Lucchesi@slc.ca.gov'
Subject: Rancho LPG Facility
Dear Ms. Lucchesi,
Recently I received notice of the next California State Lands Commission (CSLC) meeting will be held on August 23, 2019
at the Sheraton Gateway Los Angeles Hotel. Even though the Rancho LPG Facility is not on the Agenda, we expect Janet
Gunter of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United (SPPHU) will exercise her first amendment right to use the
“Public Comments” segment to bash the facility and knowingly spread inaccurate information concerning the facility.
G-4
5
As you are aware, the Rancho Facility has been on the CSLC Agenda on numerous occasions since 2014 with the last time
being August 17, 2017. At that meeting CSLC opted to request a legal advice from the Californian State Attorney General
with regards to the CSLC’s legal basis for taking direct administrative action concerning either the Rancho LPG facility or
the Port‐owned rail spur that serves the facility. In summary the Attorney General ruled as follows in the attached letter
dated February 20, 2018:
1. Neither the Rancho LPG facility, nor the rail spur that serves it, falls within the Commission's direct jurisdiction
over ungranted tidelands under Public Resources Code section 6301. As a result, the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to take direct administrative action to address safety concerns about these facilities.
2. That the Commission has no jurisdiction to take direct administrative action concerning the Rancho LPG facility or
the Port owned rail spur.
Clearly the facility is located on private property, not on land under the Commission's jurisdiction or on land
under the Port's jurisdiction.
Additionally, In 2016, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) considered a petition from The San Pedro Peninsula
Homeowners United (SPPHU) requesting a declaratory order against the Port for issuing the Rancho Permit without
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
In a decision dated March 06, 2017 the STB ruled that it had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of rail
transportation pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995.8. The STB
noted that federal law broadly preempted state and local regulation to avoid interference with interstate commerce.
The ruling acknowledged that state and local entities retained police powers to protect public health and safety. The STB
Decision also acknowledged that any exercised police power must be exercised in a way that (1) is nondiscriminatory
and generally applied; and (2) does not unreasonably interfere with rail transportation1.1 In summary, the STB found:
1. The railroad spur track is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB.
2. PHL is a common carrier, subject to STB's jurisdiction.
3. Common carriers such as PHL have an obligation to transport hazardous materials.
4. Any terms in Port permits attempting to restrict the transportation of hazardous materials are preempted by
federal law.
Moreover, on page 6 (Item 80) of the CSLC Staff Report dated 08/17/2017 stated the following. “As part of a risk
management program, Rancho LPG is required to submit an Offsite Consequence Area determination or "OCA" which
must be calculated based on federal regulations to show the area around the facility that would be impacted in the
event of an accidental chemical release, before the chemical dissipated. This calculation is used to determine what
schools should be notified and which emergency response agencies Rancho LPG should coordinate with in responding to
incidents. In May 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a petition from community members
requesting a re‐examination of the risks associated with the Rancho LPG facility requiring Rancho LPG's parent company
to resubmit Rancho LPG's OCA, colloquially referred to as its "blast radius". EPA staff have confirmed that it has
completed review of this petition and has confirmed that Rancho LPG's OCA or blast radius was accurately calculated
at approximately .5 miles, according to governing federal regulations. EPA staff noted that the Rancho LPG facility's
OCA is reduced due to the presence of a passive mitigation system, in the form of a large pit, that would collect most of
the butane in the event one of the larger tanks failed. EPA staff also noted that the facility is safer than many other
butane storage facilities because the butane is refrigerated and is not stored under pressure. Staff has not been able to
locate information estimating a blast radius for a rail car carrying this type of product in this location”.
Since 1998, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 19 Division 2 Chapter 4.5 has mandated seismic assessments be
conducted on hazardous facilities under the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program. The objective
of the State’s CalARP program is to provide reasonable assurance Regulated Substances (RS) would not be spilled due to
a seismic event. The regulation also mandates that a seismic revalidation be performed every 5‐years. In 2009, Rancho
hired a third party expert consultant to perform the seismic assessment and issue the Report as required. Rancho’s
CalARP assessment was conducted using mandated standards contained in the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) and
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7‐05, which stipulate seismic capacities of equipment to be expressed in
G-5
6
terms of peak ground acceleration (pga). On page 2‐2 the Report concluded, “Based upon these results, the tanks are
shown not to fail when subjected to the CalARP specified seismic hazard”. Rancho CalARP was audited by the Los Angeles
Fire Department/Certified Uniform Program Agency LAFD/CUPA in August 2011 with “No Notices of Violation (NOV’s)
issued”. The SPPHU has a copy of Rancho’s CalARP via EPA FOIA.
With regards to seismic compliance, n 2014, Rancho’s 5‐year CalARP seismic revalidation was performed by certified
state third party civil engineering firm using the mandated revised standards contained in the CBC 2013 and ASCE 7‐10
codes. Subsequently, on 07/11/ 2017, the (LAFD/CUPA) conducted its mandated 3‐year CalARP seismic inspection of the
Rancho Facility. Rancho is pleased to report the attached inspection report shows that “no Notices of Violation (NOV’s)
were received”.
Therefore, any statements made by Janet Gunter or associates concerning CSLC or STB jurisdiction over the Rancho
facility or rail spur track contrary to the State Attorney General ruling or Surface Transportation Board decision is
erroneous. Likewise, any catastrophic blast radius claim other than the 0.5 miles as calculated/confirmed by the EPA
(the governing federal agency) is fictitious. Lastly, any allegation that the large refrigerated butane tanks at Rancho
would not withstand the Maximum Credible Event (MCE) due to a seismic event is false.
Due to a previous commitment, I will not be able to attend the CSLC meeting on 08/23/2019. However, please let me
know should you any questions concerning the Rancho LPG Facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street in San Pedro, CA.
Regards,
Ron Conrow | District Manager, US LPG West
Plains LPG Services L.P. | 19430 Beech Avenue | Shafter, CA 93263
P: 661.368.7917 | C: 661.319.9978 | F: 661.746.4037
www.plainsmidstream.com
G-6
G-7
XAVIER BECERRA
Attomey Oenernl .
State of Calffom /a
DEPARTMENT OF JUS11CE
300 SOU TH SPR ING STRE ET, SUITE 1702
LOS A~GBLES, CA 90013
Public: ~2 1 3~ 897-2000 Teleph one: 213 269-6376
Pacsimile: 213 897-28 01
E-Mail : Andrew.Vogel@doj .ca.gov
Attot·ney~Ciient Privileged Co mmuni catio n
Jennifer Lucchesi
Executive Officer
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sacl'amento, Cal ifornia 95825M8202
Dear Ms . Lucchesi:
February 20, 20 18
This letter concerns a· butane and propane storage faci li ty that Rancho LP G Ho ldings
LLC operates near the Port of Los Ang eles in San Pedro, Cali fomia and a nearby railroad spur
located on prop erty that the Port ow ns. Rancho LPG trans ports products to and from its
facility over thi s ra il sp ur. Members of th e public hav e raised safety conce rns about the facility
and its operations.
On beha lf of the California State Lands Commission, you ha ve reques ted this office 's
leg al adv ice concern ing wheth er the Commi ss ion has a .l ega l basis for taking direc t
administrative action conce rnin g either the Rancho LP G faci lity or the Port-owned ra il spur
th at serves it. Co mmi ss ion staff previous ly concluded tha t neither fa t Is within th e
Commissio n's direct jurisdiction over ungranted tidelands. (See Comm ission Meeting
Calend ar Items dated June 19, 20 14 (no. 91 ), Oc tober 14 , 2014 (no . l 09), August 17, 20 17
(no . 80).) For the reasons di scussed below, our opinion is that Commissio n statr correctly so
conc luded.
As background, Ca lifornia acquired title to all tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds
of all in land nav igab le wate rs within its borders as an incident of its sovere ign ty when it was
admitted to the Union on September 9, 1850. (See, e.g., Oregon ex rei. State Board v.
Corvallls Sand & Gravel Co. (1977) 429 U.S. 363, 373~374; M.arks v. Whitney (1971)
6 Cal. 3d 25 1, 258; acco rd, Na ti onal Audubon Society v. Super io r Court ( l 983) 33 Cal. 3d 419,
434; Citizens for Eas t Sho re Paries v. Cal. State Lands Com. (201 J ) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 570;
Pub . Resources Code, § 6009, sub d. (a).) T id elands are those la nds lyin g between the lines of
mean hi gh tide and mean low tide . Lands seaward of the line of mean low tide are submerged
lands. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (l970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 478, n. 13.) The State owns these
tid elands and submerged land s as a trustee fo r, and the public hold s an ease ment over thes e
lands fol', statewide public purposes. (Citi zens for East Sho re Parkv v. Ca l. Star e Lands Com .,
supra, 202 Ca l.App .4th at p. 570; Pub. Resources Code, § 6009, subd . (a).) The Legislature
G-8
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
Jem1ifer Lucchesi
February 20,2018
Page 2
has delegated to the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over a ll State-owned tidelands and
submerged lands . (Pub. Reso urces Code, § 6301.)
The common law public trust doctrine traditionally defined these publi c trust uses as
water-related commerce, navigation, and fishing. (Marks v. Whitney, supra, 6 Cal.3 d at p. 259;
Pub. Resources Code,§ 6009, subd. (a).) Califomia comis have since recognized bathing,
sw imming, boatin g, and other recreational purposes, as well as preservation of public trust
land s in their natural state for scen ic, scientific study, open space, and habitat values, a~
additional public trust uses. (Marks v. Whitney, supr,a, 6 Ca1.3d at p. 259.; National Audubon
Society v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at pp. 434-435.) California law entrusts
administration of the public trust to the Legislature. (County of Orange v. Heim
(1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 694, 707-708.)
The Legislature may grant tidelands and submerg ed lands in trus t to local entities.
Granted lands rem ain subject to State supervision. Under such grants, the State acts as both the
trustor and the representative of the people, the people are the trust beneficiaries, and the local
grantee acts as trustee. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 6009.1, subds. (a), (b).) Grantees must
manage granted lands in a manner "consistent with the terms and the obligations of their grants
and the public trust ... " (Pub. Resources Code,§ 6009, subd. (d).) As a result, grantees may
ne ither use state-granted lands fot: non-trust purposes nor apply revenues generated by 's uch
lands for non-trust purposes. (Mallon v. City of Long Beach (1955) 44 Ca1.2d 199, 209~211;
City of Long Beach v. Morse (1947) 31 Cal .2d 254, 257-258; Pub . Resources Co de,§ 6009.1,
subd. (c)(7).)
A legislative grant of sovereign rands does not place the lands beyond the State's
supervis ion. Instead, th e State has a continuing duty to protect the public trust on behalf of all
of the people of California. (Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 452-453;
City of Coronado v. San Diego Unified Port Dtst. (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 455, 474.) The
Legislature has delegated to the Commission al l juri sdiction tl~at remains in the State as to
granted tidelands and subme rged lands. (Pub. Resources Code, § 630 1.)
The facts here, as Commissio n staff have explained them to us, are as tallows: 1 In 191 1,
the Le gis lature granted certain filled and unfilled sovereign pub lic trus t lands to the City of Los
Angeles. (Stats . 1911 , chap. 651, as amended.) Underthe City's charter, the Port of Los
Angeles, acting through its Board of Harbor Commissioners, manages the Cily's granted lands
Jocated within the Port. The Legislature made this grant for the "establishment, improvement
and conduct of a harbor, and fot· the construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves,
docks, piers, slips, qu ays and other util ities, structures and appliances necessary or convenient
for the promotion and acco mmodation of commerce and navigation ... " (I d. at§ t (a).)
1 Our office has not independently researched th ese facts or per tinent underlyi ng pu blic record s,
nor has the Commission requested us to do so.
G-9
Attorney-C li ent Privil eged Comm unication
Jennifer Lucchesi
Febru ary 20, 20 L8
Page 3
The Rancho LPG butane and propane storage facility is located on private property in
San Pedro, not on sovereign lands granted to the P011 . In I 994, the Port purchased a 20-foot
rai I ro ad sp ur and the land underlying it us in g trust revenues ge ner ate d by th e Port's ope rations
on its separate grant ed land s. Like the Ran cho LPG facility, the rai lro ad spur do es not lie within
the bound ari es of sovereign tide and subme rged lan ds granted to the Por t. The sp ur is a separate
real property asset that the Port owns. Rancho LPG operates the ra il spur under a perm it the Port
issue d to it in 20 11, as a successor permi t to one the Port issued in 1974 to Rancho LPG 's
predecessor. Butane, wh ich is a byp rodtl Ct of refined petroleum (and some of which is refined
nearby), is tran sported to an d from Rancho LPG 's fac ility by rail to the Pacifi c Harbor Line.
Based on these facts, our advice-like Co mmission staff's concl us ion -is tha t neither the
Rancho LPG facility, nor the ra il spur that ser ves it , falls withi n the Co mm ission 's direct
j urisdiction over ungranted tidelands und er Public Resources Code secti on 6301. As a result, the
Commission lacks jurisdiction to take direct administrative action to add ress safety concern s
abo ut these fac ilities.
In stead , the Co mm ission's j uri sdicti on in thi s case wou ld be limited to that which it
exerc ises in a s upe rvisory capacity-as trustor tmd representative of the people -over a gran tee's
use of revenues from public trus t lands . The Port here acq uir ed th e land und er th e rail spur with
revenues generated by operations on the Port's separate granted lands. As di scussed above, th e
Port mu st ma nage granted lands subject to th e public trust and the terms of its grant. Under the
auth ori ties cited above, grantees like the Port can not use revenu es ge nera ted by granted land s for
non-p ub li c trust purposes. (See Mallon v. City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach v. Morse,
supra.) The Comm iss ion has previous ly taken the position in exe rcising its supervisory
juris di ctio n th at private lands acquired with trust revenues become assets of the trust created by
the statutory grant. (See Commission Meetin g Ca lendar Items dated October 16, 2008 (no. 60 ),
December 2, 2013 (no . 1 14), June 19,2014 (no . 91), Octob er 14,2014 (n o. 109), Fe bruary 20 ,
2015 (no. 98), August 17, 2017 (no. 80); see also Stipu lation for En try of Jud gment, dated
February 2, 2005· in People oft he State of California ex rei. Lockyer, eta!. v. 111e City of
Oakland, et at., Alameda County Sup erio r Court case no. RGOS 196720 .) As a res ul t, grantees
are required to manage such lands in acco rd with the grant's terms and the public tmst.
The Com mission's remedies for addressing a non -tru st use of reve nu es generated by
granted land s, if it occurs , do not includ e direc t administrativ e action by the Com mi ss ion.
Rather, the Comm ission has two options fOI' how to proceed.
Fir st, th e Commission is empowered to institute litigation aga ins t a grantee li ke the Port
for violating the terms of a gra nt or its fiduciary duties. The Commission has not asked us for
our legal advice on the likelihood that s uch litigation would succeed . An ana lysis of that
question is th ere fore beyond th e scope of this letter. But we offe r a genera l observation. The
public trus t doctrine perm it s uses that do not by th emselves qualify as recognized pub lic tru st
uses, as long as they are in cidental to, or St1pp01t, recognized publ ic trust uses. (People v. City of
Long Beach (1959) 51 Cal.2d 875, 879 -880; Haggerty v. City of Oakland (1958)
G-10
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
Jennifer Lucchesi
February 20, 20 l8
Page4
l 6 1 Ca l.App.2 d 407 , 413-4 14 .) In connection with the Port in par ticular, the Com miss ion has
previo usly recognized uses such as the operat ion of a marine mu seum and a freezer warehouse as
uses that fu rth er waterborne co mmerce and navi gat ion and thus comport wi th the State's grant to
the Port and with the public tru st. (See Calenda r Items dated Octob er 28, 1976 (no. 22),
February 28, 1985. (no. 23).) Here, Rancho LPG transports bu tane us ing th e rail spur. Butane is
a byproduct of petroleum refineries that operate nearb y. The proce ss ing of oil brot1ght into
Ca liforn ia's po rts fo r refinemen t supports waterborne nav igation and commerce. Transporting .
by products of such refinement for storage could arguab ly so qualify as well.
Second, if. the C~:11nmi ssio n cannot prove a pu bli c trust violation, it s only ot her recourse to
challen ge the Port 's operatio n of the rai l spur would be to repor t the Port's act ivi ties to the
Legislature. In that case, the Legislature would be empowered to revoke or amend the 1911
granting ~tatute. Assess ing the likelihood of th e Leg islature do ing so is beyond the scope of this
letter. But suffice it to say that the Co mmi ss ion would have no present power to take di rect
adm inistrative action to address the rail spur while the Legis lature assesses the appropriate path
forward (assum ing the Legislature takes up this question in the first place).
Therefore, fo r the re asons discussed abov e, o ur ad vice is that th e Co nuni ssi on has no
jurisdiction to tak e direct adm inistrative action co ncern ing the Rancho LPG facility or the Port-
owned rail spur. We appreciate the opport unit y to provide thi s Jett~r to yo u. P lease let us know
if you have any qu est ions.
Depu ty Attorney General
For XAVIER BECERRA
Atto rn ey Ge neral
45603 SERVICE DATE – MARCH 6, 2017
EB
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
DECISION
Docket No. FD 36065
SAN PEDRO PENINSULA HOMEOWNER’S UNITED INC., JOHN TOMMY ROSAS,
TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION—
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER
Digest:1 The Board denies the petition of San Pedro Peninsula Homeowner’s
United Inc. and John Tommy Rosas for a declaratory order regarding certain rail
movements associated with the Port of Los Angeles Harbor Department and
Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC, but provides guidance on application of federal
preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b).
Decided: March 3, 2017
On September 12, 2016, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowner’s United Inc. and John
Tommy Rosas, Tribal Administrator, Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation (collectively,
SPPHU), filed a petition requesting that the Board issue a declaratory order addressing a
“temporary rail permit” issued by the Port of Los Angeles Harbor Department to Rancho LPG
Holdings, LLC (Rancho LPG), a corporate affiliate and subsidiary of Plains All-America
Pipeline (Plains) (collectively, Rancho), which SPPHU states governs the use of a rail spur to
access a liquefied petroleum gas storage facility owned by Rancho LPG. SPPHU seeks a Board
finding regarding Rancho’s transportation of hazardous materials on the rail spur and whether a
permit was used without required state environmental review. (See SPPHU Pet. 1, 5.)
Letters in support of SPPHU’s petition were filed by Congresswoman Janice Hahn, on
October 25, 2016; San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners Coalition on October 28, 2016; and
June Burlingame Smith on October 28, 2016. Pacific Harbor Line, Inc. (PHL), and Rancho filed
replies to SPPHU’s petition on October 31, 2016.2 Also on October 31, 2016, the City of Los
Angeles (City), acting by and through the Board of Harbor Commissioners (Harbor
1 The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the
convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. Policy Statement
on Plain Language Digests in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
2 By decision served September 30, 2016, the deadline for replies to SPPHU’s petition
was extended to October 31, 2016.
G-11
Docket No. FD 36065
2
Department),3 replied to SPPHU’s petition, requesting clarification on its understanding that
federal preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) applies to actions taken by the Harbor
Department that affect rail transportation. Replies to City’s Reply were filed by SPPHU, PHL,
and Rancho. On December 7, 2016, SPPHU submitted a supplemental filing.4
For the reasons discussed below, the Board will deny SPPHU’s request for a declaratory
order but will provide guidance on the issue of § 10501(b) preemption.
BACKGROUND
Rancho LPG owns and operates a liquefied petroleum gas storage facility located in the
Port of Los Angeles area of San Pedro, Cal. The storage facility is used to store butane and
propane and includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks and five 60,000 gallon horizontal
storage tanks. (Rancho Reply 2, Oct. 31, 2016.) PHL provides rail service to the facility over
tracks owned by the City,5 including the subject track that was constructed by the original owner
of the facility (the Track). (City Reply 7.) The Track is now used by Rancho LPG, pursuant to a
permit, Revocable Permit No. 10-05 (RP 10-05), issued by the Harbor Department.6 Under the
terms of RP 10-05, “[Rancho LPG] may not handle, use, store, transport, transfer, receive or
dispose of, or allow to remain on the premises . . . any substance classified as a hazardous
material under any federal, state, local law or ordinance . . . in such quantities as would require
3 In its petition, SPPHU refers to the City and Harbor Department as “the Port of Los
Angeles.” For the purposes of this proceeding, the Board will refer to the Port of Los Angeles as
the Harbor Department.
4 Under 49 C.F.R. § 1104.13(c), a reply to a reply is not permitted. However, in the
interest of a more complete record, the Board will accept the November 8, 2016 and
December 7, 2016 filings of SPPHU and the November 21, 2016 filings of PHL and Rancho into
the record.
5 See Pac. Harbor Line, Inc.—Operation Exemption—Port of Los Angeles, FD 33411
(STB served Dec. 2, 1997); City of Los Angeles—Acquis. Exemption—Rail Lines of Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., FD 32427 (ICC served Jan. 12, 1994).
6 The petition pertains to track covered by a “Temporary Rail Permit” issued by the
Harbor Department to Rancho LPG. SPPHU cites “Revocable Rail Spur Permit No. 110”
(SPPHU Pet. 5, SPPHU Reply 2, Nov. 8, 2016), but the record contains no evidence of, or other
reference to, such a permit. However, SPPHU refers to a permit that has been extended for
42 years and attaches as an exhibit Revocable Permit No. 1212 (RP 1212), which was issued by
the Harbor Department in 1974 to Petrolane, Inc., a predecessor company to Rancho LPG, and
which governed the construction and use of the Track. The record shows that RP 10-05 is a
successor to RP 1212 (SPPHU Pet., Ex. 3 at 2) and is the only existing contractual agreement
between the Harbor Department and Rancho LPG. (Id.; City Reply 7; Rancho Reply 3,
Nov. 21, 2016.) Both RP 1212 and RP 10-05 pertain to the Track, described in both permits as
“Parcel No. 1” depicted in Harbor Engineering Drawing No. 5-4327. Further, only RP 10-05
contains language governing the transportation of hazardous materials. Accordingly, the Board
will view RP 10-05 as the permit that pertains to the Track.
G-12
Docket No. FD 36065
3
the reporting of such activity to any person or agency having jurisdiction thereof without first
receiving written permission of City.” (City Reply, Ex. 5, City of Los Angeles Harbor
Department Revocable Permit No. 10-05, at 6.)
SPPHU contends that, in violation of the permit’s terms, Plains and Rancho LPG have
continually moved hazardous materials on the Track. (SPPHU Pet. 1.) SPPHU further asserts
that, by not submitting this “temporary” revocable permit to the Board “for a ruling,” the Harbor
Department and Rancho have evaded the duty to assess the risk of transporting hazardous
materials in a “Risk Management Plan” and through an updated California state Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).7 (Id. at 1, 2, 4, 5.) Thus, it appears that SPPHU is requesting that, because
the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the Track, the Board issue a declaratory order finding
that the transportation of hazardous materials over the Track “without an updated EIR” violates
the terms of the revocable permit. (See SPPHU Pet. 5.)
In its reply, Rancho asserts that SPPHU has failed to present a specific controversy for
the Board to resolve. (Rancho Reply 3-4, Oct. 31, 2016.) Both Rancho and PHL assert that the
Track is not subject to state or local environmental regulation because the Track is subject to the
Board’s exclusive jurisdiction. (Rancho Reply 4-5, Oct. 31, 2016; PHL Reply 2-4, Oct. 31,
2016.) The City likewise asserts that the Board has jurisdiction over the Track and that PHL, the
operator of the Track, is a common carrier. (City Reply 9.) The City seeks clarification on
whether it is therefore preempted from taking any action that would unreasonably interfere with
rail service, including terminating or suspending rail service to the facility, adding additional
regulation of rail tank cars that move product from the facility through the area beyond that
imposed by federal law, or taking any other action that would improperly burden interstate
commerce. (City Reply 10.)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board has discretionary authority under 5 U.S.C. § 554(e) and 49 U.S.C. § 1321 to
issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty. See Intercity Transp.,
Co. v. United States, 737 F.2d 103 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Delegation of Auth.—Declaratory Order
Proceedings, 5 I.C.C. 2d 675 (1989). For the reasons explained below, the Board will deny
SPPHU’s request for a declaratory order, but will provide guidance on the preemption issues that
are relevant to the circumstances presented here.
The Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, provides
that the Board's jurisdiction over “transportation by rail carriers” is “exclusive” and that “the
remedies provided under 49 U.S.C. §§ 10101-11908 with respect to regulation of rail
transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.”
49 U.S.C. § 10501(b); see Ass’n of Am. R.Rs. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 622 F.3d
1094, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2010). The primary purpose of § 10501(b)’s broad preemption
7 According to Exhibit 3 of SPPHU’s petition, an EIR is an Environmental Impact
Report, which, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is required for certain
state and local activities or construction. (SPPHU Pet., Ex. 3 at 1.)
G-13
Docket No. FD 36065
4
provision is to prevent a patchwork of state and local regulation from interfering with interstate
commerce. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-311, at 95-96 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 793,
807-08 (noting the need for “uniformity” of federal standards for railroads and the risk of
“balkanization” from state and local regulation). The preemptive effect of § 10501(b) is broad
and sweeping, and “‘[i]t is difficult to imagine a broader statement of Congress’s intent to
preempt state regulatory authority over railroad operations.’” City of Auburn v. United States,
154 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n,
944 F. Supp. 1573, 1581 (N.D. Ga. 1996)).
Courts and the Board have found that state or local actions that “‘have the effect of
managing or governing,’ and not merely incidentally affecting, rail transportation are expressly
or categorically preempted” under § 10501(b). Tex. Cent. Bus. Lines Corp. v. City of
Midlothian, 669 F.3d 525, 532 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Franks Inv. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R.,
593 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc)).8 Two broad categories of state and local actions
are subject to this per se form of preemption: (1) state or local permitting or preclearance
requirements (including environmental requirements generally) that could be used to deny a
railroad the ability to conduct some part of its operations or proceed with activities that the Board
has authorized; and (2) state or local regulation of matters that are directly regulated by the
Board—such as the construction, operation, and abandonment of rail lines (see 49 U.S.C.
§§ 10901-07); railroad mergers, line acquisitions, and other forms of consolidation (see
49 U.S.C. §§ 11321-28); and railroad rates and service (see 49 U.S.C. §§ 10501(b), 10701-47,
11101-24). Franks, 593 F.3d at 410-11; City of Auburn, 154 F.3d at 1027-31.
State or local actions that are not categorically preempted still may be preempted “as
applied” if they would have “the effect of unreasonably burdening or interfering with rail
transportation.” Franks, 593 F.3d at 414. This requires a fact-specific determination based on
the circumstances of each case. See Adrian & Blissfield R.R. v. Vill. of Blissfield, 550 F.3d 533,
540 (6th Cir. 2008). Preemption applies to attempted regulation of railroad operations and
facilities even where the Board does not license and/or actively regulate the activity involved.
See Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R.R., 518 F.3d 1186, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 2008); Green
Mountain R.R. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 2005).
Although preemption is broad, it is not unlimited. States and localities retain their police
powers to protect the public health and safety. Ass’n of Am. R.Rs., 622 F.3d at 1098; Green
Mountain, 404 F.3d at 643. Thus, nondiscriminatory regulations of general applicability (e.g.,
building, fire, and electrical codes) are not preempted, as long as they do not unreasonably
interfere with rail transportation. Id. Federal statutes, including environmental statutes and
statutes regulating hazardous materials by rail, are also given effect unless they irreconcilably
8 See also City of Auburn, 154 F.3d at 1027-31; DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC—Pet.
for Declaratory Order, FD 34914, slip op. at 5 (STB served June 27, 2007) (holding that CEQA
is preempted as it relates to a project within the Board’s jurisdiction); CSX Transp., Inc.—Pet.
for Declaratory Order, FD 34662, slip op. at 7 (STB served Mar. 14, 2005) (finding that
§ 10501(b) preempted a local act that sought to govern the transportation of hazardous materials
by rail through Washington, D.C.).
G-14
Docket No. FD 36065
5
conflict and cannot be harmonized with the Interstate Commerce Act. Ass’n of Am. R.Rs.,
622 F.3d at 1097; Tyrrell v. Norfolk S. Ry., 248 F.3d 517, 523 (6th Cir. 2001) (Federal Railway
Safety Act not preempted).
Here, it is uncontested that the track at issue is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Board under § 10501(b).9 (See SPPHU Pet. 1, 4; Rancho Reply 4, Oct. 31, 2016; PHL Reply 3,
Oct. 31, 2016; City Reply 7, 9.) It is also uncontested that PHL is a common carrier railroad
operating on track subject to the Board’s jurisdiction. As a result, state entities such as the City
and the Harbor Department are preempted from imposing requirements that could be used to
restrict these rail operations. The Board has also made clear that rail carriers have not only a
right, but a statutory common carrier obligation, to transport hazardous materials upon
reasonable request. See Union Pac. R.R.—Pet. for Declaratory Order, FD 35219, slip op. at 4
(STB served June 11, 2009); see also Strohmeyer—Acquis. & Operation Application—Valstir
Indus. Track in Middlesex & Union Ctys., N.J., FD 35527, slip op. at 2 (STB served Oct. 20,
2011), aff’d sub nom. Riffin v. STB, 733 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (upholding Board’s
determination that railroads have a common carrier obligation to carry hazardous materials).
Therefore, any terms in the temporary rail permit that attempt to restrict rail operations, including
the transportation of hazardous materials, are preempted.10 Lastly, SPPHU suggests that the
Harbor Department was required to submit the permit to the Board. However, while RP 10-05
pertains to track subject to the Board’s jurisdiction, the Harbor Department was not required to
submit the permit to the Board, as SPPHU suggests. (SPPHU Pet. 1.)
For these reasons, SPPHU’s request for a declaratory order is denied.
It is ordered:
1. SPPHU’s petition for declaratory order is denied.
9 SPPHU describes the track at issue as a “rail spur line.” The relevant permits also refer
to the track at issue as an “industrial rail spur track.” However, Rancho contends that the Track
is a line of railroad subject to entry and exit licensing under 49 U.S.C. § § 10901 and 10903, as
opposed to excepted spur track under 49 U.S.C. § 10906, by virtue of the Board’s having
authorized PHL to operate over the Track. (Rancho Reply 2-5, Nov. 21, 2016.) The Board has
jurisdiction over both railroad lines subject to Board licensing and excepted spur track.
49 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(2). Thus, federal preemption applies regardless of whether the track at
issue is a line of railroad or a spur under § 10906.
10 This does not leave the transport of hazardous materials over the Track unregulated.
Other federal agencies, including the Federal Railroad Administration, the Transportation
Security Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, have
statutory responsibilities to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials by rail, and that
regulation typically applies notwithstanding § 10501(b) preemption. See Tyrrell v. Norfolk S.
Ry., 248 F.3d at 523; Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&E W. Co., FD 35087 (Sub-No. 8), slip
op. at 7 (STB served May 15, 2015).
G-15
Docket No. FD 36065
6
2. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
G-16
G-17
T H E LOS ANGELES F I RE DEPARTMENT
CALARP PROGRAM FACILITY INSPECTIONS
Facility Name Last Inspection O u tstand ing Violation Las t Updated
Air Ltquide Industrial U.S. LP 12/ltt/2016 YES 12/16/2016
Air Products & Chemicals I NC 9/27/2016 NO 9/27/2016
Anheuser-Busch INC 5/24/2016 NO 9/1!./2016
Arctic Glacier USA Inc 3/3/2016 NO 10/6/2016
Aryzta/La Brea Bakery 1/17/2017 YES 2117/2017
City of LA -Hyperion Treatment 3;i0/2016 NO 3/10/2016
Dixon Hardchrome 3/22/2016 NO 11/9/2016
Glacier Cold Stora ge 9/29/2016 YES 9/29/2016
Harbor Cogeneration Company LLC t./21/2016 NO 11/4/2016
Huntsn1an Advanced Matenals /All" eric a 10/20/2016 NO 10/20/2016
ICPK/HPP Food SeNice 11/15/2016 YES 11/15/2016
JCI Jones G1emicals I NC \IVester n Div 9/20/2016 NO J/12/2017
Ktngs Hawaiian Bakery West 7/10/2018 YES 11/6/2018
Konoike Pacific Californ •a 7/25/2018 NO 11/6/2018
Konoike -E Street INC 7/11/2018 YES 11/6/2018
LA DWP-Aqueduct Fi ltration Plant 10/l/2018 NO 11/6/20 18
LA DWP -En ino Resevoir/Ch lorine 12/8/2016 NO 12/8/2016
LA DWP-G reen Verdugo Chlorinatio n 12/15/2016 NO 12/15/2016
LA DWP -Ha rbor Generatin g Statton 9/8/2016 NO J0/25/2016
LA DWP -Manhattan Pump St ation 5/16/2017 NO 11/6/2018
LA DWP -Nor th Hollywood Chlorine s S/3/2016 NO S/3/2016
LA DWP ·Santa Ynez Resevoi r 5/18/2017 NO 11/6/2018
LA DWP-Scattergood Generating STA 10/4/2016 NO 10/4/2016
LA DWP ·St one Canyon Chlorina tion 12/5/2017 NO 12/5/2017
LA DWP -TUJUnga Well Field Pumptng 11/17/2016 NO 11/17/2016
LA DWP · Valley Generating Station 10/18/2016 NO 10Mi20i6
Los Angeles Cold Sto• age Co 12/13/2016 YES l(J/2017
Los Angeles Re finery Wilmtngton PLT 2/11/2016 NO 2/)1i2016
M WD-Jensen Faci hty 8/23/2016 NO 9/22/2016
Preferred Freezer Servtces 5/31i2018 YES 11/6/2018
Rancho Cold Swrage 3/6/2018 NO ..:S/6/2018
Rancho LPG Holdtngs LLC 7/11/2017 NO 7/11/2017
Reyes Coca -Cola Bottling 4/13/2016 NO 11/6/2016
Shine Food INC 7/13/2017 NO 7/13/2017
Showa Marine 6/30/2016 NO 10/25/2016
Southern California Ice 7/7/2016 NO 10/21/2016
Sp ectolab I NC 4/12/2016 NO 10/21/2016
Synea r Foods USA 9/13/2017 NO 9/13/2017
Tesoro Reftni ng and Market rng Co 7/12/2016 NO 7/12/2016
Tr i-Marine Fis h Company 5/2'·/2018 YES 11/6/2018
Valero Asphal t P lant 9/12/2017 NO 9112/2017
Va lero Wi lminton Refir1ery 9/15/2016 NO 9/15/2016
This page provtde;; the most recent CaiARP Program inspection date and rnspection re su lts for CaiAQP P ro g r am only, fo r each fa cility,
performed by LAFD CU PA The page does not tnclude Other agencies or otl1 e r programs inspection results To request addi tional CaiARP
oubltc Informatio n data for LAFD, p lease re'er to the following Fact Sheet: RMP -Public Review Process and Pu blic Access to Information or
send email to: lAFDCaiARP@Iacity.org
W ithin 15 calendar days after the RMP is accepted as complete it is submitted for formal public revie·N and comment The public shall ll ave
45 ca lendar days to comment followrng the publtcation d ate of t he n otice LAFD CUPA shall take t ile publ•c con1ments 111to constdera tt on
during the evaluation revrew tha t follovvs the public review period
G-18
DATE: MAY 31 , 2012 PAGE60F6
SUBJECT: STAFF RESPONSE TO PCAC RECOMMENDATION N0.11 0
CITY ATTORNEY :
The City Attorney's Office finds th at the Harbor Department has contractual authority to
terminate RP No. 10-05 pursuant to paragraph 3 of RP No . 10-05. Termination of RP
No. 10-05 would result in a loss of insurance, in demn ification , and rents to the Harbor
Department that are provided under RP No. 10-05. Moreover, termination of RP No.
10-05 would not terminate rail service to Rancho as such service would continue to be
provided by PHL pursuant to the San Pedro Bay Harbor Rai l Operating Permit (Perm it
No. 1989). The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and ana lyzed the relevant lega l
authorities and has found that the Harbor Department is not authorized to abandon or
discontinue the railroad spur track that is the subject of RP No. 10 -05 . Abandonment or
discontinuance of the railroad spur track that serves Rancho requires the app rov al of
the STB , which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.
TRANSMITTALS:
I . Ra ncho Facility Site Map
2 . RP No . 10-05
3. PCAC Recommendation No. 11 0
MJJ
fa/DAVID L. MATHEWSON
Director of Plann in g &EconomicDevelopment
GER DINE KNATZ, Ph .D.
E x ~c tive Director
Author: J . Rudd ell
FIS Approval: (initials)
CA Approval: -r. (initials)
11'-ll_-• -1 I -A --,.·'~-~
iTHRYN McDER MOTT
puty Executive Director
G-19
ICit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janet Gunte r <arrianeS@aol.com >
Monday, October 14, 2013 1:59 PM
wesling .mary@epamail.epa.gov; dan.tilema@csb.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov;
don.holmstrom@csb.gov; Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov; Rafaei.Moure·Eraso@csb.gov;
Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; elise.swanson@mail.house.gov; Kit
Fox; chateau4us@att.net; sally.magnani@doj.<a.gov; rob.wilcox@lacity.org;
maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; michael_davies@feinstein.senate.gov;
blumenfeldjared@epa.gov
Fwd: Response from Prof. Heaton at Cal Tech re: LA Times article Seismic building
collapse&RanchoLPG
For your immediate attention I Do you think the Professor's concern should be any less now that the tanks and
infrastructure are over 40 years old?
-·--Original Message---
From: Heaton, Thomas H. <heaton@caltech.edu>
To: Janet Gunter <arciane5@aol.com>
Sent: Mon. Oct 14,2013 11:11 am
Subject: RE: Massive Explosive Butane Tanks sitting in actual Rupture Zone of Palos Verdes Fault
Janet,
Earlier in my career I did some work about the hazards from liquefied gas tanks in San Pedro. If my memory serves me
correct, these tanks were owned by Petrolane; perhaps, they are the same tanks you mentioned. I don't remember the
details of my analysis, but I came away with the impression that failure of these tanks would Indeed be truly
catastrophic. My recollection was that I was concerned about potential sloshing of the liquefied gas. There was a double-
wall Dewar configuration to the tank. If the fluid sloshed over the top of the inner tank it would contact the outer tank wall
which could cause fracture because of the extremely low temperatures. Of course, that was more than 30 years ago and
I have not had occasion to revisit this problem.
Tom Heaton_
Thomas Heaton
Prof. of Engineering Seismology
Director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
626 3954232
heaton@caltech.edu
http;l/heaton .cattech .ed u1
From: Janet Gunter Cmailto:arriane5@aol.coml
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 10:05
To: Heaton, Thomas H.
Subject: Massive Explosive Butane Tanks sitting in actual Rupture Zone of Palos Verdes Fault
Hello Professor-
Thank you so much for your recent study of the concrete buildings and the warning of their seismic risk. My name Is
Janet Gunter, and I am with a homeowners group In San Pedro that has been fighting for decades to remove an ultra
hazardous facility that poses an enormous threat in multiple ways. Please see the attached LA Times articles that reflect
grave concern from almost 40 years ago. On every level this threat has gotten only worse with time. It is a miracle that
we have escaped catastrophe. I do not suspect that our luck will last forever. The two 12.5 MILLION GALLON butane
gas tanks were built in 1972-73 to a seismic sub-standard of 5.5-6.0 on a Fault with a magnitude of 7.3. This facility (now
owned by Rancho LPG) circumvented proper permitting process due to the fact that it was being promoted by Richard
Nixon for his close friend and supporter, RJ Munzer (owner). This thing NEVER should have been built in that
G-20
documented "Earthquake Rupture Zone". My point is that while the concrete building collapse is certainly a concern of
major significance ...... the absence of consideration of the chemical and fuel resources located in such geologically
sensitive areas such as thi s on a ... make our earthquake safety analysis Incredibly deficient. An EPA worst case
ca lcu lation of blast radius from a single 12.5 Million Gallon butane tank Is over 3 miles. Butane gas burns so hot that it will
ignite combustibles for miles and this site Is surrounded by fuel storage. The cascad ing failure event caused from an
event here would dwarf the loss of lives from collapsed buildings. Our voices on this are simply not being heard. The
political aim is to avoid having to confront the powerful energy fndustry ... but, at what cost? Please try to elevate this
concern if you recognize it. It is only through professionals like yourself that we will be able to reduce these serious
risks. Professor Bob Bea from UC Berkeley has reviewed some of the details of this facility and has acknowledged his
concem in an article in the Men's Journal from last Feb. (see final
paragraph) . http:/lwww.m{!nsjournal.com/magazine/bob -bea -the ·master-of·d isaster-20130225
It appears that even his voice on the Issue has not made the impact that we had hoped. It is more than obvious that we
need help. Meanwhile we are teetering on the precipice of this looming disaster that no one seems to want to prevent. It
is just insane.
Thank you for reading and best of luck to you.
Best,
Janet G
2
C-161
G-21
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Janet Gunter <arri aneS@aol .com>
Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:29 AM
CPC@Iacity.org; councildistrictlS@Iacity.org; Henry.Chu @lacity.o rg
lisa .pinto@mail.house.gov; elise.swanson@mail.house.gov;
maurice.lyles@boxer.senate.gov; michael_davies@ fein ste in.senate.gov;
richard.vladovic@lausd .net; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;
noe lwe iss@ca.rr.com; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov
PONTE VISTA HOUSING PROJEa .... NO MORE HOUSING UNTI L EXPLOSIVE FACILITY
REMOV ED!
la_times_apr4_1977.pdf; la_t im esjul16 _1977.pdf; Ame ri gas_la_city_council_action _
OS .doc; AmerigasMoti onbyJanice Hahn .doc; rancho_ra il_accident_photojpg;
wa xma n_press _rei ease_ a ug_1_ 2013.doc; 07.3 1.13 _ UEU _to _S FM_ Hoover _(1). pdf; 7 _10 _13
_Ran cho_EPA_Letter.pdf
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN .... AND HOPEFULLY THER E IS "SO MEONE" THAT IT DOES CO NCERN !
Any notion tha t it is "ok ay" to bring even 1 single additional res ident into the North end of San Pedro while the
extremely hazardo us Ran cho LPG fac ility is still operating .. is highly reckless and sim pl y irresp onsible!
Attached are two past Motion s th at we re int roduced by LA City Council members that clearly illustrate and confirm
th e complete understanding by LA City that th is facility (operating at the time under the name of "Am erigas") is not on ly
"inappropriate" in place, but, obviously "unsafe" to the existing res idents of the San Ped ro community. The proposed
housing project at Ponte Vista, is aimed at introducing an additional several hundred homes and thousands of
additional residents, at a site that Is less than 1/4 mile (as th e crow flies) from the ground s of the Rancho LP G facility .
City Officials and agencies with jurisdiction over this devel opment shou ld be reprimanded for even considering this
project in lieu of the dangers that are ever present from the high risk exposu re posed by this massive 25 MILLION
GALLON LIQUID PETROL EU M GAS facil ity! NO FURTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECTS IN THIS LOCATION
SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT ALL WHILE THIS FACILITY IS STILL FUNCTIONING! IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT
MORE POTENTIAL INNOCENT VICTIMS WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO MOVE INTO THIS BLAST ZONEJ
The recent explosions in Florida from the "Blue Rh ino LP G" facility caused a 1 mile evacuation of th eir sparse
population . Because LPG fires cannot be extinguished wi th water or retardants, the fire caused them to wait 2 1/2 days
for it to "burn itself out." The vol ume of gas involved in that disaster was approximately 1% of the volume of liquid energy
gas stored at Rancho LPG .
Enclosed also are two archived articles from the LA Tim es in 1977 that exposed the City of LA's willingness during
the early 1970's to exempt the LPG facility (operat ing under the name of Petrolane LP G at that time) from LA City Fire
Regu la tions, CEQA, a proper publ ic process, and allowed to use a fragmented permitting process. We have recently
discovered that all of this was due to the influence of the Nixon White House whose close friend and campaign supporter,
RJ Mu nze r, was owner of Petrolane LPG at that time.
Th e two largest Butane tanks at Ra ncho LPG sit in a LA Planning Depa rtment documented "Earthquake Rupture
Zone", on lan d designated by USGS as "La ndslide" and "Liquefaction" areas. Th e active Palos Verd es Fa ult (per Dr. Kate
Hutton @Cal Tech) that the tanks are sitting on has a magnitude of 7.3 while th e tanks holding the ultra-hazardous gas
were built without LA City Building Permi ts to seismic sub-standard of 5.5-6.0 1 Using an EPA ca lcu lation for worst case
scenario .... the two tanks alone (there are 5 othe r smalle r LPG tanks) have a blast radius of over 6 miles! Th at radius
does NOT take into considerat ion the "cascad ing failure event" potent ial that is guaranteed since these tanks sit directly
ne xt to a majo r oil refinery, across the st reet from the Naval Fuel Depot (housing massive amounts of jet propellant s},
above a hornet's nest of chemical and fuel pipelines, and with in 1/2 mile of several marine oi l terminals at the Port of LA.
Attached is a photo of a Rancho LPG railcar accident from a year ago that miraculously escaped devastating results . Bu t.
how much longer will that luck last?
As witnessed by the recent LAX deadly attack this past Friday, "Terro rism" and acts of vio lence are facing a
significant rise. The tantalizing opportunity for terror ism at this facility is extraordinary. The tanks of th is facility could be
easily penetrated by any rifle or rocket launch ed gre nade and produce overwhelming death and destruction. The Ports of
LA and Lon g Bea ch rank high on the list of te rrorism target s. Both of these ports could be easily decimated by an attack
on the LPG tanks. En closed also In this email are recent letters from Congressman Waxman to Homeland Security
regarding this fac ility, as well as letters from Congresswoman Hahn and Senator Lieu to other officials with
1
C-21
G-22
jurisdiction. Clearly, the jeopardy is extremely high and the nerve to contemplate additional population to this area at this
time is unfathomable. No one should even be discussing itl
Until, and unless this major threat is removed there should be no further movement toward the creation of any
additional housing. Rational minds must take hold to protect public safety!
Our City Councilman, Joe Buscaino, ran on the campaign slogan "PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST"! That is what people
·want! We call upon Councilman Buscaino to honor that pledge!! PEOPLE OVER PROFITS .... regardless of whether that
is the oil industry or real estate developers! The Councilman's commitment is to his constituency, not to his campaign
coffers. It is outrageous to realize that this project has been allowed to move this far. STOP ... AND ACT TO PROTECT
PEOPLE NOW. .. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!
Janet Gunter
(310) 251-7075
CITIZENS for RESPONSIBLE and EQUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
2
C-22
G-23
July 08, 2013
Professor Bob Bea has been hired by the US government to iden tify the "why" of
major catastrophes inclu ding Katrina , San Bruno and the Gulf. His extensive
research has in dica ted tha t All catastrophes were "preven table". Sea's goal
now is to prevent such tragedies from occur ring.
After reviewing th e details of the 25 MILLI ON GAL LON Rancho Liquid Petroleum
Gas facil ity in San Pedro, Bea has expressed his concerns about th e
extraordinary risk exposure and potentia l for a cascading fai l ure even t at Ra ncho.
This is due to the multitude of adjace nt fuel resources surrounding this highly
explosi ve and voluminous gas storage site.
Cornerstone Technologies provided a risk analysis that gives a 6 .8 mile radius of
impact from a worst case scenario at Rancho LPG . That analysis do es n't even
acknowledge the cascading potential feare d by Professor Bea .
The map on the reverse shows how wide a range cou ld be affected by a rupture
and resulting blast from the 40 years old Rancho tanks. There are a multiple of
opportunities for ca tastrophe from th is facility stemm ing from antiquated
infrastructure, human erro r, terrorism or earthquake . The tan ks si t in a LA City
Planning documented "Earthquake Ruptu re Zon e" (Palos Verdes Fault mag.
7.3) in ta nks built to a seismic sub-standard of 5.5 to 6.0.
The 6 .8 mile radius of impact (See Map) includes San Pedro, the entire Palos
Verdes Pen insula, Rolling Hill s, Lomita, Wilm ingto n, Torra nce, Carson and Long
Bea ch.
Rancho has refused to share its insuran ce information with the Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council calling it "proprietary information· and no "comprehensive"
risk analysis has ever been performed .
The fac ili ty was sent a letter of cause by the EPA on violations issued in 2010
and 2011 . The date for compliance was April 15, 2013. As of July 1, these
demands have not bee n complied with .
Th e exp losions, fires, death and destru ctio n endu red by West, TX, Loui sia na,
Sa n Bruno, th e Gu lf and even Fukushim a gave no previous warni ng to those
affected by it. We have the enviabl e advantage of having received a formal
warning . AND , that warning comes from an authority whose credentials are
beyond reproach . What more do we need?
Let's do something NOW .... while we still can!
For more info : '!!Y:t:!V. ha za rdsbego ne.com
Contact: Janet Gun ter (310) 251-7075
Contact your own City Council, and public offici als demanding elim i nat ion or this threat!
Senator 13oxer( 213) 894-5000
Co ngressman Waxma n (31 0) 32 1-7664
Senator Ted Lieu ( 31 0) 3 18-6994
Assembly Muratsuchj (3 1 0) 3 16-2164
LA Mayor Carcelti (213) 978-0600
Senator Feinstein : (310)91 4-7300
Congressmcmbe r Hahn (310) 831 -1799
Senator Rod Wright (310) 412-0393
Assembly: Lowenthal (562) 495 -29 15
LA Council man Buscaino (31 0) 732-4 515
G-24
NORTHWEST SAN PEDRO NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
Green COMMITTEE REPORT
Mee ti ng He ld at Pec k Park Compute r Room o n Tu e sday, November 25 1
h, 2014
Committee Member Attendees: Sarah Valdez, Darlene Zavalney, Laurie Jacobs, Alexis Gelch
Non-Committee Membe r Attendees: Jose ph Baroud, Daisy Zaaro u r, Janet Gunte r, Jim
Montgomery , Joe Zaarour, Leah Hernandez
Committee Members not in attendance: N/A
Agenda Item 1 : Discuss possible resolution in support of the GMO-Free LA motion proposed by
City Council members O'Farrell and Koretz
J im Montgomery from LabelGMOs.or g attended our mee ti ng . Jim discussed what Genetically Mod i fied
Organisms (GMO's) are, and what his organizat ion is do ing t o stop them or at least have them l abeled.
He d iscussed the recent LA City ord inance proposed by Counc il members O'Farrel and Koretz. He
discussed the importance of submitting a motion of support from our ne i ghborhood council, and the
pertinent timeline for doi ng so. The Ci ty Council is sc heduled to vote on t he matter on Tuesday,
December 9th. Joe Buscaino is cu r rently i n Ch i na . We discussed the possibility of inq ui ring abou t his
suppo r t, through Jacob or Ryan. La urie Jacobs asked Jim, "Will this ordinance aff ect t he pri ce of
food in the city?" The answer is a resounding , "No ." The ordinance aims to ban the growth of GMO
foods in LA City-mainstream groceries gr own outside of th e ci ty would not be affected. Laurie made
a motion that the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council should support the proposed city
ordi nance that aims to regulate the propagation, cultivation, rai sing, growth, and sa l e of
genetically modified organisms in Los Angeles. Darlene seconded the motion. All Green Committee
members voted in favor of the motion. We then decided t hat informati on regarding Genet ically
Modified Organisms shou ld be added t o t he next NWSPNC newsl etter. The comm ittee also dec ided
that it would be beneficial to send our resolution to Joe's office, when we inquire further regarding
his support (or lack thereof) on t he issue . Ji m mentioned t ha t he would be happy to attend the next
Board meeting to be held on December 8th . If he is unable to attend, t hen he will have another
colleague attend i n his pl ace.
Agenda It e m 2 : Discuss ne xt action steps regarding Rancho LPG. The Rancho LPG storage
tanks pose a high risk to the community and should be moved away from our neighborhoods.
A sign-in sheet w as passed aro un d , and genera l atte ndee in troductions were made. Janet Gunter
mentioned t hat she'd like to be added as a n officia l Green Committee member! Janet Gunter has been
a long ti me activ ist o n th e issue of the Ra nc ho LPG tanks in San Pedro. We asked he r to come and
give some g eneral info rmat ion about the iss ue , an d to d isc uss wh at next acti on steps ca n be t aken by
the Green Com mittee and th e NWS PNC. Janet cla ims t hat local neighborhood counci ls have no t taken
an aggressi ve stand on Rancho LPG. A recent private r isk analysis estimates a 10 -mile blas t radi us.
Th is is versus the 0.5 blast radi us reported by Rancho LPG officials. Ra ncho LPG is th e largest storage
t ank in t he cou ntry locat ed within th is de nse o f a pop ulat ion. Rancho LPG tanks exis t out of exempti o n
a nd were never "gra ndfathered in." Po rt of LA gran ted use of rai l to Rancho for $1400/m ont h with $1
mill ion insura nce . That's nothi ng ! W ha t ca n th e NW S PNC do? W e can write letters to the f igures
G-25
involved-our leaders need to answer q uestions about liability (e.g . mayor, lands commission,
homeland security, Janice Hahn ). Laurie suggested that the pres idents of the San Pedro and
W ilmington Neighborhood Councils should gathe r, educate, and mobilize.
Agenda Item 3: Discuss possible motion to purchase reusable water bottles for the purpose of
outreac h at Board mee t i ngs, as well as for the purpose of mitigating the amount of single-use
plastic water bottles used at Board meetings.
This item was rescheduled for the next Green Comm ittee meeting , due to time constraints.
Agenda Item 4: Discuss possible greening/community improvement project on section of land
that divides Western Avenue, between Summerland Avenu e and West Cre stwood Street
This item was rescheduled fo r the next Green Committee meeting , due to time constraints.
Agenda Item 5: Public comment
Joseph Baroud of th e Ra ndom Lengths attended our meet ing . He let us know to contact him should we
ever be in t erested in Random Lengths coverage , etc.
New bus i ness
Contact President Ray Regalado , and discuss next action steps that should be taken to convene
our local Neig hborhood Councils about the Rancho LPG issue. Use our youth membership to
mobilize and educate family and peers regarding the Rancho LPG Issu e.
Announcements & Next Meeting Date
Next meeting to be held on Tuesday, December Ufh, from 6:00-7:30 pm, located at the Peck Park
Community Center Computer Room.
Page 2
G-26
STAFF REPORT NO. 80 (CONT'D)
Compliance
The Los Angeles Certified Un ified P rog ram Agency (C UPA) for the Rancho LP G facility
is th e City of Los Angeles Fire Department. The CUPA permits the facility fo r the
California Accidental Release Prevention Program , Hazardous Waste, and Haza rdou s
Material. According to the CUPA, the facility is inspected every 3 years . Accord ing to
th e CUPA, a n inspection w as scheduled for July 11 , 20 17. Howeve r, the re su lts from
th is inspection are not yet public. The re w e re no violations record ed from th e previous
in spection on August 5, 2017 .
In 2014, when thi s issue was last brought to th e Commission's attention, the U.S .
Envi ronmental Protection Agency had re cently completed a review of the facility. At that
tim e , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had found seve ral violations and fin ed
Rancho LPG $260,000 . After making a pproximate ly $7 million in improvements to th e
fa cility , EPA found that Rancho LPG cu red the violations. EPA staff is not aware of any
new or curre nt violations .
As part of a ri sk management program, Ran cho LPG is req uired to submit an Offsite
Consequence Area determination or "OCA" which must be ca lc ulated based on fed era l
regulation s to show the area around the fac ility that would be impacted in the event of
an accidental chemical release , before the chemical dissipated . T his calculation is used
to determine what schools shou ld be notified a nd which emergency response agencies
Rancho LPG should coordinate with in responding to Incidents. In May 2016, the U.S .
Environmental Protection Agency received a petition from community members
requesting a re-examination of the risks associated with the Rancho LPG facility
requiring Rancho LPG's parent company to resubmit Rancho LPG's OCA, colloquially
referred to as its "blast radius ". 14 EPA staff have confirmed that it has completed
review of this petition and has confirmed that Rancho LPG's OCA or blast radius was
accurately calculated at approximately .5 miles, according to governing federal
regulations. EPA staff noted that the Rancho LPG facility's OCA is reduced due to th e
presence of a passive mitigation system, in the form of a large pit, that would collect
most of the butane in the event one of the larger tanks failed. EPA staff also noted that
the facility is safer than many other butane storage facilities because the butane is
refrigerated and is not stored under pressure . Staff has not been able to locate
information estimating a blast radius for a rail car carrying this type of product in this
location.
Risk Manage menUin suran ce /Liability
California 's major ports typically have ri sk management departm ents tha t handle
in sura nce requi rem e nts for transporting haza rdous mate rial s. For example, th e Port of
14 https ://www .epa .gov/aboutepa /plainsrancho -lpg -facility -rufemak ing-petttion-and -attachments
-6-
G-27
IJ.)TII ('0:'\0HES~
11> SESS(():'\ H. R. 6489
'l'o di l't•d I li P !-;t•t·n•tllt',\· of 'l't'llll s pnrta tiou to t'l·il a1Ji i:-;l1 <1 gnu t1 prng-t·aut
for Ill <• l't•l<wa tiou u f' t·<·t·lnin JWiroh•nm s tol'H)-.."1 ' l'!ll'iliti es. aucl l'u1 · otlu••·
Jltll-pOSl'S.
1:'\ TilE II01 .SE 0 11' HEPH J ~~~~~'I \\TIYEH
,J t'J.Y ~-1. :WI~
.\I s. B .\Hit\U.\:'1: illtrotltret•d tht• follmri11g-hill ; wllil'l1 \\'lis rdi.•rn•d lo tl u• ( 'n ur-
tll ittt>P on 'l'nrusportatiou <l ll cl l llf't ·astntdurt•, 111 rd in nddition to till' ( 'Olll·
llliltt't' u11 1-:llt'I'K\' a nd ( '<Htllllt•n·t•, for a 1wrio d to lw s uhst'IJIH'IIlly dl'lt•r-
lllitl('d hy tht• kpt•aket·. in t'<H'h t·ast• for t·w tsi dt •ratinll of s utll p1·m·isiuus
as fall withi n the ju ri sdi<·ti ou of tl w <·ommi llt 'l' t'l ll ll't'I'IH'<I
A BILL
T o di r crt th e Scc r e tm·~· of 'l't·a nxJWI'IHI ion to establis h a
gnwt progn1 m fol' the reloeati011 of' l'l'dnitl pe trol e um
~t o n1 g-e fa t'ili t i e~, and fo r ot her p1u·p ost'x.
Uc if t' nacl ed by I II (' ,.....,'e Jill I (' oJI(/ /Ions(' of Rep rl•se 11 I u-
2 liN'S r~j' th e ( 'ni l ed S lolf's r~j'.l 111 e ri('(( in ('o llfJI'e:.;s ass('lllblcd,
3 SECTI ON 1. SHORT TITLE.
5 of201 W'.
6 SEC. 2. LPG STORAGE FAC I LITIES RELOCATION PROGRAM.
7 (<1) E sT.-\B LT S IL\11-::\'T.-~ot Inter thH II 90 dn.n; al'ter
8 t he datv of L'ttac:tme 11 t of' thi s .\d, t lH' Hl'<·t'l'tm·~· of 'l't'clll s-
G-28
portation ~h a ll establi s h n prog-nnn (ill thi s sec-tio n t'l'-
2 t'('l'l't'd t o as tlw "Pt·o g·t·nm'') lllld l't' \\'hit·lt th l' ~t·tn•tcll'.''
3 may a wctl'(l gnmts to l'O\'et·ed ('llt iti cs for the relm·ntion
4 or quali~in g-LPU storage f'neilities.
5 (h) l\PI'L£t 'A1'TO ~~.-'l'o l w c li g ibl(• fo r n gTclttt undl•t·
6 t ht• Pt·ogTam. a tO\'C'I'Ccl t'll tit.'· shall sub lllit to th l' Nel'-
7 rt'tm·~· 1:1 11 a ppli cat io 11 at s 11 t lt I ime , in sw·h f'ot·m, clltd ('011 -
8 lnining-sut'h informal ion as tht• Ht>t'l'l'tary may t·rquit·e .
9 (e) UH.\:\T ( :->EH.-Unmt HlllO\lllt s awarde d nncler
I 0 thl' Pt ·og-t'CIIII may on ly he nsed f'ot· m·tiviti<•s related to thl'
II reloC'ation of a qualif)iug· LPC: storage f'nt il ity.
12 (d) ( '0:\~IDEH .\T I0:\~.-1 11 ~w l edi 11 g H ('0\'l'l'('<l l'lll it,\·
13 to l'l't'eiw a gTaut un der tht' Pl'og l'am, th t• Hl•t·retm·y shal l
14 ('Onsich•t· the proximity of the appli<·cthle quHiif)·in~ LPU
15 s to t·a gt' fal'i lit~' to-
16 ( 1) populated a r eas, honll'S, and s<·hoo ls; a11d
17 (~) co mmHttiti cs thill ill'l' di s propOI'ti onally ll ll-
18 pcH:t l'd by cm·it'OIIIII C'ntal hHI'd t•tt S.
19 (c) l•1 EDEHAL S!I.\HE.-T it t> L•'l'dc t·ctl s hctt 'l' of th e tost
20 o f illl ndi,it.'· assi:-;tt>cl \\'it h a g-ntllt awctrd(•d uncll't' the
21 J>mg-n1111 ma .'· not t'Xt'l'l'<l .)Q pt•t·<·t'llt.
22 (f) ~\l'TIIOHI 7..\TIO:\ ()!<' ,\PI 'I WPHI.\'1'10:\S.-'J'ht•n• IS
23 a ul horizt'd to be appropricltt'd *·)00 , 000,000 to ta rt·y out
24 I ht' Progn111l.
•IIR 6489 IH
G-29
:~
(g) DEri\TfiO:-\:-i.-1 11 t hi ~ sec· I io11 , the fo ll owi ng d('fi-
2 11itio1J S apply:
3 ( 1 ) ('mr:ImD E:-\T ITY.-'l'lll' tt'l'lll "<·OH'I'L'<i C'll-
4 tit,\·" IHC'H il S-
5 (.._\) a Htnte, lm·a l, o r 'l'riha l gon•rJHn c•nt
6 (in<:lu<lin g-a uy pol itital snhd i,·ision thL•r c·of');
7 (B) a 1-i !}L't'i a l pnrpos<• di s iJ'id or public· i.lll -
8 tlwrit~·, inl'l nd i11 g-n port l lllth orit~·;
9 (C) a gmup of r nt it i<•s <IL•seribecl 111 s ub-
tO pa 1·ngTa ph (..\)or (H ); 01·
II (D ) an o\\·uer o r opt•J·atO J' of a quali(,·ing
12 LPH s t o r ag·e f'm·ility .
I 3 (2) Q L\LJFYJ:-\c : J.J>I: ~TOH.\U J ·: r..\('JI.I TY .-'I'hr
14 t e rm "quali (,·iu g-[;PU ston1g·(• l'al'il i t~·" llH'iiii S a
15 land -bnsr(l f atil ity f'o r t he sto r ng-l' or li q uct'i<•d pdro-
16 l<.•mn gas that is lo c·clt r d within .) mik•s of' a popn-
17 lated Hrca , hon ll', or sthool.
0
•HH 6489 lli
G-30
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RES OURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL
P .O. Gox 944,2 46
SACRAMENTO. CA 9424~·2450
(91 G) 4'15-8200
WetJ511e: w.vN!I~ca.gov
February 3, 2014
The Honorable Ted W. Lieu
Senator, Twenty Eighth Senate District
state Cap it ol , Room 4061
Sacramento, California 95814
Edmund G. Brown ·''·· Governor
Re : ClarifiCation of Jurisdictional Authority for Rancho Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG)
Holdings LlC. Facility
Dear Senator Lieu :
Thank you for your inqu iry request ing add itional clarification on the jurisdictional authority of the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protect ion 's (CAL FIRE 's) Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) in
regards to the Rancho LPG Holdings LLC . facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street in San Pedro,
California .
The OSFM's Pipeline Safety Division previously had a portion of regulatory jurisd iction at the Rancho
LPG facility dat ing back to 1985. The former owners (Petrolane and Amerigas) operated two pipelines
from this facility to the Port of Los Angeles . These lines we re taken out of seNice in 2008, at which
point the OSFM ceased regulatory jurisdiction sJnce the facility no longer used these pipelines .
Subsequently , the OSFM learned that some of the tanks at the facility were being used for remote
storage for a BP refinery (now Tesoro). Liquid Butane was be ing sh ipped back and forth from the BP
refinery to the Rancho LPG facili ty through a Valero pipeline. The OSFM determ ined , after reviewing
federal in terpretations of Jurisdiction for breakout tanks, disc ussions with the operator, and a fteld visit
in 2011 . that these butane pipeline systems, vessels , and tanks at the Rancho LPG facility are under
the regulatory responsibility of the OSFM . Specifically, the OSFM is responsible for inspecting Butane
Tanks 1 and 2, and vessels V-1 and V-C2 . An inspection of these systems was conducted by the
OSFM in March 2012 . No safety issues or violations were found . It is our understanding that the
remainder of the facility is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Los Ange les Fire Department.
If you have any additional questions , please contact CAL FIRE 's Deputy Director for Legislation ,
Caroline Godkin,. at (916) 653-5333 or ca roline .godk in @fire .ca.gov .
TONYA . HOOVER
Sta te Fire Marshal
"1711! D!!partm enl of Fortstr)• nnd Fb·e f'roCet•tfon .fCT\'es and sajeg11ards tlrr: people ond prot~cts the {T"'pr:rty and rCSOIITY.'CS ojCo/ifomfa. ..
CALIFORNIA
Earthquake fault long thought dormant could devastate Los Angeles, researchers say
Container ships and cranes at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. (Los Angeles Times)
By DEBORAH NETBURN
STAFF WRITER
AUG. 31, 2019
9:42 AM
Scientists citing new research say an earthquake fault along the Los Angeles coast, previously believed to be dormant, is active and
could cause a destructive 6.4 magnitude earthquake if it ruptured.
And if it linked with other faults, it could trigger an earthquake in the magnitude 7 range, according to a team of researchers from
Harvard, USC and the U.S. Geological Survey.
The fault, known as the Wilmington Blind-Thrust fault, stretches for about 12.5 miles, running northwest from Huntington Beach,
directly beneath the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, past the east side of the Palos Verdes Pensinula and out toward Santa
Monica Bay.
ADVERTISEMENT
H-1
Researchers have known for decades that the fault existed, but it was long thought to be dormant and therefore of no concern for the
residents of Los Angeles.
Map of Wilmington Fault (U.S. Geological Survey)
However, a new report, led by Franklin Wolfe, a doctoral student in the structural modeling and earth resources group at Harvard,
has found that the Wilmington Blind Thrust Fault is in fact alive and kicking and could affect the overlying ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
H-2
“It doesn’t rupture frequently, but it’s like a sleeping giant beneath the harbor, " Wolfe said. “Just because it’s slow, doesn’t mean it’s
not dangerous.”
A blind-thrust fault is so named because the fault itself doesn’t reach the surface of the Earth. There are no hills, cracks or breaks to
indicate its existence.
Scientists knew the Wilmington fault was there because it sits below the Wilmington Oil Fields and data collected by the oil industry
revealed folding in deep layers of rock that indicated the existence of a fault. However, the tell-tale folding of the rock did not appear
to extend to more shallow layers of earth. Therefore, the data suggested that the fault had gone dormant at least 2 million years ago.
Then, about 10 years ago, a scientist at the USGS who was studying the architecture of groundwater reservoirs discovered that, in fact,
there did appear to be some folding in the rock in more shallow layers than the oil industry researchers would have looked at.
Further research revealed that he was right. The folding in both the deep rock and the very shallow rock appeared to be caused by the
same fault. That meant the Wilmington fault was still active.
Wolfe said that the fault is very slow moving and could be expected to rupture sometime in the next 3,000 to 5,000 years.
SPONSORED CONTENT
It's all about the kids
By UNICEF USA
Just who is UNICEF helping, exactly? See their faces and learn the facts.
H-3
“It makes you wonder how many other faults are in California that are not detected and slow moving,” Wolfe said. “The San Andreas
fault is the most noteworthy, but many other of faults in California capable of generating damage.”
The Wilmington fault runs near another notorious fault, the Newport-Inglewood.
That fault unleashed the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, which killed 120 people and prompted some of the state’s first seismic building
regulations.
The Newport-Inglewood has long been considered one of Southern California’s top seismic danger zones because it runs under some
of the region’s most densely populated areas, from the Westside of Los Angeles to the Orange County coast.
Research published in 2017 found the fault may be even more dangerous than experts had believed, capable of producing more
frequent destructive temblors than previously suggested by scientists.
MORE ON EARTHQUAKES
H-4