Home Letters In Letter to County, Kutcher Seeks to Extend Oil Drilling Comment Period

In Letter to County, Kutcher Seeks to Extend Oil Drilling Comment Period

149
0
SHARE


[Editor’s Note: Kenneth Kutcher, one of two principal voices in Culver Crest inveighing against mechanical, lockstep approval by the County of an oil drilling rule book designed by the oil drilling company in question, dispatched the following letter to County offices yesterday. In light of Saturday’s crucial meeting of the County Regional Planning Commission at 12 noon at West Los Angeles College, Mr. Kutcher’s plea to extend the public comment period before drilling resumes, is timely.]

July 29, 2008

Regional Planning Commission

County of Los Angeles

Department of Regional Planning

320 West Temple Street, Room 1350

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: Project No. R2007-00570 (Dr. Fricano)

Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (CSD) and EIR

SCH No. 2007061133

Environmental Case No. RENVT2007-00048

Hearing Date: August 2, 2008

Dear Commissioners:

I am writing to comment on the Staff Report addressing the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District ("CSD") for the Inglewood Oil Field ("Oil Field").

I have a wife and two children. I am a resident of the Culver Crest neighborhood in Culver City. There are approximately 500 households in my neighborhood.

I have been actively involved in this issue since March 2006, when the Board of Directors for my neighborhood organization (i.e., Culver Crest Neighborhood Organization) met with the oil field operator (Plains Exploration and Production Company or "PXP") to discuss our concerns about two significant uncontrolled air quality emissions that occurred in January and February 2006 and impacted our community.

I would like to begin by making two general points:


• I support the County's adoption of a CSD for the Oil Field; but the CSD that is adopted cannot have been authored by PXP or their legal representatives. It makes no sense for the oil company that will be regulated to write the regulations that will govern their operations.





• I support certification of a comprehensive and thorough environmental impact report ("EIR") after adequate time for public review and comment and after the public's comments have been fully considered and addressed, including performing areas of further study and analysis and developing additional mitigation measures.



THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY THE EIR COMMENT PERIOD SHOULD BE EXTENDED

The time for public comment on the EIR expires on August 19, 2008. Unless the EIR comment period is extended, I intend to submit my comments on the DEIR at that time. This letter does not attempt to recite all of those comments; those are still being worked on.

For the reasons described below, the deadline for submitting comments should be extended.

1. The EIR was issued eight months late. And yet the time for public comment has been extended by only 15 days. The EIR was originally targeted for release in November 2007, then a series of dates in December, January, February, March, April, May and at least four different dates in June 2008. And none of these delays was caused by members of the general public.

2. This Draft EIR (“DEIR”) — which is more than one thousand pages long and very technical in content and analysis — is not a simple document to review. It studies regulations for an oil field. The County has never before published such an EIR, and I have never before reviewed such an EIR. And I think it is safe to say that is true for most persons who will attempt to provide public comments on this EIR.

3. There is legal authority for granting the public additional time to review this EIR. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") the time for public review of a Draft EIR can be extended beyond sixty days in the event of "unusual circumstances":


"The public review period for a draft EIR should not be less than 30 days nor longer than 60 days except in unusual circumstances. When a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies [as was this EIR], the public review period shall not be less than 45 days, unless a shorter period, not less than 30 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse." State CEQA Guidelines § 25205(a); emphasis added.



I submit that if ever there was a case of unusual circumstances, this is it:


• The EIR is studying proposed regulations written by the company to be regulated;





• those regulations were not made available to the public except in response to a Public Records Act request (Gov't Code §§ 6250, et seq.);





• the County has never before prepared an EIR for oil field regulations;





• the EIR is voluminous;





• there is wide public interest in this issue, and more than 5 million people live within a five mile radius of the site;
• there are significant public risks involved (including health, air quality, subsidence/uplift, fire and other potential disasters, noise, vibration, and aesthetics);





• the data and analysis contained within this EIR is extremely technical in nature; and





• the project site has been targeted by the State for establishment of one of the largest urban parks in history (see Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan, March 2002).


For these reasons, the comment period for the EIR should be extended to a date in September.



THE STAFF REPORT REQUIRES CLARIFICATION

Below are comments to the Staff Report on this item. These comments are written in the order they appear in the Staff Report.

Summary (p. 1)


A. PXP Is Proposing To Dramatically Change The Intensity Of Its Operations.

Although this oil field has been in operation since 1924, the greatest volume of oil production occurred in 1927 and dropped precipitously thereafter. (DEIR Fig. 2-7 at p. 2-11.) Over its more than 80 year history, there have been approximately 1400 wells established in this Oil Field. (NOP at p. 2.) Currently there are 436 active producing wells. (DEIR at p. 2-15.)

PXP contemplates drilling as many as 1,065 new wells in the next 20 years. (DEIR Table 3.1 at p. 3-3.) Wells are drilled on a 24-hour basis. (DEIR at p. 3-3.)

In year 2009, PXP contemplates drilling 85 new wells in this Oil Field. (DEIR Table 3-1 at p. 3 3.) Except for the year 1925, no oil operator has ever drilled that many new wells in the Oil Field in any single year. (DEIR Figure 2-8 at p. 2-12.)

Over the following four years — 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 — PXP contemplates drilling 75 new wells in this Oil Field each year. (DEIR at Table 3.1 at p. 3-3.) Only once — in 1965 — were 75 new wells ever drilled in a single year in this Oil Field. (DEIR Figure 2-8 at p. 2-12.)

PXP contemplates drilling almost as many new wells (1,065) in the next 20 years as have been drilled in the 82-year history of the Oil Field (1,463). (DEIR at p. 2-15.)


B. There Are Many Surrounding Uses That Will Now Be Impacted By The New Oil Wells.

In the years since the Oil Field was established, major changes have occurred around the Oil Field that should lead to less drilling, not more. A summary of the types of surrounding land uses is provided at Table 4.8.1 of the DEIR. (DEIR at p. 4.8-2.)

When oil production began in earnest in the Oil Field, livestock grazing (primarily by sheep) was the predominant prevailing productive economic use of land. (DEIR at p. 4.8 1.) Now there are a million residents who live within a five-mile radius of the Oil Field. The Oil Field is surrounded by the cities of Culver City, Los Angeles, and Inglewood. (DEIR Fig. 4.8-1 at p. 4.8-3.) Immediately adjacent to its border is West Los Angeles College, founded in 1969. Other schools in the immediate vicinity include the Ohr Eliyahu Academy (at the former Linda Vista Elementary School site). (DEIR at p. 4.8-2.) There are also various parks and recreation areas, including Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, the Ladera Ball Fields, the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook, Culver City Park and Norman O. Houston Park. (DEIR Fig. 4.10-1 at p. 4.10 2.) Mary Crest Manor, a skilled nursing facility, is also located adjacent to the Oil Field. (DEIR at p. 4.8-5.)



C. Minorities And Lower-Income Families Are Disproportionately Impacted.

According to the DEIR, approximately 69% of the total population within the study area consists of minorities. (DEIR at p. 4.16-2.) Approximately 50% of the total population in the study area is African American. (Id.) Approximately 15% is Hispanic in origin. (Id. at p. 4.16 4.) Approximately 11% of individuals residing in the study area have incomes below the poverty level. (Id. at p. 4.16 5.) For further information, please also see DEIR Figures 4.16-1 (Distribution of Minorities in the Study Area) and 4.16-2 (Distribution of Poverty in the Study Area) and Tables 4.16.1 (Study Area Race Characteristics), 4.16.2 (Population of Hispanic Origin) and 4.16.3 (Poverty Status in 1999).



D. Baldwin Hills Is In Need Of More Parkland.

The area surrounding the Baldwin Hills is one of the most park-poor urban areas in California, with less than one acre of park space per 1,000 people, far below the nationally recommended standard of 6 to 10 acres per 1,000 people. (DEIR at p. 4.10 3.) The project site contains approximately two square miles that are considered the largest remaining "open space" area within urban Los Angeles County. (DEIR at p. 4.10 1.)

The project site is located on lands identified by the State of California and the Baldwin Hills Conservancy for future park use. (DEIR at p. 4.10 1.) The California State Resources Agency has prepared a Master Plan for future development of the 2-square-mile Baldwin Hills area as a park called the One Big Park Concept. The Park Master Plan envisions preservation and restoration of natural habitat along with the development of active and passive recreational facilities and education and cultural facilities, including the following: approximately 300 acres of protected and restored natural lands; over 60 acres of multiple-use (softball, baseball, soccer) fields; a 120-acre/18-hole golf course; a tennis center, skate parks, over 15 miles of jogging, bicycle, and hiking trails; playgrounds; indoor basketball courts, a recreation center and gymnasium, a par course, and climbing wall; and a competition-sized swimming pool. (DEIR at p. 4.10 3; Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan, Fig. 18 at p. 53.)



Interim Urgency Ordinances (pp. 1-2)

The Staff Report states that "[i]n recent years, residents within the vicinity of the oil field reported noise, odor, vibration, health, safety and visual impacts which they attributed to the operation of the oil field." (Staff Report at p. 1; emphasis added.) Actually, the DEIR has confirmed these impacts; they are no longer merely unsubstantiated complaints from neighbors.


A. The January 2006 Midnight Evacuation.

The Staff Report describes an "unusually large release of gas from an oil well drilling operation in January of 2006 which caused a strong odor." (Staff Report at p. 1.) This was a release of hydrogen sulfide and methane gas that began at 9:30 pm and continued until 1:30 am, resulting in at least 60 calls to Culver City and emergency responses from Culver City Fire Department, Los Angeles County Fire Hazardous Materials and the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD" or "AQMD") throughout the night. PXP reported emissions of "around 1,500 to 2,000 ppm of hydrocarbons." (SCAQMD Air Quality Complaint Report for Complaint No. 181387.)

The Staff Report indicates, "Residents were concerned that the fumes were toxic and reported the incident to local officials." (Staff Report at p. 1.) While this is true, it neglects to convey that residents of Culver Crest evacuated their homes in the middle of the night. People with asthma or other respiratory ailments and young children were particularly vulnerable. Mary Crest Manor skilled nursing facility is located at the top of Culver Crest.

At concentrations of just 2 ppm, hydrogen sulfide can cause headaches and increased airway resistance in asthmatics. (DEIR at p. 4.2-11.) Inhalation of 100 ppm of hydrogen sulfide "can be lethal." (Id.)



B. PXP’s Failure To Comply With The Interim Ordinances.



In response to these concerns, the Board of Supervisors adopted a series of Interim Urgency Ordinances as summarized in the Staff Report. The Staff Report states that PXP "abided by these ordinances." (Staff Report at p. 1.) But in contemporaneous emails with PXP, County Staff was not at all convinced that PXP abided by aspects of these ordinances. Specifically, in an email on May 2, 2007, County Planner Maria Masis sent the following email to the attorneys for PXP:


"As we approach the Board [of Supervisors] hearing date for renewing the Urgency Ordinance we are increasingly concerned that we do not have the necessary information to present to the Board that the Ordinance has been complied with by PXP." (Email sent at 9:02 am on May 2, 2007, from County Planner Maria Masis to Donna Black, an attorney with Cox Castle; emphasis added.)

For example, PXP was required to maintain a hotline for complaints and a log of the calls that came in. But at 9:00 am on May 7, 2007, Ms. Masis emailed Ms. Black because PXP's hotline number wasn't working:


"I tried calling the phone number below this morning — the guy who answered the telephone did not know anything about a complaint hotline . . . please check to make sure this is the right number." (Email sent at 9:00 am on May 7, 2007, from County Planner Masis to PXP attorney Black.)



At 9:17 am, County Planning Staff confirmed that she had dialed PXP's hotline and the confused response she received:

"Yes, that is the number I dialed. Many signals went through and then it sounded like the call was 'rolled over' — I thought an answering machine would kick in but then an employee answered instead. I asked him if this was the complaint hotline and he sounded quite confused." (Email sent at 9:17 am on May 7, 2007, from County Planner Masis to PXP attorney Black.)




C. The Commission Should Be Made Aware Of PXP’s Affirmative Obligations Under The Interim Ordinance.

The chart provided as Table 1 on page 2 of the Staff Report does not summarize the interim requirements placed on PXP by Interim Ordinance Nos. 2006-0050U and 2006-0064U. Section 6 of both Ordinances required the following:


"At all times during drilling operations, the operator shall maintain enhanced monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the emission of hydrogen sulfide and combustible gases at detection limits of no less than one part per million for sulfides and 10 percent of lower explosive limits for combustible gases. Such monitors shall provide an automatic alarm, triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide at five parts per million, or above, and 10 percent, or above, of lower explosive limits for combustible gases; audible or visible to the operator of any drilling equipment. As soon as possible after an alarm event is received, and no later than four hours thereafter, the operator must notify all appropriate agencies including the Culver City Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department — Hazardous Materials Unit, the State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ('DOGGR'), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District ('SCAQMD') (collectively, 'Investigating Agencies'). The operator shall maintain a 24-hour hotline for odor complaints and maintain records of such calls. Upon the receipt of two or more odor complaints within six (6) hours of an alarm event, the operator shall immediately cease operation of any well(s) at which the detection limits were exceeded, except:
(1) to perform such work as may be necessary to eliminate continuing emissions or to permanently secure the well, or as otherwise may be directed by the Investigating Agencies; or (2) unless the appropriate Investigating Agencies find that no hazard exists and mitigations are in place to minimize to the extent feasible recurrence of the source of the odor. The operator shall immediately make available all monitoring equipment records to any of the Investigating Agencies upon verbal or written request to any of the operator employees working at or near the location of the monitoring equipment. The operator shall reimburse the Investigating Agencies for the actual costs of responding to an alarm event and/or responding to a release of odor that has generated two or more complaints which are determined to be related to events caused by the operator."



Zoning and Environmental Review (p. 2)


The Staff Report indicates that the Board of Supervisors enacted the interim urgency ordinances "to provide staff with time to conduct a Zoning Study and an environmental assessment." (Staff Report at p. 2.) Cumulative, the three urgency ordinances provided staff with two years to complete the EIR and adopt the CSD. Unfortunately, those two years expired on June 29, 2008 before these tasks were completed, through no fault of the community.

CSD Application (p. 3)

It is important to note that "this is the first application for a CSD filed by an operator or property owner." (Staff Report at p. 3.) The novelty of this step complicates the analysis since the CSD that was studied in the EIR was drafted by the oil field operator that will itself be regulated by whatever CSD is ultimately adopted.

The Staff Report indicates that PXP "developed a draft CSD using an outline provided by the Planning Department." (Staff Report at p. 3.) But the Staff Report does not convey that PXP's draft omitted or soften many key elements of the County's outline, including: noise attenuation, vibration reduction, flaring and venting of gases, air quality, soil remediation, cultural/historic resources, drilling hours of operation, drilling inspections, prohibition against new drilling and production in the outer areas of the Oil Field, compliance audit of the existing facility, preparation and submission of a periodic plan of projected future drilling sites, monitoring and testing (for noise, vibration, subsidence, geotechnical, water quality and air quality), impact fees, consolidated drill site plan, and conditional use permits. A copy of the County's outline from which PXP deviated is attached.


Environmental Impact Report: Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (pp. 3-5)


A. The CEQA Process Was Slow From The Beginning.

The Staff Report indicates that "[d]ue to the nature of health and safety issues expressed by members of the community, it was necessary to commence the environmental study in a timely fashion." (Staff Report at p. 3.) But this did not occur.


The first Urgency Ordinance No. 2006-0050U was adopted on June 27, 2006. On August 8, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted the second Urgency Ordinance No. 2006-0064U. But it took eleven months for the County to issue its Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR on June 28, 2007 which means that the EIR preparation had only just begun. (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15082 ("Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared"); emphasis added.)
Thus from the very beginning, because of this delay in releasing the NOP, the opportunity for public comment was crunched. The Staff Report indicates the NOP was released "in June 2007," which it was, but at the very end of the month on June 28, 2007. (Staff Report at p. 4.)

Thus, the public was given only "the standard 30 days to review and comment on the NOP." (Id.) Nonetheless, despite this short period of time to review and comment on a particularly lengthy and detailed NOP, many public comments were submitted. My neighborhood submitted a 15-page comment letter on the NOP.


B. Many Of The Public’s NOP Comments Were Not Satisfactorily Addressed In The Draft EIR.

The Staff Report asserts, "[E]ach comment was addressed in the Draft EIR." (Staff Report at p. 4.) But this did not occur.




1. The CSD was not released until the County received a Public Records Act request.

For example, my neighborhood association requested that the contents of the CSD be provided during the NOP. This did not occur; the CSD that was studied in the CSD was not released until the County was served with a Public Records Act request.

2. The EIR does not address the scope of discretion available to the County.

Our NOP comment letter requested that the EIR "should specifically discuss the areas of discretion available to the County in regulating oil drilling and associated operations." This is not apparent in the Draft EIR.


3. The EIR does not evaluate the Project Objectives we recommended.

Our NOP comment letter suggested the following substitute project objectives:


a. Work in concert with other pertinent regulatory agencies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD"), the cities of Los Angeles and Culver City, the Los Angeles Community College District, the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources ("DOGGR") to establish a new zoning overlay district and accompanying regulations addressing needed development standards, operating requirements, and procedures for oil and gas drilling and operations in the Baldwin Hills Oil Field.





b. Plan to review such zoning standards for refinement, adequacy and success after the first two years and periodically thereafter.





c. Address the unique compatibility concerns associated with operating an oil field in the midst of urban development, including substantial residential neighborhoods, a community college campus and multiple existing and contemplated parks/recreation facilities.





d. Minimize the environmental impacts of the oil field operations on the surrounding communities and uses.





e. Eliminate the risk of odors from oil and gas drilling and operations posing nuisance or health risks to surrounding communities and sensitive receptors.



These were not considered as project objectives in the Draft EIR.


4. The EIR does not discuss the most recent 20-year drilling history.

Our NOP comment letter asked that the EIR describe the drilling history over the past 10 to 20 years. The EIR does not contain such a discussion.


5. The EIR does not consider why there is a need to drill 1,065 new wells when technological advancements should make oil drilling and production much more efficient than ever before.

Our NOP comment letter asked the EIR to assess the need to drill an average of 53 new wells per year given that, with technological advances, drilling should become more efficient, not less efficient, and that the surrounding communities have increased substantially over the years. Our NOP comment letter asked for the reasons why a total of 385 new wells would be needed in the next five years given that there are currently 436 active producing wells.


6. The EIR does not explain why new drilling is concentrated in the Viewshed.

Our NOP comment letter asked the EIR to study why the drilling activity would decrease dramatically in year 2016 in other areas, but not in the Viewshed Area adjacent to our homes (and not in the Central Area). This was not addressed in the EIR.


7. The EIR does not explain why the oil drilling (as distinct from the oil production) must occur 24 hours per day/seven days per week.

Our NOP comment letter asked the EIR to explain when drilling must occur 24 hours per day:


"Very few other commercial activities are conducted 24 hours per day adjacent to residential neighbors. The EIR should evaluate the appropriateness and necessity of this round-the-clock activity adjacent to and impacting our neighborhood. No mention is made in the NOP of whether this will be evaluated; rather, it is stated as a given."
This incompatibility comment is not addressed in the EIR.




8. The EIR does not consider the impacts of “deep drilling” in urban areas.

Our NOP comment letter specifically asked the EIR to "examine the history of deep drilling generally, with particular reference to its history in urban areas." While the EIR contains deep drilling statistics for California at Figure 3-3, there is no discussion of deep drilling in urban areas.



9. There needs to be a corresponding well closure schedule.

Our NOP comment letter asked that the EIR "disclose the anticipated [well] abandonment schedule and location, just as the NOP discloses the projected drilling schedule." This did not occur.


10. The disturbing 2006 odor impacts cannot be included in the EIR “baseline”.

Our NOP comment letter asked that the EIR not limit its consideration to changes in risk over the baseline, including odor risks: "the EIR should acknowledge that the 'baseline' of recent odor incidents and described in the NOP is not acceptable and needs to be prevented and eliminated." Notwithstanding this comment, the EIR states: "Emissions from 2006 were used as the baseline emissions for drilling and workover." (DEIR at p. 4.2-10.) Emissions in January 2006 and February 2006 were the very source of the problem and should not under any circumstances be considered the baseline.



11. The January 2006 emergency is not even mentioned in the EIR.

Our NOP comment letter specifically asked that the EIR investigate the January 2006 emission.


"The EIR investigation of odor incidents must include SCAQMD Emergency Response Notification #121860 regarding methane gas and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions from Vickers Well No. 1-935 commencing at approximately midnight on January 10-11, 2006."
However, the EIR is silent about this incident. This is shocking to me.



12. No community outreach concerning the odor patterns was performed as part of the EIR.

Our NOP comment letter requested:


"Residents living in the areas closest to the oil fields should be contacted directly to determine the extent to which they have been bothered by oil field odors. Many residents at the top of Culver Crest have reported that they detect odors from the oil field on a weekly basis, but that they rarely contact the SCAQMD because the odors are not as strong as the major releases in 2006 and because they usually experience them in the middle of the night when they are trying to sleep."
This outreach did not occur.




13. No significant air sampling was performed as part of the EIR.

Our NOP comment letter requested site-specific air sampling and analysis:


"The NOP never states that on-site air sampling and analysis will be conducted to establish the air quality baseline; however, this data collection and analysis is critical to CCNA. The current and on-going air quality impacts of PXP cannot be adequately evaluated without on-site testing. While it may be acceptable to rely on existing data when attempting to analyze the extent to which PXP is contributing to greenhouse gasses, ozone depletion or Southern California smog, this methodology would be completely inadequate for assessing the impact on adjoining neighborhoods of PXP's releases of odorous gasses, to say nothing of gasses that might be toxic or carcinogenic. As to these latter concerns, it is imperative that actual tests be conducted."



Again, this did not occur.


14. The EIR gives short shrift to sensitive species.

Our NOP comment letter requested site-specific evaluation of biological resources based on the findings of the Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan:


"When preparing the EIR, local residents should be interviewed to assist in identifying the presence of wildlife that exists in the study area. Special attention should be paid to the peregrine falcon. [Baldwin Hills Park] Master Plan at 27. Other species of concern include the coast horned lizard, a California Department of Fish and Game ('CDFG') Species of Concern found only in coastal scrub habitat. Master Plan at 26. The garden slender salamander is also a CDFG Species of Concern that historically occurred in the Baldwin Hills. Id. Several bird species that require this habitat may also have disappeared in recent years, including the greater roadrunner, cactus wren and California thrasher. Master Plan at 27. The rufous-crowned sparrow is another one. Id. Other CDFG Species of Concern include the burrowing owl, belted kingfisher, olive-sided flycatcher, Swainson’s thrush, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, blue grosbeak and tri-colored blackbird. Two bat species of concern possibly still occurring in the Baldwin Hills are the pallid bat and the western mastiff bat. Master Plan at 28. Another California species of special concern that could potentially occur in the Baldwin Hills is the Los Angeles pocket mouse. Id."



Very few of these species are discussed in the EIR.


15. The EIR disregarded the State’s Park Master Plan.

Our NOP comment letter asked that the EIR evaluate the inconsistency between PXP's proposed drilling and the policy of converting the study area to public parkland:


"[T]he NOP fails to mention the Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan. The inconsistency between PXP's proposed drilling and the policy of converting the study area to public parkland must be studied in the EIR. The feasibility of converting portions of the study area to parkland in consideration for granting new permits for drilling needs to be studied in the EIR."
And we also stated in the NOP comment letter: "The inherent conflict between new drilling and this public use is a potentially significant impact that needs to be studied in the EIR." But the DEIR states: "[T]his EIR does not directly address issues associated with a Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan." (DEIR at p. 4-1.)
Our NOP comment letter also suggested that the California Department of Parks and Recreation (now known as California State Parks) and the Baldwin Hills Conservancy should be listed as Trustee Agencies per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15386. This comment is not addressed in the EIR.




16. The Project Alternatives we suggested were not studied.

We asked that the EIR study as the "no project" alternative the possibility of a permanent moratorium against new drilling in the Oil Field. This was not studied as a project alternative. (See Chapter 5.0 of the DEIR.)
We asked that the EIR study the "One Big Park Concept" of the Baldwin Hills Master Plan as a project alternative. This was not done. (See Chapter 5.0 of the DEIR.)

We asked that the EIR study a reduced drilling alternative by eliminating all new drilling in the Viewshed Area. Again, this was not done. (See Chapter 5.0 of the DEIR.)

So the Staff Report is incorrect in its assertion that "each comment was addressed in the Draft EIR." (Staff Report at p. 4.)

C. Although PXP Received Copies Of The Screencheck Draft EIRs, Those Were Withheld From The Public.

The Staff Report describes that two "screencheck" Draft EIRs were prepared and reviewed by the County. (Staff Report at pp. 4-5.) But the Staff Report neglects to report that PXP received and reviewed the screencheck Draft EIRs in addition to County personnel. Moreover, the Staff Report does not disclose that the community repeatedly requested copies of the screencheck drafts to expedite the review of the Draft EIR but that the County steadfastly refused to release the screencheck drafts to any members of the public.



D. The Staff Report Downplays The Potential For More Than 1,000 New Wells.

Although the Staff Report references at page 5 that "an estimate of maximum development that could occur at the Inglewood Oil Field of the next twenty years" was developed by PXP, it is not until page 13 that the Staff Report eventually gets around to informing the Commission that PXP projects drilling 1,065 new wells in this Oil Field. This disturbing fact should be revealed much sooner to the Commission.



E. The Staff Report Does Not Provide Any Assurance That Other Public Agencies Are Being Encouraged To Review The EIR.

At the bottom of page 5, the Staff Report discusses the ability of regional and state agencies to comment on the DEIR. But the Staff Report does not disclose whether the County is engaged in any pro-active outreach to those agencies, such as SCAQMD, Regional Water Quality Control Board, DOGGR, Los Angeles Community College District, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Cops of Engineers, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, and California State Parks.



Applicant-Proposed CSD (p. 6)

The Staff Report discusses PXP's proposed CSD and attaches it as Exhibit B at page 6. But the Staff Report neglects to mention the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance ("GBHA") version of a proposed CSD until page 18 and does not provide the Commission with a convenient copy of GBHA’s draft CSD. The community's preparation of a proposed CSD was an extra-ordinary effort and should be given comparable consideration. A copy of the GBHA CSD is enclosed for your convenience.



Processing Activities (p. 11)

The Staff Report references the British Petroleum ("BP") Refinery in Carson but does not disclose the on-going problems with PXP's gas lines to BP. This problem has persisted since March of this year (DEIR at p. 2-12) and has exacerbated the flaring events that disrupt the neighbors.


Current Operations Equipment (p. 12)

The Staff Report neglects to describe the "biofarms" in its discussion of the current operations. "Biofarms" are where outdoor soil remediation occurs. These are one of the sources of odors. (See Mitigation Measure AQ.3-4 at p. 4.2-30 of DEIR.)


CONCLUSION

I plan on attending the August 2 hearing to address these concerns and any questions the Commission might have regarding these comments.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth L. Kutcher

KLK:  snk

cc:    Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke

        Supervisor Gloria Molina

        Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky

        Supervisor Don Knabe

        Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich

        Mike Bohlke
Steve Rusch

        Charles Moore

        Mayor Scott Malsin

        Elaine Lemke

        Hal Bopp, State Oil and Gas Supervisor

        Rose Hamilton

        Russell J. Fricano

        Councilmember Bernard Parks

        Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas

        Speaker Karen Bass

        Susana Franco-Rogan

        9065/Cor/LAPlanningComm.2002.KLK