[Editor’s Note: Mr. Kutcher, a lawyer and Culver Crest, has been in the forefront of efforts to more tightly regulate the drilling and strategy of Plains Exploration & Production Co. in the nearby Baldwin Hills Oil Field.]
Office of the County Counsel
County of Los Angeles
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Baldwin Hills Community Standards District/Supervisor’s Aug 2009 Motion
Dear Ms. Lemke:
This is not a confidential settlement communication. We are writing to inquire about the proceedings initiated by Supervisor Ridley-Thomas in his August 2009 motion to consider needed amendments to the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District Ordinance (“CSD”). (LACC, tit. 22, § 22.44.142.) The study, recommendations, hearings and amendments that were called for by that motion are long overdue.
On August 4, 2009, the Supervisor moved that the Department of Regional Planning (“DRP”) initiate a study to consider amending the CSD. He further moved that after completion of the study, the DRP should:
• Provide preliminary recommendations to the Multiple-Agency Coordination Committee (“MACC”) and the Community Advisory Panel (“CAP”) for review and comment; and
• Convene a public hearing before the Regional Planning Commission
Among the stated purposes of the Supervisor’s motion were to “prioritize” and “protect” the health, safety and well-being of the community. The motion received significant support from the community and the Supervisor’s constituents. The Supervisor also convened a Townhall meeting on this subject at West Los Angeles College on October 15, 2009, where further community input on the CSD was received.
The motion passed unanimously. But 16 months have passed since the Supervisor’s motion was approved, and no study has been issued, no public recommendations have been made, no public hearings have been convened (since the October 2009 Townhall), and no amendments have occurred.
As a result, various members of the community have recently inquired about the status of the Supervisor’s efforts to strengthen the County’s CSD. You have responded to those requests with an email stating:
“Thank you for your email regarding the Baldwin Hills Oilfield.
“As you may be aware, several parties challenged the Environmental Impact Report for the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District, which was put in place in November 2008 in order to comprehensively regulate oil drilling and operations. Those lawsuits are ongoing. In light of the litigation, our office is responding to your e-mail.
“When Supervisor Ridley-Thomas brought his motion in August 2009 to consider changes in the CSD, settlement discussions resumed in earnest. As a result, efforts to settle the litigation have been the primary focus, rather than amending the CSD. The Second District and our office are actively engaged in these ongoing settlement discussions, which are being mediated by the California Attorney General's Office. If settlement is reached, we believe it will address the outstanding issues Supervisor Ridley-Thomas identified in his motion. Those settlement discussions, however, are being held pursuant to confidentiality provisions of state law which restrict the ability of all parties, including the County, from publicly disclosing the details of those discussions at this time.
“We believe focusing on the mediation efforts rather than taking steps to formally amend the CSD while this litigation is underway is the best use of County resources and frankly the best course of action.
“We are optimistic that these discussions will yield additional protection and benefits for the public in accordance with the Supervisor’s motion.”
But the assurances provided in your email no longer ring true. In our most recent court hearing, PXP’s lawyer stated in open court that the terms of the mediated settlement are unacceptable to PXP and that there are no longer any realistic prospects of settlement. You attended the hearing and did not express any disagreement. Trial is now set for March 29, 2011.
Given PXP’s announced termination of settlement discussions, we assume the County is no longer “optimistic that these discussions will yield additional protection and benefits for the public in accordance with the Supervisor’s motion.”
You have consistently stated that the County can amend the CSD at any time, regardless of whether it is mandated by the court. We are writing to ask for an immediate update about the County’s intention with respect to improving the CSD — given the Supervisor’s motion, the continuing concerns from the community about the shortcomings of the CSD as adopted, the absence of a multi-party settlement agreement, and PXP’s apparent determination to terminate settlement discussions.
You may recall that the Supervisor’s August 2009 motion included the following suggestions:
• Revising the number of new wells allowed per year [currently 53 per year] and overall [currently 600 within 20 years];
• Imposing controls regarding the abandonment of wells per year and over all;
• Consider establishing an end date for drilling;
• The possibility of undergrounding electrical service;
• The possibility of undergrounding all piping;
• Providing for additional visual screening or drilling and pumping activities;
• Providing for immediate restoration of vegetation and topography; and
• Ensuring the adequacy of the required health studies.
For your convenience, a printed copy of the Supervisor’s motion is enclosed.
The County and the Supervisor owe it to the community to proceed with the work plan outlined in the Supervisor’s motion. At this time, we would like to join other stakeholders in the community in their request for an official report from the DRP on how the CSD should be strengthened. There is no legal reason why the County cannot proceed, and there is no longer any prospect of settlement being achieved in the court-ordered mediation.
The communities and residents surrounding the Baldwin Hills Oil Field deserve better treatment than they are receiving from their County government. To the contrary, PXP is receiving better treatment than are the affected communities and their residents:
• New wells are being drilled every year by PXP under the CSD without any discretionary review, and PXP’s oil and gas operations in the oil field are not only continuing but expanding.
• Without any repercussions, PXP has failed to replace the gas plant flare that has caused significant vibration and noise problems as required by the CSD Ordinance passed in October 2008.
• The AQMD has not supplied community monitoring equipment to residents that they once promised, nor have air monitoring sensors for contamination been installed around the perimeter of the oil field.
• No visible input has been received from the State Water Resources Board. DOGGR’s review practices have not changed.
• Sections F5 and F6 of the CSD require the County Public Health Department to retain an independent qualified acoustical engineer to monitor noise and vibration impacts of the Oil Field on the surrounding communities, and such monitoring is to be conducted without prior warning to PXP. Moreover, the monitoring results must be promptly posted on the oil field website (http://www.inglewoodoilfield.com/). To the best of our knowledge, no such monitoring has occurred even though new drilling was initiated in June 2010.
• While there are at least 131 existing wells that are nonconforming as to location under the CSD (http://www.inglewoodoilfield.com/pxp_well_amortization_report.pdf (PXP’s 2009 Well Amortization Report (Mar. 2009), pp. 4-6)), nothing has been done with those wells even though at least 26 are inactive (id. at 4) and at least 31 of the nonconforming wells have exceeded the amortization dates reported to the SEC based on a third party accounting audit known as the 2008 Reserves Report prepared by Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (Id. at pp. 3 & 4.)
• Very little of the promised landscaping (superficial as that may be) has been achieved, and the most recently revised landscaping plan still completely omits any of the promised landscaping along the Culver City border.
• The oil field still looks very unsightly to area residents, businesses, park users, and passersby.
• Insurance levels are minimal for an oil field of this size (some 900 acres) and magnitude (over 436 active wells).
• Bonds that would cover future cleanup needs are of token amounts.
It appears to the surrounding communities that PXP’s rights and privileges are being given significant priority over the public’s right of safety, residents’ property rights and general public welfare. The County can no longer hide behind confidential settlement talks that have run their course and are now completely broken down.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
Damon K. Nagami
cc: Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas (w/ encl.)
Karly Katona (w/ encl.)
Richard Bruckner (w/ encl.)
Leon Freeman (w/ encl.)
Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance (w/ encl.)
Community Advisory Panel (w/ encl.)
Regional Planning Commission (w/ encl.)
Mr. Kutcher may be contacted at hlkklaw.com
