[Editor’s Note: On the eve of Tuesday’s 9:30 a.m. showdown meeting over Inglewood oilfield regulations at the County Board of Supervisors, 500 W. Temple St., downtwn Los Angeles, Ken Kutcher of the citizens group the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance, sent this letter to the voters.]
October 20, 2008
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: October 21, 2008 Agenda Item No. 58
Baldwin Hills Community Standards District ("CSD")
(Regional Planning) (08-2219)
Dear Supervisors:
The purpose of this letter is to urge the Board of Supervisors to amend the draft Baldwin Hills Community Standards District ("CSD") ordinance as to Section H (Permitting) at pages 53-54. This should be amended to address two categories of issues:
• The quantity of number of wells, and
• The process for review of well permit applications.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
As to the number of new wells, this letter recommends the following two changes:
1. The second sentence of Section H.1 should be amended to read:
"New Drilling and Redrilling approved through a Director's Review procedure shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) 53 wells per year and a net increase of no more than ten (10) wells in any one year." (New language shown in bold; deleted language shown in strikeout.)
2. Section H.2.a should be amended to read:
"Drilling or Redrilling that exceeds the maximum number allowed pursuant to a Director's Review, provided, however, that the maximum number of new Wells (including any Wells approved per Director's Review permits) shall be limited to 48 total new Wells per year and a net increase of no more than 22 new Wells per year." (New language shown in bold.)
Clauses to address the following issues should be added to Section H.1 which sets forth the permit process for Director's Review of new wells:
• a notice of intent to file application should be mandated
• the notice of decision should be provided to all interested parties
• rights of appeal should be reciprocal for all parties, not just the applicant
• a copy of the operator's leasehold interest should be submitted with the application
• additional findings of approval (as described just before the Conclusion below) should be made to ensure the wells are both necessary and safe.
These matters are discussed in greater detail below.
THE QUANTITY OF WELLS NEEDS TO BE FURTHER REGULATED BY THE CSD
The Draft CSD provides:
"New Drilling and Redrilling approved through a Director's Review procedure shall be limited to no more than 53 wells per year." (Sec. H.1 at p. 53.)
"Provided a conditional use permit has first been obtained . . . the following uses may be established: Drilling or Redrilling that exceeds the maximum number allowed pursuant to a Director's Review." (Sec. H.2.a at p. 54.)
These provisions would potentially allow the drilling of too many new wells, and do not match the limits studied in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Baldwin Hills CSD. First, they allow an unlimited number of wells to be drilled each year with a conditional use permit, even though the EIR only studied the impact of a “worst case scenario” under which 965 wells might be drilled in unincorporated Los Angeles County over 20 years. Second, the figure of 53 wells a year is mathematically incorrect, since it was calculated based on the assumption that all 1,065 wells referenced in the EIR could be drilled in unincorporated County areas, while the EIR specifically assumed that 100 of these wells would be drilled in Culver City. Third, while an average of 48 wells per year might be consistent with the EIR’s “worst case scenario,” it is totally inconsistent with assertions repeatedly made by PXP over the past few months that it would only drill an average of 15-20 new wells a year. Finally, these provisions ignore the abandonment rates assumed in the EIR, and therefore allow PXP to drill new wells without abandoning existing ones, which would result in there being significantly more operating wells on the oil field than were studied. All of the foregoing could lead to significant adverse environmental impacts that were not studied in the EIR.
A. The Number Of Wells That Can Be Drilled On The Basis Of A Director’s Review Should Be Capped At 20 Per Year, Or A Net Increase Of 10 Wells Per Year.
The Regional Planning Commission was uncomfortable with Staff's recommendation of up to 53 new wells per year. As reflected in Attachment 2 to the Staff Report:
"The RPC also questioned why the annual cap on wells in the CSD was 53 and not 20." (Oct. 15, 2008 Staff Report, Attach. 2 at p. 13.)
The authorization for 53 wells per year would also greatly exceed the projections publicly announced by the oil field operator, Plains Exploration & Production Company ("PXP"). PXP had widely disseminated literature (mailed to every household in the surrounding communities) stating in no uncertain terms:
"Important Note for our Neighbors:
"PXP has no plans, no applications or no permits to drill 1,000 new wells. Such claims are FALSE." (Emphasis in original.)
"Almost two dozen informational meetings and public hearings have been held to make sure the community's input is considered in the EIR and in the development of the final CSD to be considered by the Board of Supervisors.
"Unfortunately there have been instances where information about the CSD/EIR and PXP's plans and operations has been misrepresented at these meetings and in the media. We have received requests to clarify the record; therefore we've provided the following factual information to assist you in reaching your own position on the CSD and EIR.
Myth #1:
• 'PXP is proposing an expansion — 1,000 new wells, more than 50 per year, in the next 20 years'
Fact
• PXP has no plans, applications or permits for 1,000 wells. PXP estimates on average:
• 15-20 new wells operating each year (with 7-8 wells closing each year)"
A copy of this PXP flyer is enclosed.
These are PXP's words — not the County's, not Culver City's, not the City of Los Angeles', and not the community's. PXP has widely distributed this literature. The vocal and angry public attendance at public hearings has diminished since PXP's "myth" flyer was mailed to all residents. PXP has not mailed out a retraction.
The solution is easy:
The second sentence of Section H.1 should be amended to read:
"New Drilling and Redrilling approved through a Director's Review procedure shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) 53 wells per year and a net increase of no more than ten (10) wells in any one year." (New language shown in bold; deleted language shown in strikeout.)
This change will match PXP's public statement of fact as to its intention:
"15-20 new wells operating each year (with 7-8 wells closing each year)" (See enclosed PXP brochure.)
B. Even With A Conditional Use Permit, The CSD Should Not Permit More Wells Than The Quantity Studied By The EIR.
It would be inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the CSD to allow more wells to be drilled than the “worst case scenario” studied by the EIR (965 over 20 years), or for the CSD to allow these new wells to be drilled without the concurrent Abandonment of other wells as assumed by the EIR (512 abandonments in unincorporated Los Angeles County over 20 years). (See FEIR Tables 3.1 and 3.2 at pp. 3-3 & 3-10.)
Incorporating the latter concept into the CSD requires careful drafting because the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ("DOGGR") of the California Department of Conservation has asserted that the State has exclusive control over ordering well abandonments. (See DOGGR letters dated August 19 and October 6, 2008.) However, while the County may be preempted from mandating well abandonments, it is completely consistent with its role of regulating land use for the County to restrict the number of net new wells that will be allowed. In fact, if this concept is not incorporated into the CSD, CEQA will require that the EIR be revised and recirculated to consider the impact of 1,065 net new wells with no abandonments.
Again, the solution is easy:
Section H.2.a of the CSD should be amended to read:
"Drilling or Redrilling that exceeds the maximum number allowed pursuant to a Director's Review, provided, however, that the maximum number of new Wells (including any Wells approved per Director's Review permits) shall be limited to 48 total new Wells per year and a net increase of no more than 22 new Wells per year." (New language shown in bold.)
THE PERMIT PROCESS FOR DIRECTOR'S REVIEW OF NEW WELL PERMITS ALSO NEEDS TO BE REVISED
As to processing of Director's Permits, Section H.1 of the Draft CSD provides:
"No new Permits for Drilling or Redrilling shall be approved by the Director unless the subject Wells have been approved as part of an annual drilling plan as described in subsection E.27.d. The Well Pad Revegetation and Screening Plan as required by subsection E.10.a shall be submitted with the application for the Wells covered by the application. Approval shall not be granted until copies of all related permits have been submitted to the Director; other permits include, but are not limited to the permits required by DOGGR, the County Fire Department; the County Department of Public Works, the County Sanitation District, RWQCB, SCAQMD and other pertinent agencies identified by the Director." (Draft CSD at p. 53-54.)
This provision does not sufficiently account for the sensitivity of granting permits for drilling in the Baldwin Hills.
The area surrounding this District (within a five mile radius) contains over one million people, together with their residences, businesses, schools, places of worship, social and cultural facilities, governmental facilities, parks, recreation areas and public rights of way — all of which currently are adversely impacted by the operations of the Oil Field.
There are numerous established residential neighborhoods around the Oil Field. These communities include Ladera Heights, Culver Crest, Blair Hills, Baldwin Hills, Baldwin Vista, View Park, Culver City Creekside, and Windsor Hills. Single-family homes make up 45 percent of the uses adjacent to the Oil Field. Many of these single- family residences are located along the ridgelines above and below the Oil Field in the western and eastern portions of the Baldwin Hills. Multi-family dwellings are also located in the vicinity of the Oil Field, including the complexes known as Village Green, Cameo Woods, Raintree Townhomes, Raintree Condominiums, Tara Hills, Lakeside Village, Lakeside Villas and The Heather, as well as numerous units located in the vicinity of Jim Gilliam Park. Marycrest Manor, a home for the aged and infirm, is located immediately along the oil field border. Of the approximately 283,245 residents that live within three miles of the District, the ethnic makeup is: 40 percent are African American, 23 percent are Hispanic, 11 percent are non-Hispanic White, 8 percent are Asian-Pacific Islander and 17 percent are "other." Economically, over 18 percent lives in poverty. In addition, 62 percent are renters, and 38 percent are homeowners. The residents are 48 percent male and 52 percent female; 25 percent are children and 11 percent are seniors.
West Los Angeles College is another large use adjacent to the western boundary of the Oil Field; this community college serves nearly 10,000 students and encompasses almost 70 acres. Several elementary schools and churches are also located within less than a mile radius of the field.
In addition to the residential, educational and religious land uses mentioned above, the Baldwin Hills contain approximately 650 acres of natural open space and parkland, including the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, the Ladera Ball Fields, the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook, Culver City Park and Norman O. Houston Park.
For purposes of comparison, enclosed is a copy of the County's zoning regulations for director's permits for live entertainment, child day care, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, historic vehicle collection, wineries, and water wells. The criteria and conditions for oil field drilling permits should clearly be more rigorous than they are for any of those other less impactful uses.
The CSD should be revised to reflect the following procedural concerns:
Notice of Intent to File Application. The Director's Permit process does not provide for notice to the affected parties. This can be solved by simply requiring the applicant to certify that the Community Advisory Panel ("CAP") (see Draft CSD at sec. J.1) and area homeowner associations and all other persons or entities previously expressing interest in such applications. This should be added to the CSD.
Notice of Decision. The Director's Permit process provides for notice of the decision to be mailed to the applicant, but not to concerned citizens. Corresponding with Section 22.56.1730 of the County Code, interested parties should be entitled to notify the County if they wish to receive notice of the decision when it is forwarded to the applicant. This should be added to the CSD.
Rights of Appeal. The Director's Permit process allows for appeals by applicants, but not by affected parties. County Code Section 22.56.1750 provides:
"An appeal may be made by the applicant in the event that he is dissatisfied with the action taken by the director."
According to the County Counsel's office, the reason for this right of appeal is to provide a mechanism to address a mistake made by the Director short of litigation. But there is no reason why a mistaken decision on a Director's Permit would only be made against the applicant. Sometimes a mistake might be made in an applicant's favor. There should be reciprocity. Impacted neighbors should have rights of appeal if the applicant enjoys such a right.
Copy of Underlying Lease. PXP's draft CSD also required the application to be accompanied by:
"Copy of the applicable oil and gas lease or unit agreement, unless the surface of the lands on which the wellhead will be located is owned in fee by the Operator." (FEIR at p. 2-53.)
This is missing from the CSD and needs to be added.
Additional Findings of Approval. A Director's Permit should not be issued for a new well unless the following additional findings can be made:
• The targeted oil and gas reserves are not reasonably accessible from an existing Well site and the location of the new Well is in the public interest.
• All reasonable health, safety and welfare protections are in place consistent with the requirements and intent of the CSD.
• Any additional appropriate conditions have been imposed to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property.
• The most technologically appropriate protections for the surrounding community have been proposed for implementation by the applicant.
• All reasonable steps have been taken to maximize use of existing Well pads, to maximize use of Redrilled Wells, and to maximize consolidation of Wells.
CONCLUSION
The CSD should be revised to incorporate the specific changes set forth above. These changes address quantity of wells consistent with the EIR and PXP's public statements of fact and intent. These changes also address the process for review of new drilling applications consistent with fairness and public health, safety and welfare.
While we have been told that the CSD can be amended in the future, the Dept. of Regional Planning's Subdivisions and Zoning Ordinances Interpretations and Procedures Manual (1st ed., June 2007) states:
"For a proposed CSD to move forward, it must have been developed with community-wide input, and be supported by a strong consensus of property owners and residents within the CSD boundary." (DRP, Subdivisions and Zoning Ordinances Interpretations and Procedures Manual (1st ed., June 2007) at p. 154.)
Here, the CSD has no residents, and the property owners are the leaseholders and PXP. This means there may be virtually no opportunity to amend this CSD to address community concerns unless such amendments are initiated by the County itself pursuant to Section G.7 (pp. 51-52).
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:snk
Enclosures
cc: Mike Bohlke (w/ encls.)
Councilmember Bernard Parks (w/ encls.)
Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (w/ encls.)
Speaker Karen Bass (w/ encls.)
Congresswoman Diane Watson (w/ encls.)
Mayor Scott Malsin (w/ encls.)
Bruce McClendon (w/ encls.)
Rose Hamilton (w/ encls.)
Russell J. Fricano (w/ encls.)
Susana Franco-Rogan (w/ encls.)
Elaine Lemke (w/ encls.)
Hal Bopp, State Oil and Gas Supervisor (w/ encls.)
Robert S. Habel (w/ encls.)
Cynthia Dunne Traxler (w/ encls.)
John Peirson (w/ encls.)
William T. Fujioka (w/ encls.)
Raymond G. Fortner (w/ encls.)
Sachi A. Hamai (w/ encls.)
Wendy L. Watanabe (w/ encls.)
Rick Auerbach (w/ encls.)
