[Editor’s Note: On the eve of this morning’s presumably final public hearing at 9 o’clock downtown by the County Regional Planning Commission on recommendations it will forward to the County Board of Supervisors regarding governance of the Inglewood oil field, Ken Kutcher sent the letter below. A leader of the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance, a citizens group concerned about health and safety issues, Mr. Kutcher was reacting to the most recently edited Community Standards District and Environmental Impact Report.]
October 7, 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
Next Hearing Date: October 8, 2008
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing concerning the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") and Baldwin Hills Community Standards District ("CSD") Version 4.
THE FINAL EIR IS PREMATURE; THE DRAFT EIR SHOULD BE RECIRCULATED
The CSD cannot be acted upon by the Planning Commission until the EIR is recommended for certification. (Rule 602J, Rules of Procedure for Regional Planning Commission, Sept. 1999.)
With respect to the FEIR, I must begin by reserving the right to comment at a later point. The FEIR and the responses to comments were not made available until Monday, October 6, for a hearing on Wednesday morning, October 8. There are thousands of pages to review in these documents. The release of the FEIR in this fashion appears designed to prevent public participation. I object to the County’s failure to provide the public, including me, adequate time to review and respond to this critically important documentation.
Moreover, for the reasons stated in my law firm’s DEIR comment letter, it is my legal position that the Draft EIR required revision and recirculation. State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).
THE CSD SHOULD BE REVISED TO ADDRESS CRITICAL POLICY DECISIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN WEIGHED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Version 4 of the CSD is not yet ready for final action by the Planning Commission. This document does not yet adequately address critical policy matters that have been raised in the five previous public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has yet to give direction on these matters. The last hearing was cut short before the Commission could provide direction to County staff regarding these issues.
Specifically, areas of concern include:
• The maximum number of well permits that can be issued per year
• The maximum number of well permits that can be issued over the next 10 or 20 years
• The maximum number of wells that can be operated at any one time
• The process for reviewing new well permit applications; this could be by Director’s Review Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or some combination thereof
• The findings and conditions for issuing new drilling permits
• The requirement for notification of the community when applications for new well permits are filed
• A targeted closure date for the oil field (see Senate Bill No. 1048, §1(c)(8) (Murray, 1999))
• The need for implementation plans for the many mitigation measures; these plans would set forth the criteria and standards for review of the multitude of plans called for in the CSD, including:
- air quality monitoring,
- water quality monitoring,
- noise monitoring,
- subsidence/uplift,
- erosion control,
- fire safety,
- earthquake safety,
- biological resources,
- vibration controls,
- lighting,
- landscaping,
- waste removal,
- signage,
- painting,
- annual drilling plans, and so on.
• Questions of oil field cleanup for known and unknown contamination
• The need for enforcement sanctions commensurate with oil field revenue generated during violations
• Issues of insurance, indemnification and performance bonds
The Planning Commission needs to address these critical issues in the CSD. See L.A. County Code § 22.16.210 (“any modification of the proposed zone change or amendment by the board of supervisors not previously considered by the commission during its hearing, shall first be referred to the commission for report and recommendation”).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS BEFORE IT CAN RECOMMENT THE CSD FOR ADOPTION
When making its recommendation concerning the CSD, the Planning Commission must make certain findings. Those findings are set forth in Los Angeles County Code Section 22.16.170. A printout is enclosed.
Section 22.16.170 provides:
“In making its recommendation relative to a proposed amendment other than a zone change, the commission may recommend approval where the information presented at public hearing shows that such amendment is consistent with the general plan and is necessary to implement the general plan and/or that the public convenience, the general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action.” (Emphasis added.)
This code section should guide the Commission’s deliberations regarding CSD Version 4. The question for the Commission is whether the CSD, as written, serves "the public convenience, the general welfare or good zoning practice."
I submit that until the policy questions set forth have been addressed in the CSD, the Planning Commission cannot find that the CSD serves “the public convenience, the general welfare or good zoning practice.”
I therefore urge the Planning Commission to provide direction to County Planning Staff concerning how the Commission would like these issues to be addressed in the CSD and ask that the CSD be revised and returned to you with these changes before you can favorably recommend the CSD for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. This step would also provide time to review the FEIR.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:snk
Enclosure
cc: Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke (w/ encl.)
Supervisor Gloria Molina (w/ encl.)
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky (w/ encl.)
Supervisor Don Knabe (w/ encl.)
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (w/ encl.)
Mike Bohlke (w/ encl.)
Councilmember Bernard Parks (w/ encl.)
Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (w/ encl.)
Speaker Karen Bass (w/ encl.)
Congresswoman Diane Watson (w/ encl.)
Mayor Scott Malsin (w/ encl.)
Bruce McClendon (w/ encl.)
Jon Sanabria (w/ encl.)
Rose Hamilton (w/ encl.)
Russell J. Fricano (w/ encl.)
Susana Franco-Rogan (w/ encl.)
Elaine Lemke (w/ encl.)
Hal Bopp, State Oil and Gas Supervisor (w/ encl.)
9065/Cor/LAPlanningComm.2006.KLK
