[Editor’s Note: Mr. Kutcher has been a primary force in the community campaign to ensure environmentally safe oil drilling. Yesterday afternoon, he dispatched this letter regarding his views on the Baldwin Hills oil field to County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, the host of tonight’s communal update meeting at West Los Angeles College.]
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas
Los Angeles County – Second District
866 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (CSD) Review & Amendment
Dear Supervisor Ridley-Thomas:
Thank you for sponsoring a successful motion directing County staff to conduct a review of the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (“CSD”) and report back with recommended modifications. And thank you for also scheduling a Town Hall meeting on this subject in our affected community (tonight at 6, in the Fine Arts Theatre on the campus of West Los Angeles College).
I am a resident of Culver Crest and a member of the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance. I will be attending and participating in the community meeting. But I wanted to take this opportunity to identify for you aspects of the CSD that need revision to address community concerns. None of my suggested amendments to the CSD requires any further study or analysis. There may be other items, but my list is set forth below:
A. Reduce The Number Of New Wells Allowed Without Any Further Discretionary Review.
As approved, the CSD will allow PXP to drill more new wells than PXP told the community to expect. Specifically, the CSD would allow up to 53 new wells to be drilled in any single year and up to 600 new wells over the next 20 years without any further discretionary approvals. But PXP mailed and widely distributed during Planning Commission hearings a mailer that promised that PXP would drill on average no more than 15 to 20 new wells per year (i.e., an average of 17.5 new wells annually) and would close on average 7 to 8 existing wells per year (i.e., an average of 7.5 closed wells annually). Specifically, PXP stated:
“Dear Neighbor:
* * *
“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 plan, applications or permits for 1,000 wells. PXP estimates on average:
o “15-20 new wells operating each year (with 7-8 wells closing each year).”
This means that PXP assured the public that on average the number of wells in the oil field would increase by no more than 10 wells per year, which equals a net increase by no more than 200 additional wells over the next 20 years. This is about the same rate as was experienced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as shown on FEIR Figure 2-8.
It is important that these were not numbers recommended by the public; these were numbers volunteered by PXP. PXP has never disavowed these numbers. I can see no reason to approve expanding the number of wells in this densely populated area by more than PXP promised would occur. There is no good reason for doing so.
Based on PXP's own statements about its own intentions, Section H1 of the CSD should be amended to provide as follows:
“New drilling and redrilling approved through a director's review procedure shall be limited to no more than ten (10) net new wells per calendar year, with a credit provided on a one-to-one basis for any existing wells that are abandoned in the same calendar year as the new wells are drilled 53 wells per year, with the maximum number of newly drilled wells of that total, limited to 45 per year, except that during the first year following the effective date of the ordinance establishing this section, new drilling and redrilling shall be limited to no more than 24 wells. Approval through director's review for drilling new wells shall be limited to 200 600 net new wells over 20 years, beginning on the effective date of this ordinance.”
This change does not require any further environmental study or analysis because this drilling rate is the very rate PXP assured the decision-makers and public it wished to achieve. Any higher drilling rates can be controlled through the County's discretionary conditional use permit process. See CSD Section H2a (“Provided a conditional use permit has first been obtained as provided in Part 1 of Chapter 22.56, and while such permit is in full force and effect in conformity with the conditions of such permit, the following uses may be established: Drilling or redrilling that exceeds the maximum number allowed pursuant to a director's review”).
B. Consolidation Of Wells. The CSD requires the preparation of an annual drilling plan. (Section E26c.)
This annual drilling plan is required to include “[a] discussion of the steps that have been taken to maximize use of existing well pads, maximize use of redrilled wells, and maximize the consolidation of wells.” (Section E26c(v).) However, PXP has not taken this obligation seriously in the 2009 Annual Drilling Plan.
In its 2009 Annual Drilling Plan, which was recently approved by the County, PXP's discussion of the consolidation of wells consists of one solitary sentence: “All proposed surface well locations were consolidated to the maximum extent possible.” This is not going to achieve consolidation.
The CSD should be amended to mandate that PXP be required to consolidate wells to the maximum extent technically feasible. The consolidated well sites should be located as far away as feasible from the outer boundaries of the CSD, sensitive receptors and other areas which have potential for creating more significant impacts.
Consolidation and directional drilling within the existing oil field would tend to mitigate toxic, localized air quality, upset, noise, odor, visual and biological impacts. Such consolidation should also minimize impacts that may be inconsistent with future land uses. These should be the stated goals of consolidation.
An independent third party expert selected by the County would evaluate the extent to which wells can be consolidated through directional drilling or other means to determine what is technically feasible, geologically sound and seismically safe. PXP should be required to make available all relevant data, including the three dimensional data that was obtained through its seismic mapping operations, available to the County's expert. PXP would be required to bear the costs of this third party expert review.
This change is a policy change. It does not require any further environmental analysis.
C. Electrification.
CSD Section E26c(ix) requires the annual drilling plans to include “[a] discussion of the latest equipment and techniques that are proposed for use a part of the drilling and redrilling program to reduce environmental impacts.” Section E26f requires: “Proven reasonable and feasible technological improvements which are capable of reducing the environmental impacts of drilling and redilling shall be considered as they become, from time to time, available.
Section E27c requires: “All well pumping units shall be operated by electric motors.” But Section E26d allows drill rig engines to be “operated by muffled internal-combustion engines or by electric motors.”
Section E26d should be modified to mandate that drill rig engines shall be utilized to the maximum extent technically feasible, thus reducing diesel particulate emission and greenhouse gases. It should also be noted that consolidation of drilling locations would dramatically increase the feasibility of electrical drilling.
Thus, Section E26d should be amended to read:
“All engines used for drilling and redrilling operations shall be operated by muffled internal-combustion engines or by electric motors. Internal combustion engines shall be allowed for drilling or redrilling operations only if and to the extent it is technically infeasible to utilize electric drill rigs. The Operator shall have a duty to take all reasonable and feasible steps to enable drilling and redrilling activities to be performed by electric motors.”
This change does not require any further environmental analysis.
D. Mandate Removal Of The Existing Flare.
According to the Final EIR, natural gas that is collected from the production wells was sold “either to the Southern California Gas Company (about 10% of the time in 2006) or the British Petroleum (BP) refinery in Carson, California”:
“Both companies have pipelines that run directly to the gas plant. In March, 2007, the BP pipeline was taken out of service for repairs and the gas has been directed to The Gas Company since that time. The Gas Company has specification related to the levels of H2S, ethane, propane, and the BTU content of the gas that it will accept.” (FEIR at p. 2-14.)
“A major source of vibration and low-frequency airborne noise at the oil field is the gas plant flare. Under normal operating conditions, gas from the gas plant is shipped via pipeline into a gas pipeline to the BP Refinery or a Southern California Gas transmission pipeline. There are times when these transmission pipelines are shut-down without prior knowledge of the oil field operator. When this happens, the gas from the gas is routed to the flare. This places a large volume of gas through the flare which produces vibration and low-frequency airborne noise that affects offsite areas, particularly in the Ladera Heights area. There is documented evidence that the vibration and low frequency noise has caused rattling of windows and other items in homes that border the oil field.” FEIR at pp. 4.9-34 through 4.9-35.)
The CSD, as recommended for approval by the Regional Planning Commission, required replacement and removal of the existing gas plant flare. However, Supervisor Burke's October 21st motion changed this, and Section L5 inappropriately provides: “Once the new flare is in operation, the existing flare at the gas plant may remain on-site as back-up equipment if SCAQMD determines that the flare may remain on-site.” This change is inconsistent with the EIR. No further analysis needs to be performed. The language approved by the Planning Commission should be restored:
“Once the new flare is in operation, the existing flare at the Gas Plant shall be decommissioned and removed may remain on-site as back-up equipment if SCAQMD determines that the flare may remain on-site.”
E. Amortization Of Non-Conforming Wells.
CSD Section E2n provides:
“The following setbacks shall apply within the oil field for drilling or redrilling:
i. At least 400 feet from developed areas.
ii. At least 20 feet from any public roadway.”
CSD Section L2f currently provides:
“Within 120 days of the following [sic] the effective date, or at such later date as may be approved by the director for good cause shown, the operator shall develop and submit to the director a well amortization report that inventories the existing wells that are located within, partially, or wholly, the setback areas specified in subsection E.2.n. The report shall also include an amortization and abandonment schedule for the wells located within the setback areas, based upon useful economic life.”
This section should be amended to read:
“Within 120 days of the following the effective date, or at such later date as may be approved by the director for good cause shown, the operator shall develop and submit to the director a well amortization report that inventories the existing wells that are located within, partially, or wholly, the setback areas specified in subsection E.2.n. The report shall also include an amortization and abandonment schedule for the wells located within the setback areas mandating that lawful abandonment of these nonconforming wells be completed within two (2) years after the effective date of the ordinance, based upon the useful economic life.”
This change does not require any further environmental study.
F. Removal Of Abandoned Equipment.
The Regional Planning Commission recommended the following provision, which Supervisor Burke removed during her October 21st motion:
“Storage of Equipment. The Operator shall comply with all provisions of an Equipment Storage Site Plan that has been approved by the Director. The Operator shall deliver to the Director for review and approval an updated Equipment Storage Site Plan when changes are proposed to the equipment storage areas at the Oil Field. Changes to the equipment storage areas shall not be made until the updated plan has been approved by the Director. Unless indicated otherwise in this subsection, all outside storage of parts or equipment shall comply with Part 7 of Chapter 22.52 of the County Code. There shall be no storage at the Oil Field of material, equipment, machinery or vehicles which are not essential tot eh Oil Operations. All non-essential equipment shall be removed from the Oil Field within 30 days of the date they become non-essential, unless a time extension is granted by the Director.”
This requirement should be restored to the CSD. Again, no further study or analysis is needed to make this change.
G. Closure Hearing.
The Regional Planning Commission recommended that the County conduct a public hearing to discuss whether to mandate closure of the oil field whenever oil or gas production drops below 2,000 barrels per day.
But Supervisor Burke's October 21st motion reduced this production level to only 630 barrels without any study or explanation.
CSD Section E35 should be amended to read:
“When oil or gas throughout is less than 2,000 630 barrels per day, the director shall conduct a public hearing to determine if shut down of the oil field or other actions are appropriate.” This change does not require any further study or analysis.
H. Rezoning.
The EIR studied the County's land use plans and policies. The EIR confirms that the oil field “is designated Open Space on the County General Plan Land Use Policy Map.” (FEIR at p. 4.8-7.) The EIR also confirms:
“The County General Plan Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Element includes a Conservation and Open Space Policy Map that depicts existing and recommended regionally significant open space areas that are generally recommended for acquisition by public agencies. It also depicts areas requiring special management or protection of natural resources, as well as management of hazards. The [oil field] site is designated as Recommended Open Space on this Policy Map.” (FEIR at p. 4.8-7.)
The EIR further confirms:
“Included in the policy statement on the explanation of the [County's Open Space Policy] map legend is the following:
“Recommended open space includes proposed national, State, and regional parks and recreation areas. These recommended areas are based on current federal, State, city, and County proposals; acquisition is subject to available funding.” (FEIR at p. 4.8-11; emphasis in EIR.)
The EIR further confirms:
“The project site is within the Baldwin Hills Zoning District and has an A-2 (Heavy Agricultural) zoning, with the exception of an interior portion that coincides with the location of a gas processing plant and is zoned M-1½ (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing).” (FEIR at p. 4.8-14.)
The EIR further confirms:
“The vacant areas and producing oil and gas fields of the Baldwin Hills are the last and largest remaining open space areas in the core of the Los Angeles basin . . . Recreation and public park space enthusiasts have long eyed the Baldwin Hills as an ideal location for a regional park . . . [¶] Sustained public and Los Angeles County support for a 1,400-acre regional park to be developed on vacant and reclaimed/retired oil and gas properties in the Baldwin Hills culminated in the passage of California Senate Bills (SB Nos. 1625 and 259) that established the Baldwin Hills Conservancy.” (FEIR at p. 4.8-15.)
The EIR further confirms:
“The California Department of Parks and Recreation and Baldwin Hills Conservancy have prepared a conceptual Park Master Plan for the Baldwin Hills area (May 2002). The purpose of the Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan is to serve as a guide for future natural open space and parkland acquisition and improvements, facility development and habitat restoration within the Baldwin Hills, and for connections to trails, parks, and other public facilities.” (FEIR at p. 4.8-17.)
The EIR also notes that, as of 2008: “The County [was] updating its General Plan in a multi-year process that is slated to be completed in 2009.” (Id.)
Based on this analysis in the certified EIR, the County should take the necessary steps to initiate re-zoning of the entire oil field from Heavy Agricultural and Restricted Heavy Manufacturing to Open Space. This change would be consistent with the General Plan and the obligation to ensure consistency between zoning and the General Plan.
This rezoning was deferred by former Supervisor Burke to a time after adoption of the CSD. Now is that time.
CONCLUSION
Once again, thank you for initiating steps to make these amendments to the CSD possible. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like any further clarification of these recommendations. I look forward to working with you and your staff to pursue successful improvements to the CSD.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:snk
cc: Daniel Rosenfeld
Karly Katona
Rose Hamilton
Susana Franco-Rogan
Elaine Lemke
Mr. Kutcher may be contacted at kutcher@hlmlaw.com
