To All Culver Crest and Vicinity Residents:
Thank you to the many of you who showed up (for Saturday’s community meeting at West L.A College on oil drilling), and unfortunately only the few of you who participated (through no fault of yours but because of time constraints) in the L.A. County Regional Hearing RE: the PXP issue. As you can see by the letter written to Supervisor Burke below, we were very displeased at the outcome of the hearing. There wasn't enough time allotted, and the format was disorderly (the format being, the first one to grab a speaker’s seat can talk).
Our effort to extend the E.I.R. public review date 60 days apparently landed on deaf ears. In addition, this shoddy treatment at a public hearing is unacceptable. We would like to lodge our complaints and concerns to her. She’s the only one who can steer this procedure toward a fair and equitable conclusion. However, she has to be convinced that there is substantial support for our recommendations.
We would like each of you to contact Burke’s office by calling (at 213.974.2222) or emailing a letter or comment (www.seconddistrict@bos.lacounty.gov) or faxing her a note (at 213.680.3283) to express your support to extend the E.I.R. public review date for 60 days in order to give us enough time to absorb all the material and be heard.
Please send your opinions to her as soon as possible…today would be great.
Thank you for all the support in this vital matter.
Mike Bauer
President
Culver Crest Neighborhood Assn.
—————————————————————————————————————–
August 4, 2008
Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke
866 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: L.A.County Regional Planning Hearing
August 2, 2008
Dear Supervisor Burke:
Over 400 people attended the County Regional Planning Commission Hearing yesterday at West Los Angeles College. The majority were residents who live in the vicinity of the subject oil field who wanted to voice their concerns about the proposed PXP oil drilling plans. However, a 3-hour hearing just isn't enough time allotted when the procedures and other presentations and a 15-minute dissertation by a PXP Vice President took up a considerable amount of time. In addition, almost half of the “public” who spoke were employees or consultants of PXP. What was left was insufficient time to hear from the people residing in the area and their anxiety and distress over this issue.
We feel we were cheated by the lack of due process and urge an extension of time for the public review date of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. This will give us more time to examine the facts and comment on them. The solution proposed by the Commission at the end of the hearing (that people show up and try again at the next hearing) does not solve the problem.
Even if the Commission were to extend that meeting to allow everyone to speak, it is being held in the evening, and only a limited number of speakers can be called before it becomes so late that people will have to leave. I urge you to have the Commission schedule another weekend hearing so that hundreds of members of the public who cared enough to already attend and sit through a hearing that were not allowed to speak will then have an opportunity to address the Commission. Also, there should be no need to take up time at future hearings with speeches, staff presentations and PXP’s defense. Additionally, PXP’s employees and consultants should be treated as being the equivalent of the applicant and that they have already used up their allotted time and then some during the Saturday hearing. This was billed by the County as an opportunity to hear from the public about their concerns. Let the people speak!
I think the County needs to find a way to make this up to the public. It feels as though this was just one more example of shutting out the public. Add this blunder to the list of disappointments felt by the public: we only obtained PXP's CSD through the Public Records Act request, the EIR was released 9 months late, PXP was provided with a copy of the screen check EIR but we were not, the County refuses to extend the public review period for the EIR, the County refuses to reschedule the August 27 hearing date, the County's CSD was not studied in the EIR, the GBHA CSD was not included in the Staff Report, and the list goes on and on. This is not an example of good government. This was characterized as a model public outreach process. So far maybe the intent is good but most of the steps have fallen far short of what was intended.
Supervisor Burke, your legacy should be that you provided your constituents a fair and timely forum in which to respond to this critical issue that we will have to live with for the next two decades and that the result will be a safe and secure environment.
Surely, by extending the public review date 60 days will not cause undo hardship to anyone but does provide an opportunity to improve a situation that is totally unacceptable as it now stands.
We all look forward to your positive response to our request.
Sincerely,
The Board of the Culver Crest Neighborhood Association
Mike Bauer
President
cc: State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (Senator.Ridley-Thomas@senate.ca.gov)
L.A. City Councilman Bernard Parks (Bernard.C.Parks@lacity.org)
Ms. Rose Hamilton (rhamilton@planning.lacounty.gov)
Mr. Eric Boyd (eric.boyd@sen.ca.gov)
Mr. Dennis Rodriguez (dennis.rodriguez@lacity.org)
Ms. Jenny Wood (jenny.wood@asm.ca.gov)
The Culver City News (culvercitynews.org)
The Culver City Observer (culvercityobserver.com)
The Front Page Online (anoonan@thefrontpageonline.com)
