[Editor’s Note: With the first two informational meetings on oil drilling in the Culver Crest area coming up Thursday night at 7 (at a private residence) and Friday night at 7 (3731 Stocker St.), Ken Kutcher, a leader of a group of concerned Crest citizens, sent the following letter yesterday to the County Planning Commission.]
July 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-(2) (Dr. Fricano)
Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (CSD) and EIR
SCH No. 2007061133
Environmental Case No. RENVT2007-00048
Agenda Date: July 16, 2008
Agenda Item No. 7
Dear Commissioners:
I am a resident of the Culver Crest neighborhood in Culver City. I have a wife and two children.
I am very concerned about certain deficiencies in the opportunity for community involvement concerning the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District. I am requesting an opportunity for more fair involvement in three specific areas:
• As recommended by County Staff, the Planning Commission should set a second hearing within the community on a weekday evening commencing no earlier than 7:00 pm.
• The Planning Commission should move its targeted August 27 hearing on this matter to at least September 10, 2008, if not later.
• The Planning Commission should make an official request that the oil field operator provide a demonstration of the full effect of flaring during the site visit planned for the morning of August 2, 2008.
The reasons for these three requests are explained in greater detail below. But before describing those reasons, a background of the relevant facts and circumstances is necessary to an understanding of these concerns.
BACKGROUND
Impacted Areas. More than one million residents live within a five mile radius of the Baldwin Hills Oil Field. The Baldwin Hills Oil Field encompasses approximately 750 acres of otherwise undeveloped land. The communities of Ladera Heights, Culver Crest, Blair Hills, Baldwin Hills, Baldwin Vista, View Park, Culver City Creekside and Windsor Hills are adjacent to the Oil Field. Multi-family complexes including Village Green, Cameo Woods, Raintree Townhomes, Raintree Condominiums, Tara Hills, Lakeside Village, Lakeside Villas and The Heather are also adjacent. Various parks, including Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, the Ladera Ball Fields, the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook, Culver City Park and Norman O. Houston Park, are also located in the immediate area, as is West Los Angeles Community College.
Noxious Emissions. Beginning at about midnight on January 11, 2006, uncontrolled emissions of methane gas and hydrogen sulfide occurred in the Oil Field and permeated the Culver Crest neighborhood in which I live. Many residents evacuated their homes. The City of Culver City received at least 60 complaints that night/morning. Representatives from the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), the Culver City Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Health & Hazardous Materials Department were dispatched to the neighborhood at about 4:00 a.m., resulting in Emergency Response Notification #121860. According to the SCAQMD Report:
"[O]n January 10th at 21:30hrs, [PXP's] crew had encountered a large methane gas pocket (trap) during the drilling activities at a depth of 8850ft. The build up of methane gas immediately occurred during the drilling operation in which a large amount of drilling spoils and other contaminated base material sprayed out from the well head during the shut down process which occurred until nearly 1:30hrs on January 11th.
"Approximately 400 barrels of petroleum contaminated mud was stockpiled inside an adjacent open sump with at least 10 barrels on the ground surrounding the drill rig equipment.
"At 06:00hrs, [Inspector Israel] inspected the sump location and detected a very heavy petroleum odor throughout the location. The nearest residence is less than 1/2 mile south of the drill rig site."
Approximately 500 homes are located in my neighborhood and were impacted by this incident. PXP reported readings of "around 1,500 to 2,000 ppm of hydrocarbons" as a result of this incident. (SCAQMD Air Quality Complaint Report for Complaint No. 181387.)
Once again on February 7, 2006, a similar incident occurred. In addition to residents of Culver Crest, West Los Angeles College also called to complain because this incident occurred at 11:00 in the morning when classes were in session. According to Mr. Steve Rusch of PXP, "[T]here was no gas release and really nothing we could do to prevent it — it was routine, daytime operations." Nevertheless, this incident resulted in Notice of Violation No. P37137 issued by the SCAQMD to PXP on February 17, 2006 because "[d]ischarge from oil well drilling operation caused nuisance to a considerable number of people."
Another Notice of Violation (#P48802) was issued by the SCAQMD to PXP on May 16, 2006, for "operating Vickers Pit as a sump, failure to maintain cover on Vickers Pit, operating Vickers Pit without control device."
Initial Two Urgency Ordinances. On June 27, 2006, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2006-0050U "to impose additional temporary restrictions on the drilling of new wells and the deepening of existing wells in the Baldwin Hills Zoned District and initiate a zoning study to consider potential additional permanent regulations of these historical oil and gas production operations in that area, including a determination of the appropriate environmental review to be required." (BOS 6/27/06 Meeting Minutes.) This first emergency ordinance was adopted because:
"[T]he Board of Supervisors finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the drilling or deepening of new wells and the approval of any required additional subdivisions, variances, building permits, site plans, or any other applicable entitlements in connection therewith would result in that threat to the public health, safety, or welfare." (Ord. No. 2006-0050U, § 6.)
On August 8, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2006-0064U to extend Interim Ordinance No. 2006-0050U because:
"It is now time for the County to undertake additional environmental review and to consider new regulations . . . [W]e must face the fact these activities now operate within the midst of a densely populated urban area . . . The extension will enable the County to undertake essential environmental and zoning studies that will help identify appropriate permanent regulations. These important studies will necessarily include the active participation and expertise of the State Department of Conservation and the City of Culver City." (BOS 8/8/06 Meeting Minutes.)
The July 27, 2006 Staff Report indicated:
"[I]t is recommended that the Interim Urgency Ordinance be extended for ten months and 15 days as provided in [Government Code] Section 65858. This will allow sufficient time for DRP to complete the zoning study, including recommended changes to the Zoning Code if needed." (7/27/06 Staff Report at p. 2.)
Initial Delays for Commencing the EIR. But it was not until eleven months later, on June 28, 2007, that the County issued its Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR for the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District which means that the EIR preparation had only just begun. (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15082 ("Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared").)
Delays by Plains Explorations and Production Company ("PXP") appear to have been the principal reason that the EIR process was not commenced more promptly. Even though the County and PXP had decided in 2006 that the best way to proceed was to incorporate new regulator provisions for the oil field into a Community Standards District ("CSD"), it was not until March 5, 2007, that PXP finally submitted an application to establish this CSD.
Third and Final Interim Ordinance. As a result of these delays, on May 29, 2007, the Board of Supervisors was required to adopt Ordinance No. 2007-0064, further extending and modifying Ordinance No. 2006-0064. The extension was needed because:
"County staff is working diligently with a consultant team to prepare an environmental impact report to assess the effect of existing and future oil production activities on the surrounding communities. A community standards district is being drafted to establish permanent land use regulations, procedures and development standards to assure that future oil field operations are compatible with the health and safety of surrounding residential neighborhoods. These environmental studies and regulations will be prepared with extensive community involvement so that all the concerns of residents are addressed. This process, which also includes formal public hearings by the Regional Planning Commission and the Board, will be completed next year.
"In order to provide the greatest protection to the public health, safety and welfare of the Baldwin Hills community, no additional oil well drilling should occur in the next 12 months . . . This will give the County staff and the environmental consultant adequate time to prepare the studies and regulations that will provide the basis of a program to allow oil production in a manner that does not jeopardize the public health, safety and welfare of the community. This program will be extensively reviewed by community members to allow the broadest input from all members." (Meeting Minutes at p. 2; emphasis added.)
According to the timeline dated February 13, 2007, the County planned to release the Draft EIR on August 21, 2007. The first Planning Commission hearing was to occur on October 10, 2007, after the close of the comment period on the DEIR. The Final EIR was to have been completed on December 20, 2007. After release of the Final EIR, the second Planning Commission hearing was to occur on January 2, 2008. The Board of Supervisors were expected to hold two hearings on February 5 and March 4, 2008.
Delays in Drafting the CSD. In a peculiar twist, rather than the County drafting the CSD to be studied in the EIR, the County requested PXP to submit its own draft CSD for the EIR to study.
However, as late as October 23, 2007, PXP's lawyer, Mr. Charles Moore, was corresponding with County Zoning Administrator Ron Hoffman about ground rules restricting the release of PXP's draft CSD to the public:
"I assume that the draft [CSD] will not be treated as a public record and will not be distributed outside the county. Misinformation from an early draft is detrimental to the public process. Can you confirm that the county counsel will support this exemption from any duty to disclose the draft to the public?" (Email from Mr. Moore to Mr. Hoffman dated 10/23/07 @ 8:34 pm.)
On November 29, 2007, the County reiterated the importance of receiving a draft CSD from PXP: "As the applicant for the CSD, I think it's important that you provide us with a draft CSD as soon as possible." (Email from Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Moore dated 11/29/07 @ 9:43 am.) On December 10, 2007, PXP's representative indicated that the draft CSD would be submitted "soon." (Email from Mr. Moore to Mr. Hoffman dated 12/10/07 @ 9:53 am.)
On December 20, 2007, the County requested that PXP submit its draft CSD by no later than January 2, 2008. (Email from Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Moore dated 12/20/07 @ 10:08 am.) Mr. Moore appeared confused that this had not already been done by his office: "I have confirmed that my office delivered previously an initial draft ordinance to the county's environmental consultant in an effort to assist him with his tasks." (Email from Mr. Moore to Mr. Hoffman dated 12/20/07 @ 7:57 am.) But what had been sent was only a compilation of ordinances enacted by other jurisdictions to regulate oil field activities. (Email from Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Moore dated 12/20/07 @ 10:08 am ("This is not a draft CSD and does not satisfy the request that we made to you yesterday").)
On December 21, 2007, the County prepared a revised timeline based on submission of PXP's CSD by January 2, 2008. That revised timeline projected a Draft EIR release date of May 1, 2008. However, once again PXP missed the County's deadline for submission of their proposed CSD.
PXP's initial draft CSD was not submitted to the County until January 7, 2008. This was 19 months after the moratorium was first imposed and ten months after PXP filed an application for a CSD. The neighbors had no role in this delay. In fact, the neighbors were completely excluded from the process during this 19-month period.
On January 25, 2008, the County provided PXP with comments on their initial draft CSD. And then it was not until February 15, 2008, that PXP submitted its revised draft CSD to the County for environmental review. (Email from Ms. Dittman to Ms. Lemke dated 2/15/08 @ 2:45 pm.)
Lack of Meaningful Community Involvement. Regrettably, at no time has PXP indicated that consensus would be pursued with its neighbors or with any of the Culver City representatives: "We look forward to advancing the proposed ordinance through further cooperative efforts by the applicant, all consultants and representatives, and the County offices." (Email from Mr. Moore to Mr. Hoffman dated 12/20/07 @ 7:57 am.) Indeed, in February 2008, PXP's representatives even worked to make sure their draft CSD was not shared with representatives of Culver City:
"We spoke with Culver City yesterday. Of course the representatives asked for any ordinance product we had drafted and we declined, indicated that it was intertwined with County environmental review process. We did not discuss substance. They then suggested a working session with the County before public release of the ordinance. We said we would pass the request along, and you can expect the City [of Culver City] to make that request directly. Their theory is that since this is a legislative process there is no reason why another legislative body cannot become part of the process before public release." Email from Mr. Moore to Mr. Hoffman dated 2/6/08 @ 12:56 pm.
Moreover, while the County indicated to PXP's representatives that the County had its own draft CSD, that document has never been shared with the public despite repeated requests from members of the public. (Email from Mr. Hoffman to Ms. Dittman dated 1/2/08 @ 2:17 pm (“[I]f [PXP's draft] CSD is not given to John [Pierson] by Friday, we will proceed with our version of the CSD").)
In addition, despite repeated requests from members of the public, the screencheck drafts of the EIR that were supplied to PXP were explicitly withheld from members of the public. (Letter from Ms. Lemke to me dated 4/21/08.)
Our requests for a copy of PXP's draft CSD were also rebuffed by the County. However, pursuant to a Public Records Act request made pursuant to Government Code Section 6250, et seq., we eventually received PXP's draft CSD from the County on February 21, 2008.
On June 18, 2008, the community issued its own draft CSD. The next day, the Draft EIR was finally released to the general public. Thus, through no fault of the community, the Draft EIR was not issued until more than eight months after it was originally promised.
REQUESTED ACTIONS
1. In Addition to its August 2nd Hearing, the Planning Commission Should Schedule a Second Community Hearing on a Weekday Evening. County staff has repeatedly assured the community that this CSD would be a community-based process. But at this time, only one local hearing has been scheduled in the community. That hearing is to occur on Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 12:00 noon at West Los Angeles College.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that only three of the five Planning Commissioners will be available to attend that hearing. While I am aware of the provisions of Section 10 of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure allowing the two other Planning Commissioners to participate inspite of their absence from the neighborhood meetings and missing residents' testimony, the fact that two of the Commissioners will be unable to attend is very unfortunate. There is no substitute for live testimony, with an opportunity to ask follow up with questions, to view a hearing in its entirety in one sitting, etc.
Moreover, at the time of the August 2 hearing, the public comment period will still be open on the Draft EIR. Some members of the general public may not yet have had an opportunity to review the Draft EIR in its entirety, since is contains more than 1400 pages.
It is my understanding that both Planning staff and Supervisor Burke support establishing a second special hearing in the neighborhood on a weekday evening for this CSD. I urge the Commission to do so. Section 3 of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (Sept. 9, 1999) provides that a special meeting "may be called for any reasonable time by the Commission." The Planning Commission should set a second special hearing in the neighborhood on a weekday evening for this Community Standards District.
2. The Planning Commission’s Third and Final Hearing on the CSD Should Be Rescheduled to September 10 or Later. I support Culver City’s request that the August 27th hearing should be postponed. If public participation is genuinely desired, August 27 is one of the worst possible weeks of the year to hold a public hearing. August 27 is a very poor date for a hearing of wide public interest such as this CSD because it falls on the Wednesday before the Labor Day weekend. That is a week when many families are out of town for their traditional end-of-summer vacations. Perhaps the only worse week for public participation would be the week between Christmas and New Year's.
Moreover, the August 27 hearing will not satisfy Section 602J of the County's Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines (Nov. 17, 1987). Section 602J requires:
"An advisory agency shall also review the Final EIR prior to a recommendation on the project."
The public comment period on the Draft EIR will not close until August 19, 2008. There will not be sufficient time for the County’s consultant to prepare the Final EIR by the time of the August 27 hearing. Until the Final EIR has been released, it would be premature for the Planning Commission to hold its final hearing (at which time the Commission must make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the contents of the draft CSD). (Gov't Code § 65855.)
Without addressing the requirements of Section 602J, Supervisor Burke opposes any postponement of the August 27th Planning Commission hearing. In the Supervisor’s July 1, 2008 letter to Culver City Mayor Scott Malsin, she argues against a postponement because "the County wants to keep this project moving forward." This argument is off-target, as is her position that the County has "taken numerous steps to keep community groups and community residents advised and updated." The County had refused to provide the community with PXP's draft CSD until compelled to do so by submission of a formal Public Records Act Request; the County refused to supply the community with the screencheck draft EIRs that PXP was shown; the County has refused to provide the community with a County-drafted CSD; and the County has inadvertently delayed the issuance of the Draft EIR for seven months or more.
The County’s rush to schedule a final Planning Commission hearing on a date when residents will normally be out of town on vacation means the community process is effectively being short-changed due to prior delays by the applicant, the County and the environmental consultant. As noted above, this Draft EIR was originally slated for release on August 21, 2007. The EIR release date was then postponed to November, then December, then January, then February, then April, then May, and then at least four different dates in June 2008. Now the County wants to collapse the public review and public hearing process to make up for lost ground. This is unfair.
Moreover, PXP is not without fault. PXP did not file its application for this CSD until March 5, 2007 — more than eight months after the moratorium was first imposed. And then PXP did not file its initial draft of the CSD with the County until January 7, 2008 — more than 10 months later. And then PXP's current draft of the CSD (i.e., the one that was actually studied in the EIR) was not filed until almost six weeks later.
None of these delays were the fault of the neighborhood, and yet the neighbors are the ones who will be short-changed by an expedited hearing schedule. We are supposed to read a 1400 page EIR, prepare written comments, and attend Planning Commission hearings before the Final EIR is prepared. We are also supposed to respond to a one-sided CSD drafted by the very party to be regulated by the CSD. And the County has steadfastly refused to release its own draft CSD to the community thus far.
Finally, the Department of Regional Planning's Subdivision and Zoning Procedures explicitly specify:
"Before a draft Community Standards District can move forward, it will be necessary for [the applicant] to build community support for the idea . . . Part of [the applicant's] obligation in bringing [a CSD] forward is to demonstrate unanimous (or as close as you can get to it) support for [the applicant's] proposal. [This can be done] by hosting a public workshop to introduce the community standards district concept to the entire community and gather their input as to what issues there are. Then, your Community Standards District committee, with assistance from Department staff, should complete a rough draft. A further community meeting can be held to get input on the draft. Once details have been ironed out, [the Department] will compose a preliminary draft which must be reviewed by [ ] County Counsel. Ideally, consensus building has been an on-going process in your community." Subdivisions and Zoning Ordinances Interpretation and Procedures Manual (Dep't of Reg'l Planning, 1st ed., June 2007) Technical Manual 2007-1, at p. 154; emphasis added.
This has not yet occurred. Consensus has not been achieved over the details of the CSD. What is more, the County has not yet assisted the community with the drafting of a proposed CSD.
Based on the County's Zoning Ordinance Procedures Manual, this application is simply not yet ready for final action by the Planning Commission. The community is ready to participate, but our input has not been incorporated into the drafting and, as a result, consensus has not been achieved. It is therefore premature to schedule the final Planning Commission hearing on this matter. Until this occurs, the Planning Commission simply will not be in a position to make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors concerning this application.
3. In Advance of its Official Site Visit, the Planning Commission Should Request the Applicant to Arrange to Provide the Commission with a Flaring Demonstration. The Planning Commission has scheduled a site visit for the morning of August 2, 2008. Section 12 of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure allow for such site visits:
"Where, during the course of a hearing it appears that one or more Commission members desire to view the subject property, the hearing shall be continued for that purpose."
The community strongly supports this site visit to the Oil Field. Moreover, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov't Code §§ 54950, et seq.) entitles the community to attend. (Gov't Code § 54952.2(a).) As does Section 12 of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure: "[A]s a body [the Commission] may view the site and may be accompanied by proponents, opponents, and other interested persons."
Prior to conducting its site visit, the Commission should request that the applicant be prepared to demonstrate the full effect of its flaring activities on the morning of August 2nd. Flaring has been a source of extensive discussion and concern among the community. The Draft EIR states, "There is documented evidence that the vibration and low frequency airborne noise [from flaring] has caused rattling of windows and other items in homes that border the oil field." DEIR at p. 4.9-24. The Draft EIR further states:
"A review of the flaring records for 2007 through April of 2008 showed large volumes of gas going to the flare on 21 days. It is likely that vibration and low frequency airborne noise that affect offsite locations occurred on each of these days." DEIR at p. 4.9-25.
However, the DEIR states:
"Given that these events are unplanned, it was not possible to measure the level of vibration produced by the gas flare or to evaluate the level of low-frequency airborne noise." DEIR at p. 4.9-24.
It should not be difficult to request that the operator schedule a flaring episode for demonstration purposes during the Commission’s site visit.
CONCLUSION
I plan on attending the July 16 hearing to address these concerns and any questions the Commission might have regarding my three requests.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:snk
cc: Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke
Supervisor Gloria Molina
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky
Supervisor Don Knabe
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich
Mike Bohkle
Steve Rusch
Charles Moore
Mayor Scott Malsin
Elaine Lemke
Hal Bopp, State Oil and Gas Supervisor
Rose Hamilton
Russell J. Fricano
Councilmember Bernard Parks
Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Speaker Karen Bass
Susana Franco-Rogan
9065/Cor/LAPlanningComm.2001a.KLK
