Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Zone Change 88-11 - Use Permit 88-25 - Supplemental Environm
T n �ua`��7�a f�eacl� C�iant�er cfConrinerce November 21 , 1988 Mayor John Erskine and Members of City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Erskine : Attached is the Chamber ' s letter to the Planning Commission regarding the Springfield Oil Recovery Project which was approved by a 4-3 vote on October 18 , 1988. Since 1986 the Chamber of Commerce has continued to strongly support this project as proposed by ANGUS Petroleum Corporation for the reasons stated in the correspondence . The Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce urges the Council to uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to approve Zone Change application 88-11 and Use Permit 88-25 . Once again , thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue . Sincerely, Jr J( cfiffl�l l v Klaus Goedecke President KG:kb Attachment 2213 Main Street,Suite 32 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714/536-8888 October 14 , 1988 Mr . Victor Leipzig , Chairman Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Re : Springfield Oil Recovery Project Zone Change 88- 11 and Use Permit 88-25 Dear Chairman Leipzig : At our September 22 meeting , the Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce unanimously reconfirmed its support for the Springfield Oil Recovery Project as proposed by ANGUS Petroleum Corporation . The Board has been on record supporting this project when it was previously considered by the Commission in 1986 . Prior to its vote , the Chamber Board reviewed significant information regarding this project including suggested alternative drilling sites . The Board was of the opinion that the project at the proposed site and with all of the mitigations suggested in the EIR and Supplemental EIR represents the most environmentally attractive solution to the problems created by old oil wells and related facilities scattered in this area of our City . In addition to solving the problem in the Springfield area , the project provides the model and framework for resolution of oil well related problems elsewhere in the City . This will be particularly important as we move forward with redevelopment efforts in downtown Huntington Beach . I can assure you and all the members of the Commission , however , that the Board of the Chamber of Commerce would not support this project if we thought it would expose area residents to any significant safety risks or unreasonable or ongoing disturbance . Our review clearly indicates that this project can not only be done safely , but in a way that avoids all but the slightest of disturbances to area residents . Mr . Victor Leipzig , Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission Page 2 The Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Change application ' 88 - 11 and Use Permit 88-25 when those items are before you on October 18 , 1988 . Sincerely, Klaus Goedecke President KG: kb cc : Members , Huntington Beach Planning Commission Mike Adams , Department of Community Development ti RESOLUTION NO. 5954 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 (SEIR 88-1 ) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 ( EIR 86-1 ) FOR THE SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT LOCATED ON TWO BLOCKS ON OPPOSITE CORNERS, SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST, AT THE INTERSECTION OF SPRINGFIELD AVENUE AND CALIFORNIA STREET AND INCLUDING 160 ACRES OF SCATTERED WELL OPERATIONS BOUNDED GENERALLY BY FLORIDA STREET ON THE EAST AND SEVENTEENTH STREET ON THE WEST, BETWEEN YORKTOWN AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND MEMPHIS AVENUE ON THE SOUTH WHEREAS , the Springf.iela Oil Recovery Project ' s related entitlements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 have been prepared; and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 was adopted and certified by the Planning Commission on September 3 , 1986 , and ICity Council on October 20 , 1986; and The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the preparation of the Supplemental and original Environmental Impact Reports; and All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given have been heard by the Planning Commission either through written notice or during a public hearing on October 18 , 1988 , and such responses and comments as were made were duly noted and responded to . All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given have been heard by the City Council either through written notice or during a public hearing on November 21 , 1988 , and such responses and comments as were made were duly noted and responded to. -1- 5954 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1 . The City Council does hereby find that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all state and local guidelines therefore . SECTION 2 . The City Council has considered all significant effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 , together with existing and proposed measures to mitigate such significant effects (Exhibit A) . SECTION 3 . The City Council further finds that through the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the Springfield Oil Recovery project can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance . SECTION 4 . The City Council finds that the benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by virtue of the consolidation of existing oil producing operations to a single site, abandonment to modern standards of many existing wells and replacement to modern standards of existing tanks override the unmitigatable effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 and the attached statement of overriding considerations (Exhibit B) . -2- 5954 SECTION 5 . The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November , 1988 . Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: • I City Clerk 11-/s s � City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED : City Administrator Acting D rector , Community Development 5954 -3- i TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (ZONE CHANGE 88-11 AND USE PERMIT 88-25) EIR 86-1 : SCH NO, 86040917 AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 21. 1988 1 . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT 3 CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 1 . 1 Aesthetics 3 1 .2 Risk of Upset/Health and Safety 4 1 . 3 Seismic Impacts 5 2 . POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE 8 NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 2 . 1 Topography, Soils and Geology 8 2.2 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality 10 2 . 3 Biological Resources 13 2 . 4 Archaelogical/Paleontological Resources 13 2 . 5 Land Use, Zoning and General Plan 14 2 . 6 Light and Glare 22 2 . 7 Traffic and Circulation 22 2 . 8 Air Quality and Odors 25 2 .9 Noise 27 2 . 10 Risk of Upset/Health and Safety 29 2 . 11 Public Services and Utilities 33 2 . 12 Energy Conservation 37 2 . 13 Growth Inducing Impacts 37 2. 14 Cumulative Impacts 38 3 . FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 42 3 . 1 No Project Alternative 42 3 . 2 Reduced Intensity Alternative 43 3 . 3 More Intense Drilling Program 44 3 .4 Abandonment of All Oil Production Sites 45 3 . 5 Alternative Sites : Parcel 1 46 3 . 6 Parcel 1 Development Only 47 3 . 7 Alternative Sites : Parcel 2 48 3 . 8 Alternative Sites : Parcel 3 49 3 . 9 Alternative Sites : Parcel 4 50 3 . 10 Medium Density Residential Project 51 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 54 4. 1 Findings Relating to Project 54 Consistency With the Housing Element : To Be Added to Section 2. 5 . 2. of the CEQA Findings 4. 2 Additional Findings Relating to 54 Alternatives Proposed by the Chambers Group, Inc . on Behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach ii . FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (ZONE CHANGE 88-11 AND USE PERMIT 88-25) EIR 86-1: SCH NO, 86040917 The State Guidelines ("Guidelines") promulgated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provide as follows: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (This findina shall be referred to as "finding M . 01 (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. [This finding shall be referred to as "finding (2) . "1 (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (Guidelines Section 15091. ) Exhibit A l [This finding shall be referred to as "finding M . "] The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the oil recovery project ("Project") proposed by Angus Petroleum Corporation ("Project Applicant") identifies significant effects on the environment which may occur as a result of the Project. Section 1 of this Attachment identifies the significant environmental effects of the Project which cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of significance. Section 2 sets forth potential environmental effects of the Project which are not significant because of the design of the Project or which can feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 3 summarizes the alternatives discussed in the EIR. The findings set forth in each section are supported by facts established in the administrative record of the Project. 2. 1. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. The City has determined that EIR mitigation measures and proposals included as part of the Project will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects, but that these effects cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 1. 1 AESTHETICS 1. 1. 1 Significant Effect: The neighborhood surrounding the Project Site consists of medium density residential uses, predominantly in small (8-10 unit) developments and single family residences. Views of the Project Site from adjacent residences will consist of the screening block wall and landscaping. During the initial drilling phases, drill rigs will be visible. During the production and injection phases, temporary drill rigs will be used periodically for maintenance and will be visible from adjacent residents. Tanks will be visible above the wall. Findings; The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in Support of Findings: The following measures will result in a substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect. (a) The Project shall comply with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (b) All trees shall be a minimum of 24-inch, boa type, and spaced no more than 20 feet on center. (c) Landscaping and the construction of masonry walls and street improvements shall occur concurrent with excavation and construction. (d) Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year, and no more than 4 well service rigs may be on the site at any one time. These service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height. (e) Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in height. Upon completion of initial drilling of injection and producer wells, all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 3 . I ' (f) The enclosure of both parcels of the Project Site will provide the most direct mitigation of visual impacts . Surrounding the drill site with an acoustical wall will provide a more aesthetic viewshed. (g) During the initial drilling phases, when drill rigs are visible, the drill site shall be surrounded by an acoustical wall and portions of the rig will be acoustically wrapped. (h) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 6, addressing light and glare, hereby are incorporated by reference. (i) The Project requires the drilling of 30 to 45 wells from the drill site. These wells shall be located within the fenced and landscaped drill site and the wells shall be concealed from view. (j ) The topography of the Facility Site will be substantially lowered to reduce the height of the storage tanks. (k) These mitigation measures included within the Project Design and imposed by the Use Permit will substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts of the Project. Nonetheless, the Project will result in a change in the views from adjacent residences, because of the addition of a 30-foot sound barrier wall and a 165-foot drilling derrick. This is an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project. 1.2 RISK OF UPSET/HEALTH AND SAFETY 1.2 . 1 Significant Effect: Under a worst case scenario, assuming that all oil tanks are full and the tanks are set out in an open field without surrounding perimeter walls, there is a "rare" (defined in the standard methodology for risk assessment as 1: 10,000 to 1: 1,000,000) chance that an oil tank fire could result in radiant heat affecting the area outside of the immediate Project Site. Findings: The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in Support of Findings: The following measures will result in the substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect: I (a) Oil handling facilities will be lowered to six feet below the level of the surrounding streets. This measure, coupled with the eight-foot perimeter wall, will 4 . I i very significantly reduce any "radiant heat hazard footprint, " which is calculated using no containment at all . (b) Oil will be shipped on a continuous basis. Therefore, only a minimal amount of oil will be required to be held in the tanks. Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted, and these tanks shall never be completely full at once. The small amount of oil on site will reduce the possibility of oil-related fires. (c) Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a preliminary emergency action plan (EAP) shall be prepared and submitted. A completed EAP, based on as-built plans, shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations. The EAP shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto streets from the Project site would be handled, the safe handling of any chemicals and/or hazardous materials, and shall require full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment. A copy shall be on file at the Fire Department and updated every five years. In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc. , not otherwise covered in the EAP shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations. (d) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 11.2, relating to fire prevention/protection, hereby are incorporated by reference. (e) Although the likelihood of a fire with a radiant heat footprint large enough to affect residences is extremely low, if it did occur, the impacts would be significant. Therefore, it is considered a significant unavoidable impact. 1.3 SEISMIC IMPACTS 1.3 . 1 Significant Effect: If an earthquake of M 8 .0 or greater on the Richter Scale occurs with its epicenter in the Project Area, structures in the Project Area, including tanks and walls of the Project facilities, would be damaged. Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . 5. i Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will result in a substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect. (a) Project engineering will prevent the well cellars from being damaged, even in an M 8 earthquake. (b) Oil will be shipped on a continuous basis, so that all of the tanks in the oil storage area will never be full at the same time. Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and these tanks shall never be completely full at once. The oil storage area is located six feet below grade, and the area is surrounded by reinforced concrete retaining walls . The volume of this depressed retaining basin exceeds the Uniform Fire Code, and Division of Oil and Gas requirements, by a factor of 2. Even if the retaining wall is ruptured, the retaining area would hold oil released by any tanks which burst or overturn. (c) The Facility would shut down under a "fail-safe" system, as soon as the power went off during a major earthquake. No emergency situations would be created requiring immediate attention by, or an augmentation of, public safety personnel . (d) Engineering soils analysis and fault line investigations were performed to determine if near surface faulting is present within the Drill Facility Site Areas . The resultant study concluded that no faults or related fracture zones were observed in the trench exposures . Accordingly, an active fault line is not known to be present within the trench limits. The fault line investigation report show that no faults were found. (e) The Project will eliminate 22 existing wells and 7 tank batterires . None of the batteries has more than rudimentary fire-fighting equipment, and the wells all have some leaks around the stuffing boxes. Both the existing wells and tank batteries are located in close proximity to residences; unlike the Project, they are not completely surrounded by block walls, with wells located underground in trench cellars. The Project ' s design will ensure that oil leaks resulting from a major earthquake would not escape beyond the confines of the Project, while existing wells and tank batteries create numerous risks of leakage and other potential hazards in the event of a major earthquake. In addition, all existing wells are connected to their tank batteries by means of buried pipelines. Many of these lines are old, and their exact locations are not known. Approximately 18,000 feet of 6. pipeline will be abandoned by the Project, which will replace the pipeline with pipelines that are in conduits under the corner of Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street or hung on the cellar walls, where leaks can be found and repaired quickly. This will result in a significant reduction in the impacts of ruptures and leaks in the event of a major earthquake. (f) Although the above measures would prevent the creation of an emergency situation during an earthquake of M 8 or greater, no known engineering or other mitigation measures could avoid damage to - the Facility if such a major earthquake occurred. In conjunction with damage that would occur to the surrounding area, this is a significant unavoidable impact of the Project. 7. 2. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The City has determined that the following effects will not be significant, for the reasons stated below. 2. 1 TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND GEOLOGY 2. 1. 1 Potential Effect: Development of the Project will alter the existing topography of the Drill Site and Facility Site. The existing surface of the ground on the Drill Site will be graded and recompacted to substantially follow the contours of the abutting streets. Excavation to a depth of approximately 12 feet will be required to permit construction of three subsurface well cellars . The topography of the Facility Site will be lowered approximately two feet below the street elevations on the south and west and six feet below the street elevations on the northeast corner, in order to reduce the height of the storage tanks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Project Site currently consists of two parcels, which are vacant except for existing oil production facilities and well pumps . The vacant areas of the parcels are covered with filler piles from prior construction activity. Because the existing topography of the Project Site is disturbed and covered with piles of dirt, the effects of grading are not significant. (b) The surface can be restored at the end of the Project' s life span. Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department, showing how the Site will be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. (c) All loose upper soils within the foundation areas for process equipment on the Facility Site shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill . Foundation areas for the well cellars on the Drill Sites shall be overexcavated a minimum of two feet vertically and three feet horizontally and replaced by compacted fill . Superficial fills near the cellars should be removed and replaced as compacted fill . 8. 2. 1.2 Potential Effect: Land surface subsidence has occurred in the Huntington Beach area, with a major subsidence area roughly correlating with the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field. According to the last leveling survey for the Huntington Beach Pump Station located near the intersection of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard, the subsidence in the Project Area is -0. 1 to -0.2 feet for the period from 1976 through 1986. The current average rate of subsidence per year is approximately -0. 02 feet . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Several reports indicate that the rate of subsidence has decreased since water flooding of oil producing zones was initiated in 1959 . The Division of Oil and Gas (1973) reports that the maximum recorded rate of subsidence was 0. 15 feet per year from 1955 to 1968, but decreased to 0.05 feet per year from 1968 to 1972. (b) Experience in other oil fields, such as Wilmington, shows that repressurization of the oil producing zones through water injection has caused reduced rates of subsidence and often has completely halted subsidence and even caused from rebound. (c) Based on the studies by the Division of Oil and Gas and experience in Wilmington, cited above, the implementation of the Project will not increase subsidence, and should reduce the rate of subsidence, in the Project Area. 2. 1.3 Potential Effect: In three cases, oil field operations or other fluid injection activities have been documented as relating to induced seismic movements . In the Wilmington Field, California, several small, subsidence-induced earthquakes occurred. In the U.S. Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, a series of earthquakes was caused by fluid emplacement in a liquid waste disposal project . In an oil reservoir at Rangely Field, Colorado, water injection operations resulted in induced seismic movements. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) None of the above situations is likely to occur at the proposed site. The Project is a water injection 9 . project, which will not cause subsidence. The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 1.2 hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rangely earthquakes in Colorado occurred in hard brittle rock. This rock is geologically different from the young sediments of the Los Angeles basin. Therefore, this data does not apply to the Project . (c) Micro-earthquake monitoring systems, designed to accurately locate small, shallow earthquakes that might be generated by oil operations, have been in operation about 11 years in the vicinity of Inglewood and Wilmington oil fields. No earthquakes have been located in either field or in nearby fields, that would indicate oil operations to be a causative factor. 2.2 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY 2.2. 1 Potential Effect : Stormwater runoff will be increased because the existing permeable land surface will be decreased by approximately three acres of land, resulting from the paving of the Project Site with asphalt. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The increase in storm water from paving the Project Site _will not have negative impacts on the existing storm drain system because the Project has been designed to utilize all on-site storm water runoff for water injection purposes. (b) The construction of new half-section streets with concrete curb and gutter will alleviate the present water ponding problems along the City right-of-way. (c) Surface drainage, including storm water, on the Drill Site shall be diverted to catch basins, then by gravity flow via underground pipeline across the street to the Facility Site. The water will be collected in sand interceptor No. 1 and then pumped into the water processing area, filtered and mixed with the production brine and injected into the oil bearing zone as part of the water flood. The interior of the Facility Site will be partially paved with asphalt over a rock base and the remaining portion will be paved with crushed rock. The 10. majority of stormwater and surface drainage will infiltrate into the soil through the crushed rock. Any remaining stormwater and surface drainage will be collected in catch basins, diverted to the sand interceptors and then follow the same process as water from the Drill Site. (d) In the event of a power failure during a 100-year storm, an emergency valve could be opened on the Facility Site and all stormwater could be directed via gravity flow pipeline to Well Cellars A and H. When the cellars are partially filled, water will flow to a three-stage clarifier, then, if necessary, via pipeline to the storm drain in Delaware Street. Cellars A and 8 have been specifically engineered to perform as additional clarifiers for this emergency use. 2 .2 .2 Potential Effect: The original EIR stated that produced water or make-up water would be released to the sanitary sewer system. This is no longer the case. Injection water will not release to the sanitary sewer system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) All water used for injection into the underground oil reservoirs will be obtained from the following sources: storm water runoff; produced water from the production wells; and make-up brine water (water to initially fill the underground reservoirs) purchased from Chevron U.S.A. At present Chevron U.S.A. is treating and releasing the make-up brine water into the sanitary sewer system. Use of the brine water for injection purposes will initially reduce the existing load on the sanitary sewer system by approximately 30,000 barrels per day. (b) All brine produced with the oil will normally be cleaned by circulation through sand filters and settling tanks and will then be reinjected into the formations . (c) In the event of a complete electrical failure, all production wells will go down, and there will be no produced water. The flow of make-up water will be stopped at the source. The water filtration system will include reserve capacity to allow for continued operation during equipment maintenance or repair. If a longer time period is needed to make repairs or to replace equipment, make-up water will be reduced and/or a partial shutdown of high water-cut production wells will be implemented. 11. 2.2.3 Potential Effect: The drilling of the wells for the Project will involve penetrating both shallow and deep groundwater acquifers to gain access to oil-bearing layers below, resulting in potential adverse effects on groundwater. I Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) The water found in the shallow and deep groundwater acquifers is, for the most part, brackish. Potable water has been extracted from acquifers in the Huntington Beach area, although usually only in areas east of the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The Project Site . is west of the fault and is, in fact, located between two branches of the fault. The injection of water and extraction of oil in the oil-bearing strata will not have a significant effect on the quality of groundwater because the water currently is not usable for either domestic or industrial uses. (b) State Division of Oil and Gas Regulations require that the base of all fresh water sands that are penetrated must be protected from salt water invasion from below by cementing. The Division of Oil and Gas will require that water tests be performed to ensure that proper seals were formed. The Use Permit requires that pipe string cementing through fresh water-bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent saltwater intrusion into the acquifers. (c) During drilling operations, the drilling fluid which is circulated in the well board to remove cuttings forms a membrane around the bore hole wall and inhibits water infiltration into the formations which have been penetrated. The area of water infiltration from the drilling mud is usually no more than a few feet in diameter. 2.2.4 Potential Effect : Make-up water will be transported to the Project site through a pipeline. If the pipeline ruptured, brine could be released. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. 12. (a) The make-up water pipeline will be buried approximately 30 inches below the street surface measured from the top of the pipe. The pipeline is above the groundwater surface and will not encounter any surface water. (b) The pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors so that any sudden pressure drop will trigger an alarm and shut down the transfer pumps . This will insure that any release of water is minimal . (c) Fact (a) in Support of-Finding 2.2 .3, relating to the quality of groundwater in the area, hereby is incorporated by reference. 2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2.3 . 1 Potential Effect: The development of approximately 3 . 1 acres of the Project Site will destroy weedy species on the Project Site. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding: (a) The Project Site is currently disrupted, containing piles of dirt from earlier construction activities. No cultivated or native species exist on the site, except for weedy plants. Landscaping will replace all vegetation lost during grading and add additional vegetation. (b) No rare or endangered species are known or expected to breed on the Project Site. 2.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 .4 . 1 Potential Effect: The grading of the Project Site and excavation for foundations and well cellars will disturb any undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources . Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) There is little likelihood of undiscovered resources on the Project Site. The majority of the known archaeological sites in the City are located along the bluffs along the banks of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel 13. Rivers. The two archaeological sites nearest the Project Site are approximately 0. 6 and 1 mile away from the Project Site. (b) During grading and excavation, earth moving crews shall observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined. The project will be conditioned through the Use Permit to follow specified procedures in the event that remains are located. 2. 5 LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN 2.5. 1 Potential Effect: The Project site currently is zoned "Old Town Specific Plan" (District 2) , combined with Oil Production (0) . The 00" Oil District prohibits drilling. In order to implement the Project, a zone change from "O" to 001" Oil District is required. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City's Zoning Code provides for the establishment of "01" Districts. The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet) , as required by section 9682. 1. The proposed drill site for the Project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by section 9682. 1. Therefore, it is consistent with this provision. (b) Section 9682.2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements. All City-required dedications will be implemented through the terms of recorded tract maps for the Project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. 2. 5.2 Potential Effect: The project zoning must be consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan. According to the General Plan, "consistency between the zoning proposal and the General Plan would be determined by considering all the policies and programs of each element of the General Plan and their relationship to the proposed zoning . " Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . 14 . The following policies of the General Plan apply to the Project. The Project is consistent with these policies for the reasons stated below. (a) Open Space and Conservation Element Section 2 . 1.2 . 1.3 : "Encouraging beautification of oil producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil lands . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites, thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites scattered over 160 acres. Although oil-producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the appearance of the Project site will be improved over its present condition. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Figure 2-1. "Priority Open Space Areas" : "Oil Production Areas" are included in "Third Priority Areas, " defined as "areas containing valuable assets (not of less significance) which should be incorporated into a comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Program. " The Project site is not included in any adopted Open Space or Conservation Program. Figure 2-2. "Resource Conservation Priority Areas" : "Mineral Resources" are listed as "Second Priority Areas, " accompanied by a policy to "encourage utilization of mineral wealth; prevent blight, pollution, and undue destruction of natural features . " The Project will use secondary recovery techniques to increase the efficiency of oil production. As conditioned and mitigated, the Project will not add to blight or pollution. It will result in significant reductions in air emissions from existing oil production facilities, and will remove unsightly facilities in six areas which are located close to residential areas. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Figure 2-3 . "Open Space and Conservation Plan" : "The plan encompasses all existing and planned open space and conservation programs as well as several additional projects . " (General Plan at p. 16. ) No open space developments, open space plan areas, or scenic corridors are designated on the Project Site or 15. within the subsurface Project Area. The McCallen Park site, the nearest identified site, is two blocks to the north of the site. (b) Seismic Safety Elements Figure 2-6 . Flood Hazard Areas : The Project site is located in Zone C, "Minimal Flooding. " Therefore, the Project is not in a flood hazard area. Section 2.2 .4 . 1.3 : "Continue to require geologic investigations of all significant development projects and to stipulate by Conditions of Approval that all construction within those projects be designed to withstand predicted probable ground motion accelerations. " Project structures will be designed to withstand predicted probable ground motion accelerations . Project engineering will prevent the well cellar from being damaged, even in an M 8 earthquake. The oil storage area is surrounded by a depressed retaining basin which exceeds the Uniform Fire Code and Division of Oil and Gas requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (c) Noise Element Section 2.3 .2. 1: "Goal: To reduce to acceptable levels the degree of noise exposure from all transportation, stationary and other nuisance sources in the community to insure the public health, safety, and welfare. " Section 2.3 .2.2 . 7: "Objective: To minimize external noises and prevent them from penetrating existing quieter areas . " Section 2.3 .2.3 .2: "Policy: The use of quieter auto- mobiles, machinery and equipment should be encouraged. " Section 2.3 .3 . Qvtimum Noise Levels: "The optimum noise level for all residential uses in LDN 60 for outdoors (approximately equivalent to CNEL 60) and Ldn 45 for indoors. " The Project will be conditioned, through the CUP, to exceed the requirements of the City noise code. Truck traffic shall be limited to daytime hours, and double mufflers shall be used on production hoists, earth moving equipment, well service rigs and backhoes. Only electrical motors shall be used on drilling rigs and production wells. No emergency generators shall be used. Therefore, the Project is consistent with these policies. 16. Section 2.3 .4 . 14 . Noise Abatement Plan, Noise From Oil Pumping Operations: "Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of an electric motor-driven pump. " Although this section is not directly applicable to the Project, it implies that a 25-foot buffer should exist between pumps and residential areas. The pumps on the Project site will be in excess of 100 feet from the nearest residential unit. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (d) Recreation Element Figure 2-13 . "Existing and Proposed Recreation Facilities" : "Figure 2-13 shows the existing and proposed parks at ultimate development." The Project will not adversely affect or preclude the development of any recreation facility shown in Figure 2-13 . Therefore, it is consistent with Figure 2-13 . (e) Circulation Section 3 . 1.2. 1: "Goal: To provide a multi-mode transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. " The Project will not cause or result in significant traffic increases. It will only require three truck trips per day, which is too low in volume to create a significant adverse impact to safety. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3. 1.2.2. 5: "Policy: Provide adequate truck and rail service to industrial and commerical areas while providing minimum disturbance to residential areas. " The Use Permit establishes truck routes which will minimize disruption to surrounding residential areas . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (f) Scenic Highways No policies in the Scenic Highways Element apply to the Project. (g) Housing 17. Section 3 .3.4 .2.2: "Action: Monitor changes in industrial and commercial land uses to assess their impact on residential land use. " The EIR discussion of growth-inducing impacts describes the effect that the Project will have on residential development, as well as the impact on further residential development if the Project is not approved. Therefore, the City's review of the Project complies with this policy. Section 3 .3 .5.2. 1: "Action: Review all changes in planned land uses to determine the cumulative impacts on community facilities . " The EIR discussion of cumulative impacts describes the Project' s cumulative impacts on community facilities. Therefore, the City's review of the Project complies with this policy. Section 3 .3 . 5.2 .8: "Action: Continue to actively enforce land use ordinances. " The Project will be subject to all City land use ordinances and regulations, enforced through conditions attached to the CUP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (h) Land Use Element Section 3 .4 .2.3 . 5: "To provide for the proper development, maintenance, improvement, preservation, and use of the City' s natural resources by removing and restoring oil production areas as wells become non-productive. " The approval of the Project will permit the abandonment and removal of 22 wells. Prior to termination of Project oil operations, a plan must be submitted to the City, showing how the Project site will be abandoned and restored. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 .4 .2. 5. 1: "To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach by providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improvements, and maintenance in all areas of the City. " As conditioned and mitigated, the Project will increase the quality of areas surrounding wells to be abandoned, 18 . because the appearance of the well sites will be improved and they could be developed for residential uses. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 .4 .2.9 : "To seek out and encourage industrial development that will broaden the City' s economic base, that is diversified, that is well related to other land uses, and that provides local job opportunities by: " Section 3 .4 .2.9 .2: "Locating industrial uses adjacent to compatible land uses . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites, thereby eliminating potentially incompatible land uses from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood. Overall, the Project will reduce the potential for land use incompatibilities from oil developments in residential areas. Therefore, it is consistent with this policy. Section 3 .4 .2.9 .4 : "Establishing effective environmental standards that minimize the external effects on other land uses and the environment. " The conditions and mitigation measures imposed on the Project will minimize its external effects on other land uses . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 .4 .2.9 . 5: "Eliminating conflicts between existing industrial uses and non-compatible uses . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from six sites, thereby eliminating potential incompatible land uses from residential areas. Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood. Overall, the Project will reduce the potential for land use conflicts from oil developments in residential areas . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (i) Community Facilities Section 3 .5. 6.3. 1: "Coordinate the installation of community facilities with street improvements where possible. " 19 . i • The Project will provide concrete curbs and gutters in conjunction with the construction of half streets . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (j ) Coastal Element Although this element addresses coastal policies, the following policies relating to energy resources could be applied to developments throughout the City. Section 3 . 6.2. 6.2: "Encourage the production of energy resources as efficiently as possible with minimal adverse impacts . " The Project will use secondary recovery techniques to increase the efficiency of oil production. As conditioned and mitigated, the Project ' s adverse effects will be minimal . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6.2. 6 .2(c) : "Encourage unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations. . . to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible when such activities (1) reduce the area used for oil facilities, (2) are not more environmentally disruptive than existing arrangements and (3) do not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare. " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from six sites scattered over a 160-acre area and consolidate them on a 3 . 1 acre site. This will reduce the area used for oil facilities. The abandonment of existing wells will eliminate potentially incompatible land uses from residential areas. Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned and mitigated, the Project will not jeopardize the public health, safety, and welfare. It will reduce potential impacts from fire and seismic events by removing exisiting oil facilities which are located in close proximity to residential areas . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 .2. 6 .2(d) : "Utilize the oil suffixes to ensure that coastal dependent energy extraction is accommodated in areas designed other than resource production, except for environmentally sensitive habitat areas . " 20. The change of zone for the Project will utilize an oil suffix to ensure that energy extraction is accomodated in an area not specifically designated "resource production. " The Project is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 .2. 6 .2. (e) : " . . . [Consider] 'enhanced' oil recovery activity and. . . ensure the evaluation of impacts different from those associated with conventional extraction. " This EIR discussed potential impacts of secondary water techniques which are different from those associated with conventional extraction (see, e.g. , discussions of subsidence and injection water) . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6.2. 6.4 : "Promote compatibility of oil and other energy-related activities with surrounding uses to the maximum extent feasible. " a. " . . . include measures such as additional requirements regarding fencing, planting and landscaping to ensure aesthetic and environmental compatibility between oil activities and other uses. " The Project will comply with Chapter 15.22 of the City Oil Code (Screening and Landscaping) . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. 2.5.3 Potential Effect : The Project will be located in a predominately residential area, which could have land use impacts on surrounding residences. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) with respect to all land use impacts except those specifically identified in Section 1. Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Project will result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. It will also remove 7 associated tank batteries. Therefore, the Project will reduce the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . Currently some residences are within 20 feet of existing wells that will be abandoned under the proposed Project. For example, on the Villa St. Croix site, 5 operating wells are located within 20 feet or less of condominium units. In total, therefore, the Project will reduce land use impacts from oil-producing uses. 21. (b) The Facts in Support of Findings 1. 1, 2. 5.1, 2.5 .2, 2. 6 and 2.9 hereby are incorporated by reference. With the exception of aesthetic impacts, discussed in Section 1. 1, mitigation measures and elements of the Project which will reduce impacts on the environment wi11 also ensure Project compatibility with surrounding uses. (c) Use Permit 88-25 includes conditions intended to ensure that the Project is consistent with the surrounding residential area. 2. 6 LIGHT AND GLARE 2. 6 . 1 Potential Effect: The drilling phase of the Project will be in operation 24 hours a day. Lighting for safety will be required at night. Some lighting will be visible to adjacent residents and passers-by. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) Light and glare shall be directed or screened to prevent any direct glare from Project lighting outside it parameter boundaries. (b) No flood lights shall be used. Lights will be low profile (i .e. , will light low valve and equipment areas only) . (c) During drilling, the derrick will be enclosed and all lights, except the aircraft warning light, will be on the inside of the acoustical blanket. Lights around the auxilliary equipment will be near ground level and well below the top of the 30' acoustical wall. 2.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 2.7. 1 Potential Effect : During the drilling phase of the Project, 3 heavy vehicle (truck) trips a day will be generated by the Project . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. 22. (a) During the drilling phase, all heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 Freeway and the Project site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street. Entrances to the site shall occur only on Delaware Street, Springfield Avenue and California Street. These truck routes and accesses were reviewed by City staff and were chosen to reduce impacts on the adjacent local neighborhood. (b) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (c) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no trucks shall wait on the street for longer than five minutes . No trucks shall be permitted to park on the streets. (d) Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the Project applicant. (e) It will not be necessary to restrict parking on the side streets to accommodate trucks . Trucks with a turning radius of 55 feet can easily turn from Springfield Avenue onto California Street. Curbs will be painted red to prohibit parking for 10 feet on either side of the driveways. (f) An overload permit shall be obtained from the City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets. 2. 7.2 Potential Effect: During the drilling and construction phases, traffic will increase nominally in the Project vicinity. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvport of Findings: The following measures will mitigate the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. (a) All employees shall park on-site. (b) Because the Project will pave and add curbs to currently unfinished streets, approximately 1,700 feet of additional curbside on-street parking will be made available to area residents by the Project. 23 . (c) During the pre-drilling construction phase, truck routes as approved by the Department of Public Works and shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall be used. (d) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a .m. and 5:00 p.m. (e) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no trucks shall wait on the street for longer than five minutes. No trucks shall be permitted to park on the streets. (f) Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the Project applicant. (g) Additional Project-related traffic will be of short duration and will involve less traffic than a normal construction project. (h) During the production/injection phase, there will be no increase in traffic in the Project neighborhood resulting from the Project. 2.7.3 Potential Effect: The water pipeline from the Chevron site will disrupt traffic over a short period along the following route: from Golden West Street east along Clay Avenue to Huntington Street, then south along Huntington Street from Clay Avenue to the facility site at Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Supvort of Findings: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) No more than one lane of traffic shall be closed during the day and no lanes shall be closed at night. (b) Busy intersections shall be either bored or plated over so that traffic interruptions will be kept to a minimum. (c) Several hundred feet of pipeline will be installed, surveyed, inspected and the trench back-filled in one day. Therefore, no one area will be affected throughout the period of construction. 24. __ I 2.8 AIR QUALITY AND ODORS 2.8. 1 Potential Effect: Temporary dust impacts will result from Project construction activities, including the construction of the water pipeline. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvvort of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits . (b) Exposed dirt areas shall be minimized in the Project design. Roads and parking areas shall be paved and other open areas shall be landscaped or covered (with gravel or asphalt) to minimize dust generation. 2.8.2 Potential Effect: Pollutants will be emittted by construction equipment and by vehicle trips. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) During the construction phase, only 17 two-way trips will be generated by the Project. Thirty-two two-way trips will be generated during the drilling phase, and 7 during the injection/production phase. The emissions from this number of trips is not significant. 2.8.3 Potential Effect: Oil production facilities, particularly tanks, can be the source of fugitive hydrocarbon emissions . Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) As required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Project oil handling and storage tanks will use a vapor recovery system which will reduce 95-98% of hydrocarbon emissions . (b) The Project will replace 16 existing tanks which are uncontrolled for air pollutant emissions, including hydrocarbons . The replacement of the 16 tanks will reduce 25. total estimated emissions by 24,357 pounds per year. The seven new Project tanks with vapor recovery, assuming 95% efficiency, will generate 3, 159 pounds of emissions per year. The total emission reduction will be 21, 198 pounds per year, 58. 1 pounds per day, or an 87% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions . This is the substantial net benefit of the project. (c) Further hydrocarbon emission reductions also will be achieved through the elimination of other antiquated process equipment, including open sumps, oil-water separators and other similar equipment which is currently uncontrolled for air pollutants . (d) The immediate neighborhood surrounding the Project site will be exposed to 3, 159 pounds per year of emissions, or approximately 9 pounds per day. The neighborhood currently is exposed to twice this amount because of existing tank batteries located nearby. 2.8.4 Potential Effect: Oil and gas production activities can emit benzene, a known carcinogenic air contaminant. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding : (a) An evaluation of the benzene emissions which may be associated with the Project was conducted using the South Coast Air Quality Management District proposed Rules 223 (Air Quality Impact Analyses) and 1401 (New Source Review of Known and Suspected Carcinogenic Air Contaminants) . The Project 's potential benzene emissions, using a conservative figure, will be .00057 cubic meters per second, which is 8 to 10 times below the release limits that require further air quality analysis . (b) The Project will eliminate existing tanks that are totally uncontrolled for air pollutant emissions, including benzene. Therefore, Project probably will result in a net reduction in environnmental risk from benzene emissions in the Project Area. (c) South Coast Air Quality Management District approved vapor recovery systems shall be used for tanks in oil contact. i i (d) Low-level, short-term exposure to benzene is not subject to SCAQMD proposed rules, because such exposures 26. are not thought to constitute a health risk. In the event of an on-site spill, the system is designed to pump the spilled fluid back through the separation system and into the tank. Spills would be contained on site. 2.9 NOISE 2. 9 . 1 Potential Effect : Oil well drilling and pumping operations, production wastes and earth moving equipment, and repair/maintenance equipment will generate noise which could affect residences in the area of the Project. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) The Project shall fully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2379) . (b) A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval prior to commencing drilling. The report shall describe noise levels at the Project Site property line and at the nearest residential property lines, both with and without acoustical treatment on the drilling rig and service rigs. The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to assure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2379) . This shall include the provisions of the ordinance regarding a maximum hourly average noise level of 50 dB(A) during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (c) Excessive vibration, as determined by the Director of Development Services, shall be reduced to acceptable levels. (d) Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effort. The monitoring shall include the following : (1) Pre-drilling phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and 27. I the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures which have been, or will be, applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the Noise Ordinance shall be identified. (2) Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7: 00 a.m. ) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring shall occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to noise levels specified in the Noise Ordinance. Where an ezceedance of the Ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. (3) Durina the Drilling Phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at least once each month during the Drilling Phase of the Project. The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the Noise Ordinance standards . Where an ezceedance of the standards is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. (e) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. No trucks shall park on the street, and truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no truck will wait in the street for longer than five minutes . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the Drill Site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. , except for emergency purposes. (f) A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances . (g) No speakers, loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. (h) Sudden high frequency noise shall be kept to a minimum by using rubber lined pipe elevators if necessary 28. and rubber tires to absorb the impact of tubulars being rolled onto the walk in preparation for running casing. Acoustical blankets shall be used to reduce this type of remaining noise to insignificant levels. (i) All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. No emergency generator shall be used. (j ) Double mufflers shall be used on production hoists and earth moving equipment, further reducing the impact to the neighborhood. (k) Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. No more than 4 well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double-muffled and utilize acoustical blankets . (1) The 24-hour drilling phase shall not operate for longer than two years. 2.9 .2 potential Effect: A backhoe will be used during the construction of the water pipeline. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Double mufflers will be used on backhoes during the construction of the water pipeline, and workmen will be cautioned to work as quietly as possible. (b) Any residual noise impact will not be significant because it will be temporary in nature and will only occur during the day. Residents of each block will only be affected for approximately one day. 2. 10 RISK OF UPSET/HEALTH AND SAFETY 2. 10. 1 Potential Effect: The potential exists for oil spills from the pipes, valves, tanks and equipment, and from the small amounts of crude oil which will be contained on the Facility Site in storage tanks. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. 29. (a) If an oil spill occurred during a rainstorm, surface drainage water could become contaminated with crude oil The Drill Site and Facility Site have been designed to provide containment of surface fluids such as stormwater, and in emergency conditions, crude oil. The Sites shall be enclosed with masonry walls which provide complete control of surface fluids. All truck gates and main gates shall have raised thresholds with either sloped ramps or raised stoops which preclude surface fluids from leaving the Site. All surface fluids shall be diverted to catch basins. (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2.2 . 1, describing the diversion of surface fluids to catch basins, hereby are incorporated by reference. (c) If the tanks ruptured and spilled oil, the containment area for spill will contain approximately 69 , 000 cubic feet, almost two times the minimum volume required by the State Division of Oil & Gas. The containment area is below grade, approximately 4 feet lower than the water processing area and 6 feet lower than the adjacent street level. The containment area will contain any oil spilled from tanks. (d) The Project will use all new pipelines, valves, fittings, tanks and equipments. All pipelines will meet the requirements of the State of California Pipeline Safety Act. All items will be protected against corrosion by one or more of the following: polyvinyl cloride coating on exterior buried pipelines, cathodic protection system, paint coating on all above-ground pipelines and equipment, epoxy coating on interior of water processing tanks, and use of stainless steel fittings . (e) An Operating Procedures Manual shall be prepared for the training of all new employees. Each operator shall be required to thoroughly understand and be able to operate each piece of equipment in the system. The operating procedures manual shall explain in detail how to operate each piece of equipment and include emergency procedures, shut-down of equipment and notification of authorities. 2. 10.2 Potential Effect: Various chemicals, both non- hazardous and hazardous, are utilized in oil and gas drilling production. Chemicals may be used to enhance the drilling mud properties during drill of oil and gas wells, for dehydration of the crude oil to marketable quality, to inhibit corrosion, scale and baterial levels, and in 30. treatment of the produced water to suitable reinjection quality. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) None of the chemicals used for the Project will be used in large quantities, or would ever be used off of the Project site. , (b) All federal and state regulations, including worker and community disclosure programs, site Business Emergency Plans, Proposition 65 warnings, hazard labelling and Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plans, shall be fully enforced. (c) Fact (c) in Support of Finding 1.2 . 1, describing emergency action and spill prevention plans, hereby is incorporated by reference. (d) If a localized spill of hazardous materials should occur, it would be contained in the area and no impact would occur outside the Site boundaries . Procedures to mitigate impacts to on-site workers shall be included in the Operations Manual. (e) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 10 . 1, describing the containment of materials on the Drill Site and Facility Site, hereby are incorporated by reference. (f) The State Department of Health Services has approved a list of non-hazardous additives to rotory mud. There is nothing in the Huntington Beach oil field drilling history that would indicate that hazardous materials will be required. Therefore, to the greatest extent feasible, the operator of the Project shall use non-hazardous additives in the Project 's drilling mud. 2. 10.3 Potential Effect: Crude oil will be transported in an existing Chevron pipeline from the Facility Site to Chevron' s re-pump station. There is a possibility of pipeline rupture. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: 31. (a) The addition of the Project' s oil stream will reduce pressure on the Chevron crude oil pipeline. Because the oil from the Project will enter the pipeline at a higher temperature than the oil currently in the pipeline, it will reduce the viscosity of the oil. This in turn will reduce pressure in the pipeline, thereby decreasing the possibility of pipeline rupture when compared to existing conditions . (b) Even if the pipeline ruptured, the only oil that would be released would be the oil in the pipeline between block valves . Automatic shutdowns would keep the incremental volume of oil attributable to the Project at an insignificant level in the event of pipeline rupture. (c) Chevron completed hydrotesting its pipeline in March 1988 to a pressure of 750 pounds per square inch. The test was witnesses and approved for the State Fire Marshal by the Karin Corporation on March 8, 1988 . (d) The Project will result in the abandonment of approximateley 18,000 feet of existing pipeline. Many of these lines are old, and their exact locations are _ unknown. The abandonment of this pipeline will reault in a significant reduction in the potential for pipeline leaks . 2. 10.4 Potential Effect: The rupture of the water pipeline, or accidents resulting from pedestrian access to trenches during the construction of the water pipeline, could have public safety impacts . Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2.2.3, describing measures mitigating any impacts on water quality, hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The water pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors, so that any sudden well below hydrostatic and will be easily controlled by the drilling mud. Therefore, all anticipated subsurface pressure will be contained by the weight of the mud. If a fire did occur, the open cellars will allow the Fire Department to control it from the surface, without having to enter the cellars . 2. 10.5 potential Effect : Oil-related gas leaks could lead to fire or explosion. 32. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvvort of Findings : (a) A report made by GeoScience Analytical, Inc. (Roberti Report) determined that a Los Angeles fire and explosion was caused by gas that was biogenic, or the result of bacterial decay, not related to a leaking pipeline or poorly abandoned oil well . It was also determined that only one of the 91 gas samples analyzed in Huntington Beach was petrogenic, or associated with oil . Eighteen samples subsequently taken in Huntington Beach were determined to be of biogenic origin. These studies indicated that the problem of methane gas hazard does not have its roots in oil field-related activity. (b) Water flooding in an oil reservoir reduces the amount of free gas and lessens the possibility of gas leaks . Any free gas flows to areas of low pressure. Producer wells are areas of low pressure, and gas will flow there throughout the process of repressurization. Injection wells will be located away from poorly abandoned wells and in close proximity to producing wells, ensuring that free gas will flow to the producing wells. (c) A contingency plan shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval, with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any abandoned wells which do not meet present day abandonment requirements finds its way to the surface. (d) The possibility of fire and/or explosion at the drill rigs does not constitute a significant impact because the drilling equipment will be equipped with Class III blowout prevention equipment. Additionally, the reservoirs of the Project are well known, having been produced for over 60 years. The reservoir pressure is well below hydrostatic and will be easily controlled by the drilling mud. Therefore, all anticipated subsurface pressure will be contained by the weight of the mud. If a fire did occur, the open cellars will allow the Fire Department to control it from the surface, without having to enter the cellars. 2 . 11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 2. 11. 1 Potential Effect: The Project could increase the demand on police protection services, including potential increases in vandalism and noise nuisance complaints. 33 . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) The proposed site will be enclosed with a decorative masonry wall and with a landscaping berm. The wall and landscaping will avoid providing easy access to the site. (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2.9 . 1, relating to noise impacts, hereby are incorporated by reference. 2. 11.2 Potential Effect: The potential for fire, odor or spill incidents could increase the demand on fire prevention/protection services in the City. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Fire Department has stated that it will actually have a reduced workload due to the consolidation of many oil producing sites onto one fully equiped and protected site. (b) An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection. (c) Oil wells shall be provided with gas detection systems from cellars to 24-hours monitoring locations . (d) Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel . (e) Metal open-grate covers shall be provided over the top of well cellars. (f) Storage tanks shall have pre-plumbed foam injection systems and exterior deluge water spray systems . (g) The foam storage area and foam quantity shall be approved by the Fire Department, and fire hydrants shall be located in areas approved by the Fire Department. Hydrogen sulfide detection systems approved by the Fire Department shall be installed on the Project perimeter, and fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department shall be installed throughout in the Site. All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installed in compliance with Fire Department Specification 403 . 34 . I (h) A full vapor recovery system shall be installed, as required by SCAQMD. (i) Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted, which shall never be completely full at once. (j ) Fact (c) in support of Finding 1.2. 1, describing emergency action and spill prevention plans, hereby is incorporated by reference. (k) Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted for the review and approal of the Fire Department and Development Services Department, showing how the Site will be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. 2. 11.3 Potential Effect: Paving of the Project site will increase stormwater, which could present additional demands on the sewer system. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2.2. 1 hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The Project will take about 30,000 barrels per day of produced water from Chevron, which is currently dumping approixmately 40,000 barrels per day into the sanitary sewer. Therefore, instead of adding more brine to the sewer system, this Project will relieve the system of about 30,000 barrels per day. 2. 11.4 Potential Effect: During the initial drilling operation, a fresh water demand of 21,000 gallons per day is expected. Following completion of the drilling phase, the water consumption rate will be reduced to 1,000 gallons per day. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Fresh water use over the long term is roughly equivalent to an industrial use one-third of an acre in size, or about 6 attached residential units . Adequate water supplies exist to meet this demand. The available fire flow is 5,500 gallons per minute with 3,000 gallons per minute being the required fire flow at present. 35. 2. 11.5 Potential Effect: During the drilling phase, one truck per day normally will be required to collect and transport liquid oil wastes and one truck per day will be required to handle solid waste collected in medal bins . Following the completion of drilling. the volume of wastes will be reduced, particularly for solid wastes such as drill cuttings. The periodic cleaning of tanks during the operational phase will require the removal of sludge from tank bottoms . Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insiginficance. (a) Dumping operations for oil field wastes are normally handled by contract service firms that specialize in waste disposal of this type. (b) Sludge from tank bottoms will be deposited in a special dump equiped to handle this type of waste, and deposited in a Class I landfill. (c) All waste materials, both liquid and solid, shall be collected and separated on site, temporarily stored in metal bins and tanks, and trucked to appropriate disposal sites. (d) Liquid wastes shall be collected and stored in closed tanks to prevent the spread of odors prior to disposal . (e) Collection areas for waste shall be located within peripheral walls and will not be visible to residential areas. 2. 11. 6 Potential Effect: The Project will require three business lines and a public phone on each parcel . It is likely that an intercommunication line between the two parcels will be included in the telephone system. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suovort of Findings: (a) The General Telephone Company provides telephone service to the City and to the Project site. No current inadequacies exist in the system. The number of lines servicing the Project site is less than the number of 36. lines which would be required if medium density residential units were developed on site. 2. 12 ENERGY CONSERVATION 2 . 12. 1 Potential Effect : Drilling rigs and production wells will be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps . Although a small amount of natural gas will be produced with the oil, additional natural gas may be required for production. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Proper sizing of the well pumps will save energy by reducing the amount of electricity used. (b) Southern California Edison anticipates no problems in providing electrical service of the Project . Southern California Gas Company, which will provide any additional natural gas required, also anticipates no problems in providing service for the Project. (c) The purpose of the Project is to produce approximately 9.0 million barrels of crude oil. 2. 13 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 2. 13 . 1 Potential Effect: Compared to existing conditions, the Project will have a growth inducing impact of 57 units. At the City-wide average of 2.78 persons per household, the 57 dwelling units would house 158 persons. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The 158 persons who would be housed on the Project site represents a population factor of only 0.08% of the estimated 1987 City population. (b) The Project will utilize two entire City blocks for the approximately 20-30 year life of the project . Based on existing General Plan and zoning designations, but for the Project, both of the two Project blocks would be used for residential purposes . Under existing zoning, 108 residential units could be constructed on the site. Based on existing General Plan designation, 76 units could be built on the site. Therefore, the growth inducing 37. effect of the Project could be less than the number of units that could be developed on the Project site. 2. 14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2. 14 . 1 Potential Effect : Two other oil consolidation projects are in the process of assembly within the vacinity of the Project. The cumulative effects of these projects could have impacts on subsidence and gas leaks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 1.2, describing the effect of the Project on subsidence, hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 10. 5, describing the effect of water flooding on gas leaks, hereby are incorporated by reference. (c) In the Wilmington Field, water flooding took place in an area where many wells were damaged badly and not properly abandoned. Even with this large number of improperly abandoned wells, there were no problems with injected fluids or oil or gas surfacing via these conduits . (d) The Signal Hill Field was unitized and three water floods initiated in 1974 . Many of the wells in this field are as old as the Huntington Beach wells; however, the Division of Oil & Gas has received notification of only two wells that have leaked. 2. 14 .2 Potential Effect: In conjunction with present, approved and proposed developments in the City, the secondary traffic effects of the induced growth from the Project could result in negative impacts on the circulation system. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Growth induced by the Project is controlled by General Plan policies relating to land use designations and circulation improvements. The land use designations used to generate estimates of secondary traffic impacts from induced growth are consistent with the current General Plan designation. Therefore, the traffic 38. I generated by these uses has been taken into account in establishing the General Plan circulation plan of arterial streets and highways. This plan adequately accommodates traffic estimated to be generated by General Plan designated uses . (b) A recent traffic study conducted for The Waterfront, which evaluates cumulative traffic levels for the area of the City most likely to receive heavy traffic flows from proposed development, confirmed that traffic will operate at acceptable levels of service. (c) The 108 vehicles which would be associated with the 57 units that constitute the growth inducing effect of the Project represent a very small increment of the new vehicles that will be within the area. 2. 14 .3 Potential Effect: In conjunction with present, approved and proposed projects, traffic resulting from growth generated by the Project may add to noise levels adjacent to circulation routes . Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Implementation of the Optimum Noise Levels, and of the Noise Abatement Plan for Traffic Noise contained in sections 2.3 .3 and 2.3 .4 of the General Plan Noise Element, will mitigate these cumulative impacts to a level of insignificance. 2. 14 .4 Potential Effect: In conjunction with existing, approved and proposed future projects, noise within the vicinity of the Drill Site and Facility Site could exceed City noise standards. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Facts in Support of Finding 2.9 . 1 hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The measurement of noise is, by definition, a "cumulative" measurement. It takes into account background noise. By conditioning the Project to comply with the City' s Noise Ordinance, the City has ensured that cumulative noise levels will not constitute a significant adverse impact. 39. 2. 14 . 5 Potential Effect: As a secondary effect of the Project, automobile emissions associated with the 57 dwelling units which constitute the Project' s growth inducing impact, in conjunction with present, approved and proposed development, could result in adverse impacts on air quality. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings: (a) It is estimated that vehicle emissions constituting a secondary impact of the Project would result in a daily increase in vehicle emissions of 3, 596 .3 pounds per year. Any air quality impacts from these emissions is offset nearly six times by the improvement in air quality caused by replacement of existing old oil storage tanks with new tanks fully equipped with an effective vapor recovery system. The Project will result in a net reduction of 21, 198 pounds of hydrocarbons per year. 2. 14 . 6 Potential Effect: As a secondary impact of the _ Project, the 57 units which constitute the growth inducing effect of the Project could generate additional school children, potentially causing adverse effects on the school system. Findings: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Huntington Beach city schools have been experiencing a steady decline in enrollment over the past ten years . Capacity in the school district currently exceeds student enrollment, and the schools impacted by the Project are particularly well situated to absorb additional enrollment. Projected increased in enrollment from the Project do not exceed the excess capacity, even taking into account the increase in enrollment expected from other projects . (b) The total number of students from approved and proposed projects, including Project-related additions, is 371 new students . Enrollment projections for Union High School District schools shows a decrease in enrollment until 1990. An increase is projected from 1991 through 1995. Even with new development, however, the expected increase in students from 1992 to 1995 is not enough to compensate for the expected decline in enrollment between 1987 and 1992. 40. (c) An increase in dwelling units does not necessarily result in an increase in enrollment . From 1975 to 1987, an additional 9,223 new dwellings were constructed and occupied within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The net impact on enrollment was a minus 3, 141 students, a 37% decrease. 41. 3 . FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 3 . 1 "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE 3 . 1. 1 Description of Alternative: The EIR defines the "no project" alternative as the maintenance of existing conditions . 3 . 1.2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. Facts in Support of Finding: (a) This alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore, compared to the Project, it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses. The existing wells would continue to produce oil, gas and water without the addition of the modern vapor recovery systems, secondary recovery techniques, or state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment _ which will be incorporated into the Project . The continuing use of existing technology would have detrimental impacts on air quality compared to the proposed Project. The potential for arresting subsidence, or causing rebound, through injection would be eliminated. Excess brine produced by Chevron would not be used for injection and would continue to be disposed of in the sewer system, thereby increasing the load on the sewer system in comparison with the proposed Project. Existing facilities would not be able to withstand the impacts of major earthquakes . Approximately 18,000 feet of existing pipeline would not be removed, thereby increasing the possiblity of leaks. (b) This alternative also would have positive effects. It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M 8 or greater. This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls, which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project. In weighing the positive and negative environmental effects of this alternative, however, the 42. City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . 3 . 1.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "no project" alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not permit the recovery of 9 million barrels of crude oil by using secondary recovery techniques . Existing oil operations would only recover approximately 500, 000 barrels of crude oil . 3 . 1.4 Feasibility: The "no project" alternative is feasible. 3 .2 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 3 .2 . 1 Description of Alternative: The "reduced intensity" alternative would involve drilling a number of limited injector wells for secondary oil recovery, while retaining all existing wells currently operating in the 160-acre subsurface unit. Approximately ten injector wells would be drilled from one of the existing well sites . 3 .2 .2 Comoarison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. Facts in Suipvort of Findina: (a) The "reduced intensity" alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area . Therefore, compared to the proposed Project, it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses. Some of these residences are within 20 feet of existing wells; therefore, these residences wold be less buffered from the noise impacts of reworking the wells. This impact would be particularly significant in the Villa St. Croix site, in which five wells are located within 20 feet or less of condominium units. This alternative also would require routing high- pressure water through lengthy pipelines under City streets . The possibility of leakage or rupture is a significant adverse impact which would not exist under the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not withstand a major earthquake. (b) This alternative also would have positive effects. It would eliminate the need for three heavy 43 . trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M8 or greater. This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls, which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project. In weighing the positive and negative effects of this alternative, however, the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects. 3 .2.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The reduced intensity alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not result in optimum well spacing for injection. As a result, only approximately 3 .5 million barrels of oil would be recovered. 3 .2.4 Feasibility: The reduced intensity alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings: This alternative would require acquiring the right-of-way for a considerable length of underground pipes. Liability for these pipes could be significant. According to the Project applicant, the capital costs of this alternative would be approximately the same as the capital costs of the proposed Project, while less than one-half as much oil would be recovered. In addition, this alternative would not result in optimum spacing of injector wells. If secondary recovery did not work under this system, there would be no way to determine the source of the problem or to cure the situation. Based on these factors, the Project applicant has concluded that this alternative is not economically feasible. This alternative also is not feasible because it is not desirable, and may not be possible, to conduct well reworking in very close proximity to residential units. 3 .3 MORE INTENSE DRILLING PROGRAM 3 . 3. 1 Description of Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would proceed as described in this EIR, except that the drilling program would be intensified to reduce the time span of the drilling phase of the Project. A second rig would be used for drilling. The two-year drilling period would be reduced by several months. 44 . 3 .3 .2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. Facts in Support of Finding: (a) Approximately twice as many heavy trucks per day (6 instead of 3) would be required for the intensified drilling program. Two 165' rigs would be used instead of one, resulting in increased aesthetic impacts and making it possible that noise and light/glare impacts could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (b) The Project site would be occupied for oil-producing facilities for a slightly shorter perior of time, because the intensified drilling program would reduce the construction period by several months . Impacts of the drilling phase, including the noise and traffic impacts (although intensified) , also would occur over a slightly shorter time period. When weighed against the more severe and possibly unmitigable impacts that would occur, however, this reduction in the drilling period does not outweigh the negative impacts of this alternative. 3 .3 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives: The "more intense drilling program" alternative would meet the Project objectives. 3 .3 .4 Feasibility: The "more intense drilling program" is feasible, but would be more expensive than the proposed Project. 3 .4 ABANDONMENT OF ALL OIL PRODUCTION SITES 3 .4 . 1 Description of Alternative: Under this alternative, the oil facilities on the Project site would be removed and 22 scattered wells over 160 acres would be abandoned, as under the proposed Project. The Project site and the 6 scattered sites would be available for other uses . Residential use is designated in the General Plan and Zoning. 3 .4 .2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is environmentally superior to the Project because it would eliminate the effect of oil-producing uses throughout the Project Area. 45. 3 .4 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not result in the recovery of any oil from subsurface reserves. Therefore, it would not meet the Project objectives . It would reduce the amount of oil which could be produced from 9 million barrels to zero barrels. 3 .4 .4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings: It is highly unlikely that (a) oil operators would all agree to abandon their operations, and that (b) ready purchasers would be available for all of the sites . Therefore, in order to implement this alternative, the City probably would have to acquire the mineral rights for some or all of the wells and pay for the abandonment of the site. Some arrangement would have to be made with the surface owner for reimbursement of all or part of the City's costs following resale and/or development of the sites. As a rough estimate, using the industry standard of $15,000 per average daily barrel of oil production, it would cost approximately $1.5 million to acquire the _ mineral rights for all of the sites. Abandonment would cost approximately $.5 million. This alternative also would deny access to the royalty owners of the mineral estates. Even assuming that the mineral rights could be purchased for $1.5 million, this figure does not assign any value to unrecovered reserved, which are worth in the tens of millions of dollars. 3 .5 ALTERNATIVE SITES: PARCEL 1 3.5. 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 1 consists of 1.8 acres located to the northwest of the Project site on Pine Street, bounded by Yorktown Avenue on the north and Utica Avenue on the south. The Project applicant does not own the surface or the minerals below the surface. The Huntington Beach Company is the mineral owner. Parcel 1 is surrounded by approximately 15 acres of fee land which is also owned by the Huntington Beach Company. Although this land is currently vacant, it is zoned for residential use. On October 24, 1988, the City Council approved the Huntington Beach Company' s request for a zone change and general plan conformance, to permit the residential development of this site under "Old Town Specific Plan" zoning. Parcel 1 is too small to accommodate all of the facilities and well cellars necessary for an oil recovery 46. facility. Therefore, the Project Facilities Site would still be used. Although some wells could be drilled on Parcel 1, some wells would still have to be drilled on the Project Drill Site. 3 . 5.2 COMRarison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Provosed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. Facts in Support of Finding: Approximately 60% of the wells for the Project could be drilled on Parcel 1. Although this would result in a slight reduction in the effects of the drilling phase on the neighborhood surrounding the Project, drilling would affect two residential neighborhoods instead of one. Although the area surrounding Parcel 1 currently is vacant, it is proposed for residential use. 3.5.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives: This alternative would meet Project objectives . 3 . 5 .4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings : The Project applicant does not own Parcel 1. Furthermore, in order to use Parcel 1 as a surface site to drill into the southeast part of the Springfield Unit, the Project applicant would have to acquire pass-through rights from the Huntington Beach Company. The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development for the 17 acres site surrounding Parcel 1, and that it would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the project. On October 24 , 1988, the City approved a zone change and general plan conformance which will permit the development of this site under the "Old Town Specific Plan" designation. Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfullly in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social, and legal factors . 3 . 6 PARCEL 1 DEVELOPMENT ONLY 3. 6. 1 Description of Alternative: A project designed to be solely developed from Parcel 1 would need to be reduced in size considerably. The 1.8 acre site would only accommodate approximately one 20-well cellar and much smaller production/injection facilities. The southeastern 47. portion of the Project could not be reached by directional wells from Parcel 1; therefore, a portion of the reservoirs could not be exploited. 3 . 6 .2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor environmentally inferior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: Although the area surrounding Parcel 1 currently is vacant, it is proposed for residential use. Project impacts, including aesthetic impacts, the possibility of fire and impacts of an M 8 or greater earthquake, would affect any such residences . 3.6.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not meet Project objectives because it could only recover approximately 4.5 million barrels of oil, since injection rates would have to be lower and the Project could not be fully developed. It would also take longer to produce the reserves. 3 . 6.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings : The Project applicant does not own Parcel 1. Furthermore, in order to use Parcel 1 as a surface site to drill into the southeast part of the Springfield Unit, the Project applicant would have to acquire pass-through rights from the Huntington Beach Company. The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development for the 17 acres site surrounding Parcel 1, and that it would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the project. On October 24 , 1988, the City approved a zone change and general plan conformance which will permit the development of this site j under the "Old Town Specific Plan" designation. Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfullly in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. 3 .7 ALTERNATIVE SITES: PARCEL 2 3 .7. 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 2 is located on the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. It consists of approximately 3 .5 acres and is zoned 01. Parcel 2 is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Springfield Unit and would require wells to be 48. drilled which exceed the normal parameters of conventional directional drilling. The site is too small for the facilities necessary to accompany the wells . Therefore, the Project Facilities Site would still be used. 3 .7.2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor environmentally inferior to the Project. Facts in Suvoort of Finding: Under this alternative, there would be a greater buffer to residential areas, and there is direct access for traffic from Beach Boulevard. However, impacts from the drilling of wells would affect residential areas and would be increased under this alternative because the wells would require a longer trajectory and would take considerably longer to drill. Drilling impacts would affect the people living in part of the Seabridge project because Parcel 2 is in close proximity to this development. The first phase, Seabridge Village, consists of 200 units . The second phase, the Lakes at Seabridge, is planned for 202 units . 3 .7.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Proiect Objectives : This alternative would meet Project objectives. 3 .7.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Suvvort of Findings: The Project applicant has been advised that the property owner is planning a surface development on Parcel 2 when the existing Chevron wells are no longer viable, and would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of this alternative. Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social, and legal factos . In addition, the site configuration would not allow for the drilling of the necessary wells, even if the facilities were located on the Facilities Site. 3 .8 ALTERNATIVE SITES: PARCEL 3 3 . 8. 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 3 is bounded by Memphis Avenue on the north, Knoxville Avenue on the south, Florida Street on the west, and Beach Boulevard on the east. It consists of approximately 8.2 acres and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) facing Beach Boulevard and R-3 (Medium-High Residential) on the remainder of the site. 49. Parcel 3 is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Springfield Unit and would require wells to be drilled which exceed the normal parameters of conventional directional drilling. 3 .8.2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. Facts in Support of Finding: More buffering could be provided since the site is larger. The facilities and the wells could be consolidated onto one site, reducing the perimeter of the oil producing area. This could reduce the impacts of oil operations on surrounding residential areas. 3 .8 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives: This alternative would not meet Project objectives . Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would not meet the Project objective of recovering nine million barrels of oil, because wells would be unable to _ reach the thickest part of the resevoir. It is estimated that it would result in the recovery of a maximum of six million barrels of oil. 3.8.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings: The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development on Parcel 3 when the existing Chevron facilities are no longer viable, and would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the alternative. Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. The alternative also would be economically infeasible. The land costs of the alternative site would be prohibitively high because of the C-4 and R-3 zoning. No acre-for-acre swap with the Project site would be possible. 3.9 ALTERNATIVE SITES: PARCEL 4 3 .9 . 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 4, McCallen Park, is located west of Delaware Street between Yorktown Avenue and Utica Avenue. It is a dedicated park owned by 50. w • the City and consists of approximately 5. 1 acres . Surrounding uses are residential (R-2) . 3.9 .2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that the Project is environmentally superior to this alternative. Facts in Support of Finding: The facilities and wells could be consolidated onto one site, reducing the perimeter of the oil-producing area. However, the possibility of upset would be increased, because all of the wells wuold have to penetrate the main portion of th Inglewood-Newport fault. Well damage by fault movement is a well-known phenomenon in the Wilmington oil field, even when no measurable earthquake has been recorded. Although surface damage to the wells or surface installations probably would not occur, down hole damage at the fault intercept would preclude the proper abandonment of the damaged wells. This alternative also would eliminate a dedicated park. This impact could be partially mitigated by conducting a "land swap" in which the Project applicant traded the Project site to the City. A park could then be established on the Project site. The park on the Project site would be smaller than the existing 5. 8 acre site and would consist of two separate parcels divided by a street, creating an adverse safety impact. 3 .9 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Proiect Objectives: This alternative would meet Project objectives. 3 . 9.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings: The City does not desire to exchange McCallen Park for the Project site. Safety issues relating to the need to drill through the Inglewood-Newport fault make this a less desiable alternative. 3 . 10 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 3 . 10. 1 Description of Alternative: Neither block of the Project site would be used for oil recovery, but instead would be made available for development of a medium density residential development project. Oil recovery operations would continue at the 22 wells within the 160 acre Project Area. At density levels permitted by the General Plan, the Project Site could be developed with 76 51. i • residential units. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code allows for the development of 108 units, and other provisions of the Code may allow a greater number of units for special purpose projects. 3 . 10.2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project. Facts in Support of Finding: (a) This alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area . Therefore, compared to the Project, it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses. The existing wells would continue to produce oil, gas and water without the addition of the modern vapor recovery systems, secondary recovery techniques, or state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment which will be incorporated into the Project. The continuing use of existing technology would have detrimental impacts on air quality compared to the proposed Project. The potential for arresting subsidence, or causing rebound, through injection would be eliminated. Excess brine produced by Chevron would not be used for injection and would continue to be disposed of in the sewer system, thereby increasing the load on the sewer system in comparison with the proposed Project. Existing facilities would not be able to withstand the impacts of major earthquakes . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M 8 or greater. This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls, which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project . In weighing the positive and negative environmental effects of this alternative, however, the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . (c) In addition, the "medium density residential development" alternative also has the adverse 52. environmental impacts associated with the construction and occupancy of residential units . The construction of residential units would involve the temporary impacts normally associated with residential construction including increased noise, traffic, dust, risk of fire, paint fumes and trash. Such construction related impacts would occur for a period of between nine months and a year. Traffic and parking impacts are associated with the sales of rental activities involved with residential units . Such sales or renting related impacts may occur over a period of between three months and a year. Noise, traffic, parking, risk of residential fire are impacts associated with the occupancy of residential units. Such impacts would be permanent. 3 . 10.3 Effectiveness in Meetinc Project Objectives: This alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not permit the recovery of 9 million barrels of crude oil by using secondary recovery techniques . Existing oil operations would only recover approximately 500,000 barrels of crude oil. 3 . 10.4 Feasibility: This alternative is feasible. 53. I ' 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 4. 1 FINDINGS RELATING TO PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT: TO BE ADDED TO SECTION 2 .5 . 2 . OF THE CEOA FINDINGS (g) Housing Section 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 : "The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socioeconomic , racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. " The Project will permit the abandonment of 22 wells , which will permit the development of housing on the sites of the abandoned wells . Existing oil operations no longer will affect the residential areas near the abandoned oil facilities . As conditioned and mitigated , the Project will not prevent the attainment of a satisfying living environment in the Project vicinity. Although the Project will have aesthetic impacts , these impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible . Furthermore, the Project will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood surrounding the abandoned oil facilities . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 .3 . 1 . 2 : "The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. " The approval of the Project will permit the abandonment and removal of 22 wells . The area as presently occupied by all of these wells are currently designated and zoned for residential use; therefore , the Project will permit the provision of housing on these sites . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. 4. 2 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS RELATING TO ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED BY THE CHAMBERS GROUP, INC . ON BEHALF OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The Chambers Group, Inc . proposed that the SEIR should evaluate additional alternatives . The City determined that this was not necessary because (1) the SEIR discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project , and (2) the proposed alternatives are not environmentally superior to the proposed Project . 54. i 1 . Proposed Alternative : Oil is processed at a site remote from the proposed Project Area. Findings : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Findines : The "processing" of oil merely consists of separating the oil from water . If this took place on a site remote from the Project Site, two additional pipelines would have to be constructed . One would transport oil and water to the remote site; the other would return processed water under pressure . This would would create an additional hazard of rupture because the water pipeline would be under pressure. The water pipeline for the Project, in contrast , is a low pressure pipeline. 2 . Proposed Alternative : No Oil Storage Alternative . Finding: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Findines : (1) The Facts in Support of the Finding for Proposed Alternative 1 (oil processing remote from the Project site) hereby are incorporated by reference . (2) If oil were not stored on the Project Site, any risk of fire would simply be moved to the area in which oil is stored . 3 . Proposed Alternative : Alternative designs of the proposed facilities on the proposed site . Finding: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Pacts in Supuort of Findings : The current design of the Project is intended to mitigate visual , noise , and traffic impacts of the Project on the surrounding neighborhood . 55 . Alternative designs were not evaluated in the SEIR because they would not result in the mitigation of impacts . The Project design, and conditions imposed through the Use Permit , will ensure that the Project design mitigates impacts to the extent feasible . 4. Proposed Alternative : Transfer unprocessed oil via a new pipeline to the Chevron facility, eliminating the need for separate processing facilities . Findings : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project . Facts in Support of Findings : (1) The Facts in Support of Findings relating to Proposed Alternative 1 hereby are incorporated by reference. (2) The Chevron facility is merely a re-pump station and does not have the capacity to separate oil from water . ry 56 . SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 for the Springfield Oil Recovery Project identifies certain unavoidable adverse significant environmental effects . CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 , requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether the project should be approved . If the decision-maker concludes that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the effects may be considered acceptable . The final EIR identifies three separate unavoidable adverse environmental impacts . ( See Section 2 . 0 , Draft Supplemental EIR 88-1 . ) These are : 1 . Aesthetics : The neighborhood surrounding the project site consists of medium density residential uses, predominantly in small ( 8-10 unit ) developments and single family residences . Views of the project site from adjacent residences will consist of the screening block wall and landscaping . During the initial drilling phases, drill rigs will be visible . During the production and injection phases, temporary drill 5954 rigs will be used periodically for maintenance and will be visible from adjacent residents . Tanks will be visible above the wall . 2 . Risk of Upset/Health and Safety Under a worst case scenario, assuming that all oil tanks are full and the tanks are set out in an open field without surrounding perimeter walls, there is a "rare" (defined in the standard methodology for risk assessment as 1 : 10 ,000 to 1 : 1 , 000 , 000 chance that an oil tank fire could result in radiant heat effecting the area outside of the immediate Project Site . 3 . Seismic If an earthquake of Magnitude of 8 . 0 or greater on the Richter Scale occurs with its epicenter in the project area, structures in the Project Area, including tanks and walls of the project facilities, would be damaged . Each of these effects is lessened by the mitigation measures suggested in the Supplemental and original EIR, which measures will be required and incorporated into the project . Here, the City of Huntington Beach does find that the benefits flowing to the City and its residents from the project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects which remain after the project ' s mitigation measures are implemented and that the aforementioned unavoidable significant effects are acceptable, based on the following overriding considerations : -2- 5954 • 1 . The project will replace 16 existing tanks which are not subject to controls for air pollutants . This will result in a net reduction of 21 , 198 pounds of hydrocarbon emissions per year , or an 87 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions . Further reductions in hydrocarbon emissions will also result from the elimination of other antiquated process equipment . 2 . The project will bring about the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area . As a result , the abandoned sites can be used for other purposes consistent with their General Plan and zoning designations . Fewer City residents will live adjacent to or in close proximity to oil activities . This will have positive aesthetic impacts on the City . l 3 . The project will result in the abandonment to modern standards of wells which have been abandoned , but not to modern standards . This will contribute to the public health and safety . 4 . The consolidation of a number of oil producing operations on a single site, with modern fire control equipment , will reduce the workload of the City fire department . This will contribute to the public health and safety . 5 . The project will use approximately 30, 000 barrels of produced water for injection purposes . This water is currently dumped into the sanitary sewer by Chevron . This will reduce the demand on the sanitary sewer system. -3- 5954 6 . The use of water injection has been shown to arrest subsidence, or even cause a slight rebound . The project will help to arrest subsidence in the Huntington Beach oil field . Another important consideration is the increase in oil production, from 500 ,000 barrels of oil to 9 million barrels ultimately, resulting from the consolidation . The oil will be used to produce gasoline ( 180 million gallons ) and other petroleum products ( 162 million gallons ) . I -4- 51;54 l Res, No. 5954 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE � ss : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular_ meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November 19 88 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Kelly, Green, Erskine, Mays, Bannister NOES: Councilmembers: Finley, Winchell ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-o ficlo Verk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California J 595 4 - A.ithOri2eC 1C PubuSn Awer:aemnnt5 OI al�Includtng pubbC ran a County. notices by Decree of the Superior Court u• O g y California. Number A-6214. dated 29 September. 1961. and A;24831 oaten 11June. 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA '_ County of Orange P.01K Noun Ad.ert'"cowed Fn i by Inn ei 111"ta I .s L ,n 7 point +1h 10 p9ca COM~width I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of � the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen I %I PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE years. and not a party to or interested in the below APPELLANTS: 1. Coun- California,for Inspection by cilwoman Grace Wlnchell;2. the public. entitled matter. I am a principal clerk Of the Orange Concerned Citizens for HUNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beach CITY COUNCIL,By:Connie Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the LOCATION: The project Brockway, City Clerk, site Consists of two blocks Phone:(714)538-5227 NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, located on opposite corners Dated Nov.8.1988 as follows: Published Orange Coast printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Block A (Tract 12747): Daily Pilot November 10, bounded by Springfield Av- 1988 County of Orange. State of California, and that a enue, Delaware Street, Th113 Rochester Avenue and Call- Notice of Public Hear?ng fornia Street;and Block B (Tract 12746): bounded by Toronto Av- enue. California Street. Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street. of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete - PROPOSAL: Zone Change: Rezone Block A copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, (Tract 127 lan-Dis"ct Two- Off - Specific Plan-District Two- Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valle oil tow Facilities Specific Plan-Dis- trict n- to g y• "Oldtown Specific Plan-Dis- Irvine• the South Coast communities and Laguna Oil Two-Oil Facilities with g Oil Drilling (OT-2-01)" to Beach issues Of said newspaper for One allow the drilling of new oill wells. Use Permit:To develop an consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of oil consolidation drillsite on Block A and associated oil --� facility on Block B.Also re- quested is a reduction of ex- PUBLIC NOTICE terior sideyard setbacks 8 from ten(10)feet to a mini- NOTICE OF mum seven (7)feet for the November 10 198 PUBLIC HEARING north and south elevations Appeal to of both blocks. Planning On October 18, 1988 the Commission's Planning Commission ap- 198 Approval of proved and recommended Zone Change adoption of Zone Change No.Bt-11/ No. 88-11. approved Use j Use Permit Permit No. 88-25 and ap- 198 No.e8-25/ proved and recommended Supplemental certification of Supplemen- t Environmental tal Environmental Impact 198 I Impact Report Report No. 88-1 and En- No.88-1 and vironmental Impact Report Environmental No.86-1 with a Statement of Impact Repot Overriding Considerations. 198 (Springfield Oil ENVIRONMENTAL Rcove Project) STATUS:The City Council Is NOTICE�IS 1HEREBY required u certify as ade- GIVEN that the Huntington quote Supplemental port 9 vlronmental Impact Report Beach City Council will hold No. 88-1 and recertify En- I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the a public hearing In the Coun- vlronmental Impact Report cil Chamber at the Hunt- No.86-1 with a Statement of foregoing is true and correct. ington Beach Civic Center, Overriding Considerations 2000 Main Street. Hunt- prior to any action on Zone ington Beach,California,on Change No. 88-11 and Use, the date and at the time in- Permit No.88-25. 8 dicated below to receive and ON FILE: A copy of the November 1 ` consider the statements of Executed on � • � �9$ _ proposed request Is on file In all persons who wish to be the Department of Com- at Cos Mesa, Califo n'a heard relative to the appli- munity Development. 2000 cation described below. Mein Street, Huntington DATE: Monday, Novem- Beach,California 92648,for �. ber 21, 1988 TIME:7:00 PM inspectionby the public. ALLLINTERESTED PER- Signature If SUBJECT: Appeal to SONS are Invited to attend Planning Commission's Ap- said hearing and express proval of Zone Change No. opinions or submit evidence 88-11/Use Permit No. for or against the application 88-25/Supplemental En- as outlined above.All appli- vironmental Impact Report Cations, exhibits• and de- No.88-1 and Environmental scriptions of this proposal Impact Report No.86-1 are on file with the Office of APPLICANT: Arlgiis Pet- the City Clerk, 2000 Main / roteum Corporat Street, Huntington Beach, / 0 s PROOF OF PUBLICATION REQUES 1 FOR CITY COUNCIAkCTION Date _Nav_emhp r 2 1 + 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul Cook, City Administratov. Prepared by: Mike Adams, Acting Director, Community Developme lf� Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-11/USE PERMIT NO. 88-25/SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 - SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT SI O Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception -DO.,-9 S ] W a Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attach ents: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration are appeals by Councilwoman Grace Winchell and the Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach to the Planning Commission' s approval of Zone Change No. 88-11, Use Permit No. 88-25, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1. The zone change, use permit and environmental impact reports are entitlements for the Springfield Oil Recovery Project which is proposed in the Oldtown Specific Plan - District 2 zoning district on two separate blocks north of Adams Avenue and west of Delaware Street . RECOMMENDATION• Planning Commission Recommendation and Action on October 18, 1988 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY SILVA TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 AND ADOPT AND RECERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Livengood, Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY SILVA TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 88--11, AND USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Livengood, Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins (See Attachment No . 1 for Findings and Conditions of Approval) __�PIO 5/85 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Planning Commission by taking the following action: a . Adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate Environmental Im a t Report No. 86-1 by adopting City Council Resolution No. with Statement of Overriding Considerations . b. Approve Zone Change No . 88-11 with findings and adopt Ordinance No. and c. Approve Use Permit No . 88-25 based on findings and conditions of approval and mitigation measures outlined in Attachment No . 1 with the following modified conditions : 8b. Prior to any on-site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed subject to the approval of the Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works . However, construction of value boxes may begin after street improvement construction has commenced. 20 . During the pre-drilling construction phase, all heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the use of designated truck routes as approved by the Department of Public Works and in accord with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. All heavy truck traffic during the drilling and the operational phase of the project shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 freeway and the site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue and Delaware Street . For entrance to the site only Delaware Street, Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used. 37 . Upon completion of all drilling operations, the drilling structure shall be removed from the site. ANALYSIS• Applicant: Angus Petroleum Corp. 5772 Bolsa Ave. , Ste. 210 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Appellants : Councilwoman Grace Winchell Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach Zone: Oldtown Specific Plan - District 2 - Oil General Plan: Medium Density Residential Acreage: 3 . 1 acres (both blocks combined) Zone Change No. 88-11 is a request to rezone Block A (Tract 12747) and add the "Ol" suffix to allow the drilling of new oil wells . At RCA - 11/21/88 -2- (1589d) i present, both Blocks A and B are currently zoned to allow existing oil operations . Block A requires the "01" suffix to permit new oil wells . Use Permit No. 88-25 is a request to establish a consolidated drill site and oil operation of both blocks . The project is located within the boundaries of the Oldtown Specific Plan-District 2 which is a medium density residential district . Both Block A and B currently have the "0" suffix which permits existing oil wells, oil facilities and oil storage operations . This project complies with the requirements of the Oldtown Specific Plan- District 2 except for the exterior side yard setbacks . The applicant is requesting a reduction of exterior sideyards from ten (10) feet to a minimum of seven (7) feet . Environmental Processing Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) 88-1 was prepared to augment the analysis of the proposed Springfield Oil Recovery Project undertaken in Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 86-1 . EIR 86-1 was published and certified as a Final EIR by the Planning Commission in September 1986 . Subsequent to the certification of Final EIR 86-1 and approval of Zone Change No. 86-4 and Use permit No. 86-7 by the City Council on October 20, 1986, litigation brought against the City and ANGUS Petroleum Corporation (As Real Party in Interest) by the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach, Inc. was settled by an agreement dated May 9, 1988 . As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City Council ' s vote of October 20, 1986 by which Final EIR 86-1 was certified, was set aside. On May 6, 1988, new Project applications were filed with the City. Those applications are for Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25 . i I Following new project applications being filed with the City in May, 1988, the Department of Community Development determined that a supplement to the existing EIR (EIR 86-1) should be prepared and circulated in accordance with CEQA requirements . The City serves as the Lead Agency for the CEQA review process as it did for the review process for EIR 86-1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 has gone through the following public notification and review process : 1. Notice of Preparation posted, advertised and circulated June 1, 1988 . 2 . Notice of Completion of DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 posted, advertised, and circulated August 23, 1988 . 3 . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 are available for public review and comment August 23 , 1988 - October 7, 1988 . RCA - 11/21/88 -3- (1589d) • 4 . Copies of DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council members August 19, 1988 . 5. Public hearing before Planning Commission to certify DSEIR 88-1 and recertify EIR 86-1 comments and responses regarding DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 were distributed to Planning Commission in their packets, with the exception of a letter presented to the Planning Commission on October 18 after public hearing, and are included as an appendix in the Final EIR. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 were prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Oil Recovery Project . The City Council, as the final decisionmaker on the project, must adopt and certify as adequate DSEIR 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate EIR 86-1 prior to final action on Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-18 . The environmental impact report discusses potential adverse impacts in the area of 1) Topography, Soils and Geology, 2) Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality, 3) Biological Resources, 4) Archaeological Resources, 5) Land Use, Zoning and General Plan, 6) Aesthetics, Light and Glare, 7) Traffic and Circulation, 8) Air Quality, 9) Noise, 10) Risk of Upset, 11) Public Services and Utilities, 12) Energy Conservation and 13) Cumulative Impacts . Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR' s, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There are three significant adverse impacts identified in the EIR' s which cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures . These impacts include: 1 . Seismic Impacts : In the event of an earthquake of 8 . 0 magnitude or greater. 2 . Aesthetics : Although mitigated with an 81 perimeter wall and landscaping, 165 foot rigs will be clearly visible to residences for up to two years . A 30-foot high sound barrier will also temporarily impact the neighborhood. Tanks will be visible above the perimeter wall and landscaping . These views cannot be eliminated. 3 . Risks of Upset - Fire: The risk of radiant heat from an oil tank fire is rare--a 1: 10, 000 to 1 : 1, 000, 000 chance of happening in one year . The risk was calculated using a worst case scenario with no perimeter wall and no mitigation. With a perimeter wall and facilities lowered to 6 feet below grade, potential impacts can be reduced but not to an insignificant level . RCA - 11/21/88 -4- (1589d) Because this project has been identified as having potentially significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the City Council is required to make a statement of orverriding considerations prior to approval of the project . In this statement, the City council must find that the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the project ' s potentially adverse impacts . A Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached to this report . It should be noted that staff recommends adoption of all mitigation measures suggested in the EIR' s . Removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures resulting in an alteration of the conclusions of the EIR' s would require recirculation of the document . Responses to Appeal Letters : The appeal letters received by staff (see Attachments 6 and 7) state that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 (SEIR 88-1) and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 (EIR 86-1) are inadequate and that the mitigation measures do not offer the existing neighborhood adequate protection from a proposed industrial use in close proximity to residential land use. Further, the appeal letter from the Concerned Citizen for Huntington Beach states that individual citizen-lot owners have every right to enforce the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded on their tract. The Springfield Oil Recovery Project will result in a degradation of their residential neighborhood and that the total number of conditions will never be entirely complied with or enforced by the City. The following discussion addresses Councilwoman Winchell ' s appeal : As listed previously in this report, 13 separate categories of impacts were discussed at length in EIR 86-1 and DSEIR 88-1 . The EIR' s address potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project, identify those impacts which can be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures, specify those mitigation measures and, finally, identify those impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The EIR' s provide mitigation measures which address neighborhood environmental concerns . The proposed springfield Oil Recovery Project will consolidate approximately 31 scattered, anticipated oil wells and tank facilities into one state-of-the art production facility. it is staff ' s conclusion that removal of the existing anticipated facilities and replacement of them with state-of-the art, safety designed facilities will result in the improved safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. The following is an item-by-item response to the Concerned Citizens ' for Huntington Beach appeal : RCA - 11/21/88 -5- (1589d) A. SEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 are inadequate and the mitigation measures will not adequately protect the existing residential neighborhood. The processing and completion of both DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 have been in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines . Thirteen categories of impacts and ten alternatives were analyzed within the documents, and over fifty mitigation measures suggested. The majority of potentially adverse environmental impacts were reduced, through mitigation measures, to a level of insignificance. These significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identified. In 1986, EIR 86-1 was certified and adopted as adequate by both the Planning Commission and the City Council . On October 18, 1988, the current Planning Commission adopted and recertified EIR 86-1 and adopted and certified as adequate DSEIR 88-1. It is staff ' s conclusion that EIR 86-1 and DSEIR 88-1 are adequate and that the basic purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act are served through them. B. The intensity of the oil operation is an industrial use that does not conform to the General Plan. As stated in Zone Change No. 88-11, finding number 2 .c. "A General Plan Amendment is not required because the combined acreage of the proposed site is less that 20 acres as set forth in the Size Criteria for Determining Land Use Designations table contained in the General Plan. " The City' s General Plan sets for minimum size areas for various land use designations which establish threshold values for the necessity for General Plan Amendments . The combined acreage of 3 . 1 acres for the proposed oil recovery site is substantially less than 20 acres; therefore, a General Plan Amendment is not required. Also, the General Plan/Zoning consistency matrix identifies that the "01" suffix is consistent with medium density residential land use designations and zoning districts . Combining the "01" suffix with the Oldtown Specific Plan - District 2 zoning district is consistent with the General Plan. The "01" suffix allows for the killing of new wells and the operation of oil production within the City. Angus Petroleum Corporation is requesting a zone change on Block A (Tract 12747) in order to consolidate approximately 31 existing scattered wells within the immediate area . RCA - 11/21/88 -6- (1589d) C. Individual citizen-lot owners have every right to enforce their Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions recorded on their Tract . Based on an inter-department communication from the City Attorney' s Office to the Planning Division dated August 26, 1986, the applicant has the right to pursue their petition for a zone change and use permit for the required entitlements to initiate the drilling of new wells and the construction of the Springfield Oil Recovery Project . D. The citizens are being subjected to the degradation of their residential neighborhood by industrial uses . The applicant is attempting to consolidate approximately 31 scattered oil operations into a consolidated site. The oil production facilities already exist in the vicinity of the proposed 2 block site. In terms of fire safety and multiple land use impacts, staff supports the oil consolidation project. The mitigation measures included in SEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 and the Conditions of Approval required by Use Permit No. 88-25 will provide safety and land use measures which will prevent the degradation of the existing residential neighborhood. After the initial construction and two year drilling phase, the operation will become a passive operation with the occasional maintenance of the wells . There are existing sites within the City where there are multiple well operations with storage facilities which are adjacent to residential areas . E. The 57 or 60 conditions on the oil drilling permits will never be entirely met or enforced as past experiences with the applicant, Angus Oil, has already proven to the Concerned Citizens for Huntington Beach. With the inclusion of the suggested mitigation measures as conditions of approval for the proposed project, the applicant is required by law to comply with the conditions . In addition, the recent passage of Assembly Bill 3180 by the California Legislature requires that public agencies adopt a reporting and monitoring program for adopted measures designed to avoid significant environmental impacts . As well as being a requirement, it is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach and the purpose of the City' s Code Enforcement Division to enforce adopted conditions of approval . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: SEIR 88-1 was prepared as a supplement to the previously prepared EIR 86-1 which were prepared to assess the environmental impacts relative to Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No . 88-25 . SEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 represent a detailed analysis of the project, project-related impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures intended to minimize adverse environmental impacts . Prior to any RCA - 11/21/88 -7- (1589d) 1� action on Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25, it is necessary that the City Council certify as adequate SEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1. All suggested mitigation measures recommended in SEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 have been incorporated into conditions of approval . On October 18, 1988, the Planning Commission approved and recommended to the City Council certification of SEIR 88-1 and recertification of EIR 86-1. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may overturn the Planning Commission' s decision and deny Zone Change No . 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25 with findings . ATTACHMENTS:1. City Council Resolution No . SM Sal which includes Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 . Final SEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 3 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407 with Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 . Findings and Conditions of Approval for Zone Change No . 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25 as approved by Planning Commission on October 18, 1988 . y�� 5 . Zone Change Ordinance No. d -6 . Appeal letter from concerned Citizens for Huntington Beach dated October 26, 1988 . .7 . Appeal letter from Councilwoman Grace Winchell dated October 27, 1988 . -8 . Draft Minutes from October 18, 1988 Planning Commission meeting . -�9 . Planning Commission Staff Report for DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 dated October 18, 1988 -/10 . Planning Commission Staff Report for ZC 88-11/UP 88-25 dated October 18, 1988 . MA:RLF:gbm RCA - 11/21/88 -8- (1589d) CONCERNED CITIZENS FO ,kWNTINGTON BEACH •i rA 9 Alsuna Lane pCj 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 October 26, 1988 Honorable Mayor John Erskine C/O City Clerk, Connie Brockway P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Erskine: RE: Planning Commission Decisions on the Springfield Oil Recovery Project, October 18th Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach, a non-profit corporation, wishes to appeal the following decisions: C-4a - To adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and EIR No. 86-1 by adopting Resolution No. 1402 with Statement of Overriding Considerations. C-4b - (1) Approve and recommend that the City Council Adopt Zone Change No. 88-11. (2) Approve Use Permit No. 88-25. Concerned Citizens .are appealing for the following reasons: A. The accepted SEIR's are inadequate, for all reasons stated in our prior letters and our consultants, The Chambers Group. B. The intensity of the oil operation is an industrial use that does not conform with the General Plan. C. Individual citizen-lot owners have every right to enforce their CC&R's recorded February 21, 1978 in Official Record of Orange County. D. The citizens are being subjected to the degradation of their residential neighborhood by industrial uses. E. The 57 or 60 conditions for oil drilling permits will never be entirely met or entirely enforced as past experiences with the applicant, Angus Oil, has already proved to us. We will appreciate your kind and fair attentions to our appeal. Very Truly yours, D, Ma M. Pa r'sh, Treasurer RiGhard Abramson, Se tary eele, resi en cc: John Murdock, Attorney CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR John Westermier, CHAMBERS GROUP HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BELCH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • • MUINTINGTON BEACH TO Honorable Mayor, City Council FROMGrace' i c ke Members & Connie Brockway, City Clerk Councilwoman SUBJECT DATE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 1988 ACTION ON EIR 88-4, ZC 88-11, AND UP 88-25 I hereby request a public hearing before the City Council of the above applications. I challenge the Planning Commission's certification of EIR 88-4, Zone Change No. 88-11, and Use Permit No. 88-25 for the following reasons: The mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report and related conditions on the Use Permit do not offer the neighborhood adequate protection or address all of the concerns presented with an expanded industrial use project in an established residential neighborhood. Q -4 , 1548d M'. + GW:ss fiflaus RECEIVED CITY CLERK TM CIT" OF HUHTINC` C LIF. ANGUS Petroleum Corporation ��t i 5772 Bolsa Avenue �tiu� ,U , 3 3 Suite 210 Huntington Beach, California 92649 (714) 894-3533 November 17, 1988 Mayor John Erskine Mayor Pro Tem Tom Mays Mr. Wes Bannister Ms. Ruth Finley Dr. Peter Green Mr. Jack Kelly Ms. Grace Winchell City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: ANGUS Petroleum Corporation Oil Consolidation Project Zone Change 88-11, Use Permit 88-25 and EIR 86_1) Dear Mayor Erskin and Members of the City Council: ANGUS Petroleum Corporation is the applicant for an oil recovery project ("Project") which will produce approximately nine million barrels of oil from the 160 acre Springfield Unit. This letter is intended to supply the City Council with additional information regarding issues which have been raised by the public during the preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Project ("Project") . 1. - Project Safety Compared to Existing Conditions. The Project Area, as defined in the SEIR to include the 160 acres of the subsurface oil unit, contains 22 wells along with 7 associated tank batteries. None of the tank batteries are equipped with vapor recovery systems. Most are open to the atmosphere allowing gas and vapors to escape. None of the batteries have more than the most rudimentary fire fighting equipment. Produced water is dumped into the sewers off of the wash tanks or "gun barrels" without concern for vapor containment and adding to the volume of fluid that the city sewers must handle. Pumping wells that are equipped with rod pumping equipment all have some leaks around the stuffing boxes. Since these wells are low volume and do not require constant attention, many leaks go unnoticed for several hours and maybe even days. The wells all have cellars which contain some crude oil usually floating on top of some water. These always present some danger of overflowing during heavy rains. All seven of the tank batteries will be replaced by new tankage equipped with state of the art fire suppression and vapor recovery equipment. Produced water will be metered, filtered and re-injected ANGUS Petroleum Corporation City Council Letter November 17, 1988 into the underground oil reservoirs. The wells will be replaced with new wells equipped with new well heads and will be produced using submersible electric pumps. Nothing moves through the well head once the pumping equipment has been installed so that leaks are kept to an absolute minimum. The old cellars will be replaced with trench type cellars containing well heads on 8 foot centers 9 feet below ground level. Since an operator must enter these cellars once a shift, they will be kept pumped down and clean. This will be easy to do since each cellar will be equipped with a sump pump that will pump any rain water or other liquid into the clean-up system and be re-injected or sold with the produced oil. The present systems require that a vacuum truck be used to pull down the liquid in the cellars. This is both expensive and unhandy, 'which are reasons for not doing it frequently. Both the existing wells and the tank batteries are in close proximity to dwellings. Some are less than 20 feet from homes or condominiums. The most obvious case to site are the five wells located in the Villa St. Croix condominium complex. The new facilities and wells will be separated from dwellings by public streets; surrounded by block walls and landscaping. The wells will be located under ground in trench cellars. A far safer circumstance than now exists. All of the existing wells are connected to their tank batteries by means of buried pipelines. Many of these lines are old and their exact location is unknown. They will be replaced by pipelines that are in conduits under the corner of Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street or hung on the cellar walls where if a leak does occur, it can be found and repaired easily and quickly. It has been estimated that some 18,000 feet of pipeline will be abandoned by the Springfield Project; a great reduction in the potential for leaks. 2. - Toxicological Impacts Attachment 1 to this letter contains the testimony of Dr. Edward T. Helton regarding the toxicological impacts of the Project. This testimony was presented orally before the City Council on October 20, 1986; On November 9, 1988, Dr. Helton confirmed by telephone that his testimony has not changed since that time. Dr. Helton's Curriculum Vitae is also attached. His testimony concludes that the Project will not result in any acute or chronic human health effects from hydrocarbon fumes. 3. - Structural Integrity and Seismic Safety As stated in the SEIR, the Project will be engineered to withstand an earthquake of M8 on the Richter Scale. Attachment 2 sets forth the specifications which must be followed in the construction of the tanks. 4. - Consistency With Huntington Beach General Plan and Land Use Policies Attachment 3 consists of a summary of "O1" oil sites in residential Page 2 ANGUS Petroleum Corporation City Council Letter November 17, 1988 areas in the City. This attachment shows clearly that the Project is not "unique" in locating oil drilling facilities in a residential neighborhood. 5. - Huntington Beach Energy Series Reports The City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Planning Division prepared a series of reports relating to energy issues in 1981. Attachment 4 consists of Report No. 1, "Preserving Surface Access to Underground Oil Reserves in Developed Areas" and Report No. 2, "Fiscal Impact of Oil Operations in Huntington Beach. " These reports set forth the City's strong policy to support oil consolidation projects and summarize a number of the advantages of these projects. As noted on page 15 of Report No. 1, which describes the advantages of unitization, unitization is a more efficient production technique which increases the total volume of oil recovered and decreases the time it takes to produce that oil. The report also concludes, however, that the land use advantages of unitization are equally important. Because new wells can be consolidated into walled and landscaped islands, and existing wells which are not important to the injection pattern may be plugged and abandoned, unitization is a beneficial tool for aesthetically improving oil field operations and eliminating deserted, idle or unneeded wells. If you have any additional questions regarding the Project, or require additional information regarding any aspect of the Project, please contact me. Very truly yours, John D. Carmichael Vice President Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD D. HELTON TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 1986 "Mayor Mandic, Councilmembers : I'm a professional scientists and toxicologist. I'm Director of the Division of Occupational Human Toxicology at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital. I was asked by ANGUS Petroleum to review the situation with regards to the toxicological perspective. Just to give you a little perspective on myself, I've been a professional chemist and scientists at the National "Tox" (Toxicological) Center, Albany Medical School, New Mexico State University, the F.D.A. , New Mexico State, etc. In doing this, I've reviewed the EIR, associated documents regarding emissions, etc. I made a site visit last week. I looked at the facility. I spent some time speaking with the professional staff of ANGUS Petroleum regarding the technology involved- and the chemical nature of this particular crude oil. I think the most important thing to say here is that we are dealing with crude oil. We know a great deal about crude oil toxicology. We know that it has a limited toxicity because of its great viscosity. In addition to this, we know that crude oils have this toxicology with regards to the type of crude. In this particular case, it' s a asphaltinic crude. It doesn't have high hydrocarbon emission. The major hydrocarbon which comes from this crude is methane. It' s about 95 percent, about 2 percent ethane. Methane, more than any other, is an asphyxiant, it will suffocate you, as opposed to the neurotoxic effects of hydrocarbons that have much higher molecular weights. Looking at this project, looking at the fact that the project will reduce the emissions through vapor capture systems by 93 percent and looking at the quantities that would be expected to be released from this system on a yearly basis, I would not, professionally, expect there to be any acute or chronic human health effects from the hydrocarbon fumes . Thank you. " CURRICULUM VITAE NAME: Edward Dale Helton BORN: June 19, 1945 MARITAL STATUS: Married, Wife - Joan CHILDREN: Daughter, Elise Holland, Born August 13, 1973 Son, Jacob Edward, Born January 28, 1979 ADDRESS: Division of Occupational and Human Toxicology Center for Rehabilitation and Occupational Health St. Francis Memorial Hospital 900 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94109 TELEPHONE: (415) 775-1762 (Work) (415) 897-1043 (Home) EDUCATION: B.A. Chemistry, 1967 - Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX M.A. Biology, 1969, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA Ph.D. Biological Sciences - (Biochemistry, Cellular Physiology and Endocrinology) - 1972, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA Postdoctoral , NIH Postdoctoral Fellow, August 1972 to March 1973, Steroid Biochemistry, Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Shrewsbury, MA BACKGROUND: 1984 (March) - Director Present Division of Occupational and Human Toxicology Center for Rehabilitation and Occupational Health and Hospital Professional Staff Member St. Francis Memorial Hospital San Francisco, CA 94109 1980 - 1984 President, Bic-Systems Research, Inc. Senior Vice-President for Toxicology (Jan. 1982 - Oct. 1982) Director of Toxicology (Dec. 1980 - Dec. 1981) Las Cruces, NM 88003 and Salida, CO 81201 EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 2 of 16 I BACKGROUND (Continued) I 1979 - 1984 Research Associate Professor of Toxicology Associate Professor of Chemistry Coordinator, Graduate Toxicology Program (Oct. 1982 - 1984) New Mexico State University, Las Cruces Chief, Division of Biochemical Toxicology, Associate Professor of Toxicology NMSU/Primate Research Institute and The International Center for Environmental Studies, Institute for Comparative and Human Toxicology, Albany Medical School , Albany, NY (Nov 1979 - Dec 1981 ) 1978 - 1979 Director, Department of Chemistry Biologic Safety Evaluation Division Litton Bionetics, Inc. Kensington, MD 20795 1976 - 1978 Director, Drug Research and Evaluation Program (May - September 1978) Senior Research Chemist (March 1976 - May 1978) National Center for Toxicological Research Food and Drug Administration Jefferson, AR 72079 Assistant Professor of Pharmacology and Pediatrics (Adjunct) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Little Rock, AR 72201 1975 - 1976 Chief , Clinical Research Captain, U.S. Army Brooke Army Medical Center San Antonio, TX Assistant Professor of Biochemistry (Adjunct) Department of Allied Health and Life Sciences University of Texas San Antonio, TX 1974 - 1976 Associate Foundation Scientist (Adjunct) Southwest Foundation for Research and Education San Antonio, TX 1973 - 1975 Director, Clinical Research Laboratory Captain, U.S. Army Brooke Army Medical Center San Antonio, TX EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 3 of 16 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: Program Chairman, Session in Pacific Conference on Comparative Endocrinology held in Santa Barbara, CA, May 8-99 1970. Invited paper, 6th International Symposium on Comparative Endo- crinology, Banff, Canada, June 13-19, 1971. Scientific Communication - 4th International Congress on Hormonal Steroids, Mexico City, September 2-7, 1974. Invited paper, 3rd Annual National Center for Toxicological Research/Hormone Research Symposium, Little Rock, AR, November 15-17, 1976. Consulting Biochemist to the Bureau of Foods on Nitrofurans, February, 1977. Session Chairman and Invited Paper, 4th Annual National Center for Toxicological Research/Hormone Research Symposium, Little Rock, AR, October 24-26, 1977. Expert Witness, Food and Drug Administration - Diethylstilbestrol Hearings, Rockville, MD, January 12, 1977. Invited Speaker, Gordon Research Conference on Environmental and Genetic Toxicology, Plymouth, NH, June 26-30, 1978. Invited Speaker, National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety - Workshop on Estrogens in the Environment, Cincinnati , Ohio, February 9-10, 1978. Invited Speaker, Annual Meeting of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, San Francisco, CA, May 6-79 1979. Session Chairman, Gordon Research Conference of Toxicology and Safety Evaluations, Meriden, NH, July 30-August 3, 1979. Consultant to the UPJOHN Co. , January-March, 1980. Invited Speaker, Department of Chemistry, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, November 13, 1980. Invited Speaker, Genentech Corporation, So. San Francisco, CA, April 20, 1981. EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 4 of 16 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIESs (Continued) Consultant to GAF Corporation and Baker and Hostetler, Cleveland, OH, Attorneys at Law, 1980-1983. Consultant to U.S. Soil Corporation, 1980-1984. Invited Lecturer, Northwest Center for Medical Education, Indiana University School of Medicine, September 29, 1981. Consultant to the Animal Health Institute, 1981 to present. Scientific Advisory Board member, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers' Association, 1981 - present. Invited Speaker, Society of Toxicology/American Society of Pharma- cology and Experimental Therapeutics, August 15-19, 1982, Louis- ville, KY. Invited Speaker, Practicing Law Institute, New York City, Sept. 10-11, 1982. Invited Speaker, San Francisco Symposium on Occupational Disease Litigation, San Francisco, October 15-16, 1982. Invited Speaker, Practicing Law Institute, NYC, Nov. 4-5, 1983. Invited Speaker, Industrial Claims Association, March 27, 1984. Invited Speaker, Northern California Occupational Health Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco General Health Center, April 11, 1984. Invited Speaker, St. Francis Memorial Hospital , Nursing Education Department, June 29, 1984. Invited Speaker, KGED Medical Radio Program - House Call- Toxins In the Environment, June 10, 1984. Invited Speaker, National Conference of Administrative Law Judges/ Department of Labor, Ocean City, MD, September 11 , 1984. Invited Speaker, Rehabilitation Industrial Nursing Group, South San Francisco, CA, October 1 , 1984. EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 5 of 16 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIESs (Continued) Invited Speaker, International Electrical & Electronic Engineering Society, Toxicology in the Electronics Industry, Palo Alto, CA, October 16, 1984. Invited Speaker, McDermott, Will & Emery, Toxicology Seminar, December 14, 1984, Chicago, Illinois. Faculty Member, California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery, December 269 1984 - January 2, 1985, Maui , Hawaii . Invited Speaker, Defense Lawyers' Association, February S. 19859 San Francisco, CA. Invited Speaker, International Electrical & Electronic Engineering Society, Toxicology in the Electronics Industry, Palo Alto, CA, May 16, 1985. Invited Speaker, Industrial Claims Association, Chemical Toxins Workshop, San Francisco, CA, June 18, 1985. Invited Speaker, University of California, San Francisco, Toxi- cology Seminar, June 19, 1985. Invited Speaker, Bay Area Oncology Nursing Society, DES, San Francisco, CA, June 27, 1985. Invited Speaker, Saint Francis Memorial Hospital , Oncology committee Tumor Conference, DES, San Francisco, CA, July 23, 1985. Invited Speaker, Labor & Employment Law Program, Drug Screening and Abuse in Industry, February 27, 1986, Santa Cruz, CA. Invited Speaker, Living & Working Around Potentially Toxic Substances - Health Considerations. San Jose Chamber of Commerce and Santa Clara Valley World Trade Association. San Jose, CA, April 28, 1986. EDWARD D. HELTON,*.D. Page 6 of 16 AWARDS AND GRANTS; National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral Fellow, 1972-1973. Brooke Army Medical Center Research Grant C-175. The Human Hepatic In Vitro Metabolism of the Synthetic and Natural Estrogens, 1974-1976. Meritorious Service Medal - United States Army, 1976. RESEARCH ABILITIES: 1. Drug and Xenobiotic purification and identification a. Sephadex LH-20 Chromatography b. High Performance Liquid Chromatography C. Gas-Liquid Chromatography 2. Synthesis of steroid conjugates and derivatives. 3. Radioisotope technology and theory. 4. Human, sub-human primate and rodent metabolic and trans- placental pharmacokinetic studies. S. in vivo and In vitro testing and mechanisms of drug toxicity. 6. Mass spectrometry. 7. Nucleic acid purification and analysis. 8. In vitro metabolic studies. 9. Steroid radioimmuncassay. 10. Drug and chemical animal safety testing and toxicology. SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS: Society of Toxicology The Endocrine Society American Association for Clinical Chemistry American Chemical Society New York Academy of Sciences Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENTS: Editor, Journal of Applied Toxicology Affiliate Toxicologist California Primate Research Center University of California Davis, California Staff Toxicologist Readicare (California Industrial Medical Clinic) San Francisco, CA EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 7 of 16 BASIC RESEARCH AND COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE: LABORATORY: CHEMICAL STUDY SPONSOR corticosterone metabolism/pharmacokinetics National Science Foundation aldosterone metabolism/pharmacokinetics National Science Foundation 19-nor protestin L vitro oxidation National Institutes of Health, Worcester Foundation for Ex- perimental Biology 17a-ethynylestradiol World Health and mestranol metabolism/pharmacokinetics Organization 0 diethylstilbestrol metabolism/pharmacokinetics Food and Drug Admin- and estradiol toxicology/teratology istration octane enhancer in vitro metabolism and ARCO Chemical , Inc. analytical chemistry organophosphate GLP Chemistry Mobil Oil Corp. analgesic GLP Chemistry Endo/E. I. DuPont Corp plasticizer GLP Chemistry CTFA flavor enhancers GLP Chemistry FEMA bromide fumigant residue analysis Great Lakes Chemicals I diuretic pharmacokinetics/ Merrell National Labs pharmacodynamics insect repellent dermal absorption Johnson 's Wax excretion (S.C. Johnson & Son) antihypertensive pharmacological Ciba Geigy agent aromatic amine pharmacokinetics E. I. DuPont De pharmacodynamics Nemours & Co. ophthalmic replace- pharmacokinetics/ CILCO Corp. ment fluid pharmacodynamics EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 8 of 16 BASIC RESEARCH AND COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE: (Continued) artificial sweetner toxicology and Calorie Control voluntary intake Council/Pepsico cosmetics/skin care toxicology studies Bio-Pharma Corp & treatment products American Cyanamide anti-herpetic drug FDA Registration U.S. Soil Corp bio-rational pesti- EPA Registration U.S. Soil Corp cide caramel color pharmacokinetics Caramel Concen- pharmacodynamics trate Council food, drug and endocrine toxicity CCMA cosmetic color Red No. 3 psychoactive primate toxicology IDEA Corporation drug sub-acute anti-androgen FDA Registration Chantal Pharma- toxicology & endocrine ceutical evaluation dermal UV biochemical mechanism American Cyanamide screening agents anti-herpetic FDA Registration Sovran Pharmaceu- drug toxicology evaluation tical bio-engineered FDA Registration Bic-Technology enzymes & hormones safety & toxicology General Corp. evaluation red phosphorus chemistry and U.S. Army, perchloroethane inhalation toxicology Fort Dietrick, MD FD&C Colors GLP Chemistry CTFA Red Nos. 9927,36 cellular implants safety evaluation Hama Biologics sulfonamide regulatory evaluation Animal Health antibiotics Institute I EDWARD D. HELTON,*.D. Page 9 of 16 COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE: CONSULTINGs Representative Cases CHEMICAL STUDY SPONSOR synthetic progestin health effects/human Upjohn safety fungicide and in vivo toxicity consultation feed additive asphalt cancer Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer 's Assoc. antibiotic toxicity/registration Tech America antibiotic toxicology study monitor Animal Health Institute antibiotic FDA regulation Maurry Biological asphalt, coal tar cancer consultation asbestos, dust tannins and dyes cancer Tanner 's Council of America & Howes Leather Co. , Inc. Placental extracts efficacy Bic-Pharma methyl bromide human neuropathies consultation vinyl chloride, human cancer, leukemia Mobil & GAR polyurethane, anilines & isocyanates ammonia fumes respiratory disease consultation petrochemical fumes human cancer consultation & benzene fume and chemical NIOSH Site Visit Howes Leather Co. aromatic amines bladder cancer NIOSH/Synalloy Corp. vinyl products neuropathies/cancer consultation floor tile & lung disease consultation asbestos siding EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 10 of 16 COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE: CONSULTING: Representative Cases (Continued) dry wall products lung disease consultation solvents, petroleum intestinal cancer consultation fumes & asbestos trichloroethylene environmental disease consultation trichloroethane, tetrachloroethane asbestos & mineral respiratory disease consultation fibers roofing, flooring, respiratory disease consultation & siding materials asbestos lung cancer consultation polycyclic aromatic allergenic response consultation fumes paint removers esophageal cancer consultation semi-conductor neurasthenic effects Worker 's Compensation chemicals & kidney disease Claims solvents nasal tumors immunotoxicity polychlorinated acute effects City of San Francisco biphenyls & PG&E benomyl , captan teratological effects consultation dimethoate, Provera Bendectin anti-viral drug FDA Registration Sovran Pharmaceutical par&-nitrophenol contact dermatitis Belleville Shoe Mfg & chromium salts OSHA organophosphates organophosphate Worker 's Compensation induced delayed Claims neurotoxicity environmental clinical ecology Worker 's Compensation chemicals Claims EDWARD D. HELTON, O.D. Page 11 of 16 COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE: CONSULTING: Representative Cases: (Continued) environmental clinical ecology Worker 's Compensation chemicals Claims arsenic & beryllium human exposure Electronics Industry solvents, atchants human toxicology Electronics Industry dopants diisocyanates occupational asthma paint & plastics (paints & plastics) industry asbestos restrictive lung disease Long Shore Act, silica lung cancer & mesothelioma Cases & Civil Action analgesics, steroid adverse reactions toxicology evaluations neuroleptic drugs anaphylaxsis I EDWARD D. HELTON, 0D. • Page 12 of 16 PUBLICATIONS: 1. Mathes, M.C. and Helton, E.D. : The Production of Microbial-Regulatory Materials by Isolated Aspen Tissue. Plant and Cell Physiol . , V:509-517, 1971. 2. Holmes, W.N. , Bradley, E.L. , Helton, E.D. and Chan, M.Y. : The Distribution and Metabolism of Corticosterone in Birds. IN, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Comparative Endocrinology, Gen. and Comp. Endocrinol. , Suppl 3, 226-278, 1972. 3. Helton, E.D. and Holmes, W.N. : The Distribution and Metabolism of Labelled Corticosteroids in the Duck (Anal Platvrhincos) . J. Endocrinol . , ;66: 361-385, 1973. 4. Williams, M.C. , Helton, E.D. and Goldzieher, J.W. : The Urinary Metabolites of 17a-ethynylestradiol-9, 11 , OH in Women. Chromatographic Profiling and Identification of Ethynyl and Nonethynyl Compounds. Steroids, Z5: 229-240, 1975. 5. Helton, E.D. , Williams, M.C. and Goldzieher, J.W. : Human Urinary Liver Conjugates of 17a-ethynylestradiol. Steroids, ;L7:851-867, 1976. 6. Helton, E.D. , Williams, M.D. and Goldzieher, J.W. : Oxidative Metabolism and De-ethynyllation of 17a-ethynylestradiol by Baboon Liver Microsomes. Steroids, 30:71-83, 1977. 7. Helton, E.D. and Goldzieher, J.W. : Metabolism of Ethynyl Estrogens. J. Toxicol . Environ. Health, 3:321-241 , 1977. 8. Helton, E.D. and Goldzieher, J.W. : The Pharmacokinetics of Ethynyl Estrogens. A Review. Contraception, 15(3) :255-2849 1977. 9. Helton, E.D. , Casciano, D.A. , Althaus, Z.R. and Plant, H.D. : Metabolism of 17a-ethynylestradiol by Intact Liver Parenchymal Cells Isolated from the Mouse and Rat. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 3:953-963, 1977. 10. Horning, E.D. , Thenot, J.P. and Helton, E.D. : Toxic Agents Resulting from the Oxidative Metabolism of Steroid Hormones and Drugs. J. Toxicol . Environ. Health, f:341-361 , 1978. 11. Helton, E.D. , Hill , D.E. , Gough, B.J. , Lipe, G.W. , King, J.W. , Jr. , Horning, E.C. and Thenot, J.P. : Comparative Metabolism of Diethylstilbestrol in the Mouse, Rhesus Monkey and Chimpanzee. J. Toxicol . Environ. Health, 4:482-483, 1978. 12. Helton, E.D. , Hadd, H.E. , Williams, M.C. and Goldzieher, J.W. : Synthesis of 17b-D-glucopyranosiduronic Acid of 17a-ethynylestradiol . J. Steroid Biochem. , g:237-238, 1978. EDWARD D. HELTON, PH.D. Page 13 of 16 PUBLICATIONS: (Continued) 13. Helton, E.D. , Hill , D.E. , Li pe, O.W. and King, J.W. , Jr. : Metabolism of DES in the Rhesus Monkey and Chimpanzee. J. Environ. Path. Toxicol . 2" 521-5379 1978. 14. Helton, E.D. , Gough, B.J. , King, J.W. , Jr. , Thenot, J.P. and Horning, E.C. : Metabolism of diethylstilbestrol in the C3H mouse: Chromatographic Systems for the Quantitative Analysis of DES Metabolic Products. Steroids, 311,(4) s471-484, 1978. 15. Hill , D.E. , Slikker, W. , Jr. , Helton, E.D. , Lipe, G.W. , Newport, G.D. , Sziszak, T.J. and Bailey, J.R. : Transplacental Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Diethylstilbestrol and 17B-Estradiol in the Pregnant Rhesus Monkey. J. Clin. Endocrinol . Metab. 5n0(5) s881-888, 1980. 16. Hadd, H.E. , Slikker, W. and Helton, E.D. s The Synthesis and Characterization of the Glucopyranosiduronic Acids of 17a-ethynylestradiol-17B. J. Steroid Biochem. , j3s1107-1114, 1980. 17. Raitano, L. , Slikker, W. , Hill , D.E. and Helton, E.D. s Ethynyl Cleavage of 17a-ethynylestradiol in the Rhesus Monkey. Drug Metabolism and Disposition,. 9(2) : 129-1349 1981. 18. Fuller, G.D. , Yates, D. , Helton, E.D. and Hobson, W.C. : Diethylstilbestrol of Gonadotropin Patterns in Infant Rhesus Monkeys. J. Steroid Biochemistry, 1:497, 1981. 19. Clark, J.D. , Williams, M. , Upchurch, S. , Ericksson, H. , Helton, E.D. and Markaverich, B. s Effects of Estradiol-17-A on Nuclear Occupancy of the Estrogen Receptor, Stimulation of Nuclear Type II Sites and Uterine Growth. J. Steroid Biochem. , 16:323-328, 1982. 20. Helton, E.D. s Biomedical and Toxicological Evaluation. Occupational Qisease Litigation, Course Handbook Series Number 206 (H4-4882) , Practising Law Institute, 1982. 21. Helton, E.D. , Purdy, R. and Williams, M.C. : Analytical Methodology for Estrogen Analysis. pp. 259-293 INs Handbook of Carcinogens and Other Hazardous Chemicals, Bowman, M. (Ed. ) , Marcel Dekker, Inc. , New York, NY, 1982. 22. Jurek, A. , Althaus, Z.R. , Slikker, W. and Helton, E.D. : Chronic Effects of Diethylstilbestrol on Estrogen Metabolism in the Mouse. J. Environ. Path. Toxicol. and Oncology. 16(3) 9 1983. 23. Hadd, H.E. , Slikker, W. , Miller, D.W. and Helton, E.D. : Studies on Synthesis of the Anomeric Pair of 17B-Glucuronides of Ethynylestradiol . J. Steroid Biochem. 18sl-7, 1983. • EDWARD D. HELTON, FTf.D. • Page 14 of 16 PUBLICATIONS: (Continued) 24. Helton, E.D. and Holt, J.H. : The Diagnosis or Misdiagnosis of Occupational Disease. Prentice-Hall , Inc. Labor Relations Guide Service, 40: 173-1789 January 1983. 25. Helton, E.D. : Biomedical and Toxicological Evaluation. Occupational Disease Litigation, Course Handbook Series No. 237 (H4-4194) , Practising Law Institute, 1983. 26. Helton, Edward D. and Holt, Joan H. s Evaluating the Causation of Occupational Disease, Prentice-Hall , Inc. Labor Relations Guide Service, Vol . 40: 173-178, March 1984. 27. Schoenig, J. , Westland, J. and Helton, E. s Effect of Short-Term Administration of Sodium Saccharin on Rhesus Monkey. Food Chemical Toxicology, Vol . 22(12) :931-934, 1984. 28. Helton, Edward D. , Joan H. Holt and Frederic H. Newton: Human Solvent Intoxications An Industrial Problem. Prentice-Hall , Inc. Labor Relations Guide Service, pp. 215-218, June 1985. 29. Helton, E.D. , Westland, J.A. and Mueller, W. s Placental Transfer of Pentachlorophenol in Rhesus Monkeys. In press. Ecotoxicoloav and Environmental Health. 30. Helton, E.D. s The Potential Carcinogenicity of Plant Polyphenolic Compounds. Submitted to the J. of Applied Toxicology. 31. Helton, E.D. and Newton, Frederic. Industrial Solvent Exposure and CNS Toxicology. In preparation. 32. Helton, E.D. and Newton, Frederic. Acute and Chronic Pesticide Intoxication. In preparation. EDWARD D. HELTON, is D. • Page 15 of 16 ABSTRACTS: 1. Williams, M.C. , Helton, E.D. and Goldzieher, J.W. : The Metabolism of Ethynylestradiol in Women. Endocrinol . 94:315, Suppl . 1974. 2. Helton, E.D. , Williams, M.C. and Goldzieher, J.W. : The Metabolism of Ethynylestradiol in Women. J. Steroid Biochem. 5s320, 1974. 3. Helton, E.D. , Williams, M.C. , Rao, P.N. and Hadd, H. s Urinary and Liver Conjugates in 17a-ethynylestradiol in Women. INs Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, 1976. 4. Helton, E.D. and Gough, B.J. : Excretion and Metabolism of Tritiated Diethylstilbestrol in the Female C3H Mouse. J. Toxicol . Environ. Health, ;:352-3539 1977. 5. Helton, E.D. , Williams, M.C. and Goldzieher, J.W. : Oxidative Metabolism and De-ethynylation of 17a-ethynylestradiol in Baboon Liver Microsomes. J. Toxicol . Environ. Health, T:353-354. 6. Hill , D.E. , Helton, E.D. , Lipe, S.W., Newport, S.D., Sz i szak, T.J. , Bailey, J.R. and Young, J.F. : Transplacental Transfer, Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics of Diethylstilbestrol (DES) and Estradiol-17B(Es) in Pregnant Rhesus Monkeys. IN: Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, 1978. S. Hadd, H.E. and Helton, E.D. : Synthesis and Characterization of 3 and 17-D-glucuronide Triacetyl Monomethyl 17a-ethynylestradiol 17B. IN Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, 1978. 9. Slikker, W. , Hill , D.E. , Helton, E.D. , Sziszak, T.J. , Newport, G.D. , Lipe, G.W. and Bailey, J.R. : Comparison of the Transplacental Pharmacokinetics of Diethylstilbestrol (DES) , Diethylstilbestrol Monoglucuronide (DESO) and Estradiol 17B(Es) in the Rhesus Monkey. Joint 1978 Meeting of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics/Society of Toxicology. 10. Raitano, L. , Slikker, W. , Hill , D.E. and Helton, E.D. s Metabolism of 17a-ethynylestradiol by the Rhesus Monkey. Accepted, 1979, Meeting of the Society of Toxicology. 11. Slikker, W. , Hill , D.E. , Althaus, Z.R. and Helton, E.D. : Comparison of the Placental Transfer of Some Synthetic and Natural Estrogens in Subhuman Primates. Submitted, 61st Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, 1979. 12. Slikker, W. , Hill , D.E. , Lipe, G.W. , Newport, G.D. , and Helton E.D. s HPLC and Field Desorption Mass Spectroscopy of Rhesus Monkey DES Conjugates. Accepted, 1979 Meeting of the Society of Toxicology. - EDWARD D. HELTON, D. i Page 16 or 16 ABSTRACTSt (Continued) 13. Hadd, H.E. , Sl i kker, W. , Jr. , Helton, E.D. , Hill , D.E. and Rai tano, L. t The Identification of the 17-glucuronide of Ethynylestradiol in Urine of the Rhesus Monkey Following Radioactive Ethynylestradiol Administration. Submitted, 61st Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, 1979. 14. Yates, D. , Westland, J.A. , Fuller, G.B. , Hobson, W.C. , and Helton, E.D. s Alterations of Neonatal Pharmacology in Rhesus Monkeys Resulting from in utero and Neonatal Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol . Submitted, Endocrine Abstract, 1981. 15. Smith, G.W. , Ward, R.G. , Herbel , C.H. , Trujillo, P.A. and Helton, E.D. t Toxicological Evaluation of Sewage Product Fed to Beef Cows on Range with Dormant Forage. Submitted, American Society of Animal Science, 1981. 16. Fuller, G.B. , Yates, D. , Helton, E.D. and Hobson, W.C. t Diethylstil- bestrol Reversal of Gonadotropin Patterns in Infant Rhesus Monkeys. 5th International Symposium of the J. of Steroid Biochem. , 1981. 17. Helton, E.D. , Westland, J. , Selim, S. , Hobson, W. and Mueller, W. t Transplacental Pharmacology of Pentachlorophenol (PCP) in Rhesus Monkeys. Submitted, Joint ASPET/SOT Meeting, Louisville, KY, 1982. IN Vol .29 No. 2, The Toxicologist, July, 1982. ATTACHMENT 2 'r APPENDIX E SEISMIC DESIGN OF STORAGE TANKS EA Scope Table E-1— Zone t oefflcleM This appendix establishes recommended minimum Zone Seismic Zone per basic requirements for the design of storage tanks sub- Coefficient Figure E-1 ject to seismic load when specified by purchaser.'These 0.1975.....:.................... 1 requirements represent accepted practice for applica- 0.375........................... 2 tion to flat bottom tanks. However,it is recognized that 0.75..................1.0 .......... 3 other procedures and applicable factors or additional requirements may be specified by the purchaser or Note:No earthquake design required for Zone 0. jurisdictional authorities. Any deviation from the re- quircments herein must be by agreement between the Z =zone coefficient from Figure E-1 and Table E- purchaser and manufacturer. . 1. I =essential facilities factor. A factor of 1.0 shall E.2 Introduction be used for all tanks except when an increased The design procedure considers two response modes I factor is specified by the purchaser. It`is recommended that the I factor not exceed 1.5 of the tank and its contents: (1) the-relatively high fre- quency-amplified response to lateral ground motion of the tank shell and roof together with a portion of the tanks that must provide emergency post earth- liquid contents which moves in unison with the shell, quake service to the public. =lateral earthquake force coefficients and C1 and (2) the relatively low frequency amplified response Cl determined per E.3.3. of a*portion of the liquid contents in the fundamental sloshing mode. The design requires the determination W, =total weight of tank shell, in pounds. X, =height from bottom of tank shell to ccnter'.of of the hydrodynamic mass associated with each mode and the lateral force and overturning moment applied gravity of shell, in feet. Wr =total weight of tank roof(fixed or floating)plus to the shell resulting from the response of the masses to portion of snow load, if any, as specified by lateral ground motion:Provisions are included to assure purchaser, in pounds. stability of the tank shell against overturning and to Hr =total height of tank shell, in feet: preclude buckling of the tank shell due to longitudinal Wr =weight of effective mass of tank contents which compression. moves in unison with tank shell, determined No provisions are included-regarding the increase in per E.3.2.1, in-pounds.hoop tension due to horizontal and vertical seismic Xt =height from bottom of tank shell to centroid of forces since this does not affect shell thickness for the lateral seismic force applied to Wr,determined lateral force coefficients specified herein, taking into per E.3.2.2, in feet_. account generally accepted increased allowable stress W2 =weight of effective mass of first mode sloshing and ductility ratios. contents of tank, determined per E.3.2.I. in pounds. E.3 Design Loading E-3.1 OVERTURNING MOMENT The overturning moment due to seismic forces a The basis for these provisions together with the formulas for the g p- design curves in Figures E-2 through E-5 plus information for ealeu- plied to the bottom of the shell-shall be determined as lating other seismic effects are included in the paper"Basis of Seismic follows: Design Provisions for Welded Steel Storage Tanks"by R.S.Wozniak and W. W. Mitchell, 1978 Proceedings—Refining Deparrmenr. M = ZI(C,W,X,+C,W H, + C11V,X1 + C2W2XI) }I'he overturing moment determined per this paragraph is that ap- Where: plied to the bottom of the shell only.The tank foundation is subjected to an additional overturning moment due to lateral displaccmcrt or M =overtuitmnng moment applied to bottom of tank the tank contents which may need to be considered in the design of shell, in foot-pounds, some foundations such as pile-supported conatte mats. E-1 fiev 1 rn - ' N - t ' 3 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 cn � 0 - 3 2 0 2 � ✓ 1 3 0 4 3 c 1 1 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 MILES Note. For Canadian seismic zones. refer to the National Building Code of Canada. Supp No. i Figure E-1—Selamlc Zone Map } i� i y ,� / • WELDED STEEL TANKS FOR OIL STORAGE • E•3 f i O � j i 1 ' ! ALASKA ! 2 3 0 � 3 i 4 '0 200 400 MILES a• 3 HAWAII 4 0 30 60 90 MILES Figure E-1—Continued • .4J � o E-4 API STAMARD 650 �• ����� c X2 =height from bottom of tank shell to centroid of 1.0 lateral Seismic force applied to W2,determined ! W2 per E.3.2.2, in feet. Wt 0-8 11 1 r E.3.2 EFFECTIVE MASS OF TANK CONTENTS E.3.2.1 The effective masses Wt and W2, may be OR determined by multiplying WT by the ratios Wt/WT and W2 0 4- T W21Wr, respectively, obtained from Figure E-2 for the W I ' W ratio DIH. T 0.2- Where: 0 WT=total weight of tank contents (product specific 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6 0 7.0 8.0 gravity specified by the purchaser), in pounds. DIH D =nominal diameter of tank, in feet (see 3.6.1.1 Figure—E-2 Note 1). H =height, in feet (see 3.6.3.2). { 1.0 E.3.2.2 The heights from the bottom of the tank shell to the centroids of the lateral seismic forces applied to -�-- Wi and W2,Xt and X2,may be determined by multiply- y �i 2 ing H by the ratios Xt/H and X21H, respectively, ob- tained from Figure E-3 for the ratio of DIH. OR ` E.3.2.3 The curves in Figures E-2 and E-3 are based X 0.4 on a modification of the equations presented in ERDA s H Technical Information Document 7024t. Alternatively, 0. Ws, W2,X1, and X2 may be determined by other analy- tical procedures based on the dynamic characteristics of the tank. 00 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 50 60 70 8.0 DIH E.3.3 LATERAL FORCE COEFFICIENTS Figure—E-3 E.3.3.1 The lateral force coefficient Ct shall be taken as 0.24. Where: S =site amplification factor from Table E-2. E.3.3.2 The lateral force coefficient CZ shall be deter- T =natural period of first mode sloshing, in sec- mined as a function of the natural period of the first onds. T may be determined from the folowing mode sloshing, T, and the soil conditions at the tank expression: site. T = kD''2 When T is less than or equal to 4.5: k =factor obtained from Figure E-4 for the ratio C2 = 0.30 S DIH. T E.3.3.3 Alternatively, by agreement between pur- 7 hen T is greater than 4.5: chaser and manufacturer, Ct and C2 may be determined from response spectra established for the specific site of the tank and which may also take into account the dy- __ 1.35 S namic characteristics of the tank. The spectrum for Cl CZ 7-2 should be established for a damping coefficient of 2 percent of critical and scaled to a maximum amplified acceleration of 0.24 times the acceleration of gravity. Earthquakes, prepared by Lockheedd Aircraft Corporation, and Technical information Document A Nuclear Reactors and The spectrum for C2 should correspond to the spectrum Holmes & Narver. Inc., for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, for Ct except modified for a damping coefficient of 0.5 August 1963. percent of critical. WELDED STEEL TANKS FOR Oil STORAGE • E-5 r,�A Resistance To Overturning 1.0 E.4.1 Resistance to the overturning moment at the 0.8 bottom of the shell may be provided by the weight of the tank shell and by the weight of a portion of the tank contents adjacent to the shell for unanchored tanks or 0.6 by anchorage of the tank shell. For unanchored tanks, 0.5 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 60 7.0 8.0 the portion of the contents which may be utilized to resist overturning is dependent on the width of the bot- D/H tom plate under the shell which lifts off the foundation Figure—E-4 and may be determined as follows: der of the bottom, the width of the thicker plate under "''. _— 7.9r,, F ,H the shell in feet, measured radially inward from the except that wL, shall not exceed 1.25 GHD. shell, shall be equal to or greater than: Where: 0.0274 wL GH wL = maximum weight of tank contents which may be utilized to resist the shell overturning moment, E.5 Shell Compression in pounds per foot of shell circumference. tb = thickness of bottom plate under the shell, in E.5.1 UNANCHORED TANKS inches. The maximum longitudinal compressive force at the Fby = minimum specified yield strength of bottom bottom of the shell may be determined as follows: plate under the shell, in pounds per square G = design specific gravity of liquid to be stored as When DZ M w is equal to or less than 0.785: w specified by the purchaser. ( r . L) + 1.273M E.4.2 The thickness of the bottom plate under the D2 shell, tb, shall not exceed the thickness of the bottom shell course,or '/,inch,whichever is greater. Where the When 2 M is greater than 0.785 but less bottom plate under the shell is thicker than the remain- D (WI + wL) than or equal to 1.5: b may be computed from the value of the following Table E-2—Site Amplification Factors parameter obtained from Figure E-5. Soil Profile Site Amplification b + WL Type Factor Notes wr + wL A 1.0 1 B 1.2 2 Unknown 1.5 a When 1.5 < M -- 1.57 Notes I. Soil Profile A is a profile with: b + wL = 1.490 a- Rock of any characteristic, either shale-like or crystalline in w, + wL r _ 0.637M nature. Such material may be characterized by a shear wave I D'(w, + wL)]112 velocity greater than 2500 feet per second:or L b. Stiff soil conditions where the soil depth is less than 200 feet and the soil types overlying rock are stable deposits of sands,grav els. or stiff clays. When 2 M is greater than 1.57 or 6 2. Soil Profile B is a profile with deep cohesionless or stiff clay condi- D (w, + wL) 12t tions.including sites where the soil depth exceeds 200 feet and the soil types overlying rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels, or stiff exceeds F.(see E.5.3) the tank is structurally unstable. clays. It is necessary to either: 3. Soil Profile C is a profile with soft-to-medium-stiff clays and sands, characterized by 30 feet or more of soft-to-medium-stiff clay with or 1. Increase the thickness of the bottom plate under the without intervening layers of sand or other cohesionless soils. 4. In locations where the soil profile is not known in sufficient detail shell, tb, to increase wL providing that the limitations of to determine the soil profile type, Soil Profile C shall be assumed. E.4.1 and E.4.2 are not exceeded, or Rev 1 o. E-6 API STMOARO 650 10.0 stress, Fa, determined by the following formulas for F which take into account the effect of internal pressure due to the liquid contents: WHEN 1 5 < 1-57 GNDZ 8.0 D ( ,+wL/ When value of 2 is greater than or equal to 10`': 6+w1 t.490 t wt+w, _ !0.637M lt/2 . D?(w�+w�l J 106 f 6.0 t'� F. — D 3J 3J I When the value of GND is less than 10": t 4:Q { I Fa = 106 t + 600 GN 2.5 D M Whin twr+w�l<o.7as Except that in no case shall the value of F, exceed 0.5 I = w + 1273M FrY• D2 Where: 0 1 1 r =thickness excluding corrosion allowance,of the 0.8 1.0 1!2 1.4 1.6 bottom shell course, in inches. M F. =maximum allowable longitudinal compressive D2 (wt + wL) stress in the shell, in pounds per square inch. Fey =minimum specified yield strength of the bottom shell course, in pounds per square inch. Figure—E-5 E.5.4 UPPER SHELL COURSES 2. Increase shell thickness, r, or If the thickness of the lower shell course calculated to 3. Change the proportions of the tank to increase the diameter and reduce the height, or resist the seismic overturning moment is greater than 4. Anchor the tank per E.6. the thickness required for hydrostatic pressure, both excluding corrosion allowance, then the calculated Where: thickness of each upper shell course for hydrostatic b = maximum longitudinal shell compressive force, pressure shall be increased in the same proportion. un- in pounds per foot of shell circumference. less a special analysis is made to determine the seismic wr = weight of tank shell and portion of fixed roof overturning moment and corresponding stresses at the supported by shell, in pounds per foot of shell bottom of each upper shell course. circumference. E.6 Anchorage of Tanks E.5.2 ANCHORED TANKS When anchorage is considered necessary, it shall be The maximum longitudinal compressive force at the designed to provide a minimum anchorage resistance in bottom of the shell may be determined as follows: pounds per foot of shell circumference of: 1.273 M b = w + 1.273M D2 D2 The stresses due to anchor forces in the tank shell at the E.5.3 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SHELL points tof attachment of the anchors shall be investi- COMPRESSION gated. The maximum longitudinal compressive stress in the ' For a design procedure see Part VII,Anchor Bolt Chairs,of"Stcel Plate Engineering Data—Volume 2, Useful Information on the De- shell b shall not exceed the maximum allowable sign of Plate Structures", published by the Committee of Steel Plate 12.t Producers, American Iron and Steel Institute. Rev t o U WELDED STEEL TANKS FOR OIL STOFUGE E-7 v, O E.7 Piping sired to minimize or avoid overflow and damage to the Suitable flexibility shall be provided in the vertical roof and upper shell due to sloshing bf the liquid con- direction for all in attached to the shell or bottom tents. piping , of the tank. On unanchored tanks subject to bottom E.8.2 The base of the roof supporting columns shall uplift, piping connected to the bottom shall be free to be restrained to prevent lateral movement during carth- lift with the bottom or shall be located so that the hori- quakes. When specified by the purchaser, the columns zontal distance measured from the shell to the edge of shall be designed to resist the forces caused by the slosh- the connecting reinforcement shall be the width of the ing of the liquid contents. bottom hold down as calculated in E.4.2 plus 12 inches. E.8 Additional Consideration E.8.3 The additional vertical forces at the shell due to the seismic overturning moment shall be considered in E.8.1 The purchaser shall specify any freeboard de- the design of the tank foundation. i ATTACHMENT 3 The following District Maps (DM's) show the location of the 52 separate parcels within the City of Huntington Beach currently zoned -01, combined with oil. DISTRICT NUMBER OF PARCELS MAP ZONED -01 DM 2 7 DM 3 20 DM 4 2 DM 10 2 _ DM 12 1 DM 13 4 DM 16 1 DM 22 3 DM 24 1 DM 31 1 DM 38 4 DM 39 6 TOTAL 52 PLANNING ZONING DM 2 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2-6- II SCAIL IN f(E! ADOPTED MARCH T.1960 NOTE: - - L pYENSKINS ARE IN FEET CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 734 ANY ZONE ADO EX ANT RWMr of rAT AMEN DE ZOECASE ORo.NO AMENDS 20NECASE ORO.NO. O SUCH RI r0 LKTAxO TO Tnf CENTER OF SUCH RIGHT Of WAY 6-20-W ID 713 1-17-72 12-161U IT62 T-I8-6o I23 181 9.5-Tz 72-23 Dn LEGEND: - It-1-60 1>B 198 M-11-15 13-22 1889 FA-1- LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT i-ZO-61 IN 81! ID-b-]> 1>-20 IB76 6.5-61 U1,11 TJYNTJE9A11 8.1-)5 T5-SA 111 R2 YEDAM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 6-19-61 113 617 9-2"S ]5.38 l000 9-IB-81 '.206 868 8.4-]'J 15-311 P002 Q COYYUNITT 111.1TIESIE000ATIONALIDISTRICT -6-A, 212 — 8-1-15 T5-)E IUO> IS-1-62 2>7 9D3 ;.... FFATS-2 2001 �� OfFCE-PROFESSKINAL DISTRICT 5-21-62 211 90> -9)6 16-01 2051 N ZONE CASE GROW ID4-62 218 90T 6-1-16 76-01 2— RA RESIDENTIAL AGRIaATURAL DISTINCT AMENDS 10-16-62 '69 932 fi-]-]6 ]6-12 2063 ORANGE COUNTY, C A L I F O R N I A 07. L—I PPAT9 2391 2-'-6: 262 '>. `-'-6 "-" 2070 Y1 NOEIGNT INDUSTRIAL ST alTRICT ]-16-81 RO-16 2411 I•T-6! 26B 911 B-T-T6 )6.16 2083 Q YDBLE MOPE DISTRICT I-IfiA2 Fl B 25.1 62d 63 35. 9624.4 2 1 Y-i6 MN15-6 2— [.C2 CONNIUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 1-3-83 82-12 2195 6-21.63 '53 9]B B-16V6 16-Y 2101 HIGHWAY GOYYEflG1AL 1,83 82n6 111- 1-6-6• 3. p2B 9.21-18 16-22 2126 1-)-0 .19 259] 1°-5-6e AT$ q90 1-3-11 16-21 2,,, Rl MEDNY-NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT --85 81IS 2Y19 -3-65 SOS 1132 12-646 7" 2,36 © NEN91Bp1M00D GOYYERCIAL 1-21-86 86-Ii 285e 2-Y1-68 515 INK 'Nit CLDNIWNSPEOA2IT1 11-3-11 86-9 1111 EF3-66 66.40 1258 8-B-11 TT-I 2180 ® 1110N DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A-S-tli 8]-I 2906 2-I1-68 68-18 M10 640ii 1]-6 2202 COMMUNITY FACILITIESICIVICI DISTRICT 2-11-69 68-52 NH 1- 6 FIAT. 2I29 SETBACK LINE 10-6.69 61),23 527 S} S2 �)CO%WI-O W11.OR PRODUCTION 10-19-RI r0-2 I606 R-19-Tt 11-b 2250 J 3-IS-]1 ]0-28 1639 1-19-TI 1°-2 2271 Y-20a1 11-18 1691 9-19-]) 1]-I! 2221 C� GORLF°:D CLASSF. ®'E�FEAR OF STREET ALI ]I-!2 1681 9-011 11-H 22n 1-I1-12 tt-I61f1 1180 a-20.70 )b-I> V. -CD CIVIC DISTRICT ---OLDTONNSFECFICFLAN >I 1 J IGARFIELD AVE.I L a5 36 b o RA-0 CI R2 N RI s _a 5� 29995 5,30 1-• f ,fY1 M I-A ' R2 t '" N LINE eLK 3003 6wo1 A U aa RA-0 RA o;Y R2 RI MI-A-O R 2 50 - :_ram R2 C O 2 R2 .-.. 41 R 2 M I R I OlR2-OI R ,`, x L o R I o:3 2 l ^ PLAN9)ISTRICT I.) 1aoa 1: 2801 CLAY r-!3b' AVE. I»' C2-0- x 1. ,ail'-`---•------' - ---.. i ;siesF9E(El--°)'•" e" Y R' ,�{ a R3 3 cz: (REERVOIRI RI aYi'dTa•'• o;,: R4 � R2 -O-PD ,o . "C4 X; R2-0 f2D R2 R2 `b N LINE TR 39" /7{; '1 N �Q •'c J - WF I_— AVE. rE .i ,, i RI T90 & RI 13 C2-0- 14 A>o —O r%l ,�, �� a o,i`•1 i (:{ Y..f',. LILYEl ANO JANA CR �- ra t .:nawi - R2 PD i:g Y•, ',;7� R2 0 ~ 1!•39 fAE Kp.Ne 1R l950I NILl1AM5 AVE 254-- ELI ^2 R2 R2 R2 s C2-0-CD R OP-O-CD fez-o-Po- R2-D-CD R 2 L Y I «,; - - N Q 3 ^ _ s C4_j YORN —TV'1'E I _ ::i l-_I — A —S. a• ' N-OPCD �: ,d C2 R2-O-CD C4 R2-0 T120 a' E C F-C —E—CD (CIVIC CENTER) y� R2-0-CD 290 (F1.1NT1Nr.Tcaa ..„ .NroH H;r>N sr,HL<u s IcmrA----�nvE R Q R 2 C 2 -CD-0 a F P. W�CF-E-CD � o F, o o ^ � I R2-0 R2 R2 >AY ER CF—E '� O'G � -CD-O VENICE ,.I no. -CO-O U aao �R4!' 2�LUTICA VE. D0388 W. 1•« CD-O R2-0 R2-O M a _ aa�aa o CD-0 CF-R RI RI RI RI RI R2 CD-0 ONONTO I O O r Y ( N N 0 G 0 O S. N IL¢ RFO,-� N ~ CD-O 7 I AN SANTE SIRR2 C[�3y E SPRINGFIELD O—I x O O urAMAR DR I o O F0 2 A ¢ � � IN -O -0 -0 -01 -01 D: ¢ N N >01 = N z RI RI RI RI RI R2 -O ROCHFSTER s p Rsfl R3 ¢ a RI-0 m�a �aH � R3-0 R3-0 o m 'R2 ' :� 9( r 12 R1 ADAMS = AVE PLANNING ZONING DM 3 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 3-6-II ADOPTED MARC" 7,1960 NOTE WNf MSNIwS AM IN ffit CITY OF ••towf DTOININD ANY FIGHT Of CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 i INTENDED To —11. TO THE cEN![R 001111 OF SV Cx cxr OF.11 AMENDED � ORD. AMENDED 2LA* ORD.NO.8L3]EN $'TRIAL DISTRICT CR'Tl� NEDaL DENSITY RESOENTUIL DISTINCT 5-7-62 234 099 2-5-79 78-4 2343 IR NEOIUN-wcx DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 6-2-62 266-19 938 1-7 3-8N04626 R LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A IADII DENSTY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 2-21-66 545 1186 1-18-82 61-14 2536 OFFICE-PROFEas,oNAL 6-20-66 88.19 1216 9-6-63 63-8 2640 1 N[ianeoRNOOo cONNERtuI 12-5-66 66-49 1271 7-2-84 84-7 2706 ® IIECREAn—LOPE.SPACE DISTRICT 6-17.66 86-13 1419 1-17-63 FLowzo E 26or - DESIGNATES PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIfiNNENT 2-17-66 66-31 M72 p-5-87 87-I 2906 F I€] SIURELINE O STRICT ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 6.24-70 69-34 1582 ® CON.uED Wnrn DA PRODUCTION!IN AREA ROUNDED SY PAL N AVER ON NE,ROLOENWE ST 10-19-70 70-p 1606 Sl.ON NW OCEAN AVER ON IS. •SEVENTN ST ON SE. 5-3-71 71-1 1643 CC —St.CONSERWTION DISTRIDT 1-5-72 71-37 1706 COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX 5-15-72 72-13 1746 U n-aXIDNTIAL ADUCULrwAL DISTRICT 02 CONRWED MY H OIL MONKTION 7-7-72 72-161W 1761 -CD Ci-OIST—T I-15-73 72-35 1613 -D- CONRNWG- 7-2-73 72-39 1855 _ CONRu4D WIT"OIL MaoucrwN to- IS-73 73-31 1943 ® W.T—lL`W FLO DnTRKT 9-16-T4 73-31 1943 %/. WIrNN FLOOD zDNE-FP2 GARFIELD 2_19- PKA79-52024 VENUE rL R4-0-CZ h M2-0-cz, 'ER x R 4-0 4 ^� CI 0 RAC fl W P� M2-01 4 N o'Oti '�• 00�,, 2f ODO6W �s - / 1. Y 9 a •is o� -CD `ti ROS-0 W-01 ,T•Sv'NG•tI'SS•C,- x•av �t;a-01?PA... Po .f ,;�•�,• xsu _, Txsi•, RI� Aa x'S ,czn c Sea• - xa>x• RI-CD RI 31T tiry Ae • L Ih RI = ��O.Cl, RN A T.Ai. '.l't�FT•� < h,L RI `•WSTi M1�•R3O.0.1 . + Ay J' A S RI _ ,"4 R S-0 - R3-0 R4- I' _ RI RI _ Rro1 RI- f ND tR CR. RI I Rig VP"-' 3 „" re.:•D •sv.rE RI "Ry•°•g' 90P 01 CD ?. oy q�`'O �•�. OG. - � ' t 010 A 0 RO 0 RI W 0;I °' rw ` R4-012 _ t Rt RI y: OTE A• 4- N I ar>d•W__weT #�• 4•P —0 U ' I u Wy7 IIf TI �.j"A '�T'L ye'� •C - ? I # `4 a RI R2 Po o cz R401 S RI 5 0 T i 6 .A �o:.xA•n Harr M1I 7J\ +I� 1 IIS.EYE9-.... •-_- -<R. Y•i 'S''n r'51 Ii u7.''i R2- D•0-CZ _ ROS- R2'pO� -PD-O-CZ RI °�f p RI-0 ''�� PALN Ra-a cz 1 . ..a• � � R j "<`; .�"°;G °� ROS-0 Z` ,::' ; N a.: R, DIE. = P ;e. %RI-cz RS_ gyp;.%nE fr , A • '° De, o° 01� R1-c RI Qom;% RI-O -. / •^°f' / J _ p `iQ� `C''•ta'ol/f�M1�,`,.y�y-.�4b.�.T /•2VC.��eV 4 Y a`17 RRI_TO�-C7 RTTID_GE 2l•CZ �o.LQ .•R?IC•�-t'-PaT•'�O-C2.¢'t�`9R.k�j i�5',/ /.'' / '1•'6Ra•te I/-0R O r-P0�R ` \_...,.... 4VE Q?/` M1�� �I.• I D4 v, , RI O ° RI 0; q,N M2-0I—CZ .r j•,,; G •A ' lcl f0. 9 IO 0,Fgry TOwanT SPECIFIC KAN AREA ONE ISECTTOII.•) � if �\ I PLANNING ZONING DM 4 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 4-6-II & 5-6-II NOTE AL DIMENSIONS ARE IN I'll CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH 7,1960 •:�toxE aoI0' ANT Rlut or ra aS ENDED TO [i 1Y- 10 1.CEMIER such RNMr or CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 LEGEND; Zol ORD. ZONE ORD. ®INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AMENDED CASE NO. AMENDED CASE NO. FIC MEDIUM OENSITT RESIDENTIAL osT-T LRO ,EDUM-NON DE,dTr RESIDENTIAL OSTNCT HIG IAL HUNTINGTON BEACH 10-19-7 270-10 160 � RE DEN IAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT STWT 2-22-66 545 1186 � NEIONDORN000 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10-19-70 70.10 I6U6 RA RESIDENTIAL AORxaA.TUNAI DISTRICT 7-2-73 72.59 1855 [iI� RECREATIC/IAL—SPACE DISTRICT 5-4-81 80-6 2482 Q SNORELINE DISTRICT I_18-82 81-14 2536 Ct COASTAL ;ONE JUFFIx ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2-22-83 82-20 2649 9-19-83 PPB3-I 2643 COASTAL CONSERWTION pSTRICT 7 7-2-84 84-7 2706 PD PLANNEO DEVELOPMENT I-17-83 FLA00 ZONE 26M UCOMUNwD OIL PRODUCTWN DISTRICT Lp'j*CO,BIMINO OIL PRODUCTION EISTRICT , ] CMEININ4 OIL PROD'JCTWN UIS-CT fFP71 FLOOOF A DISTRILI '/�MITIW FLOOD ZONE JJ )• D s� ��•O ,.0 A 9c J" .Cl •O 1„'gtN As�-Cz E O NN•]a"tCN aS § P4 '$. :_. •: ' •�,p✓�• 2G26' U'T� ..JR4-29-0-CZ NZaw µY Jot r•y jr I x :'�. 0q (� xIw SdWf ♦ pJiT••�DfP I. f;149KRRQPS GR Vim\ - ••b V 'PSti ,`y•.•pxY4v0°{P ,•.' R3-17-0-CZ :: , R2�P �b-C2 ,•`' a,- ry' 9r 4 o.• •,yip• R2-PD-0-C 'c \ /OCJl� Ox�1� of. 'O3 M1 Y i A 00 • F9 ti .0 PLANNING ZONING DM 10 9-6-II & SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 10-6-11 LEGEND: II NITMM FLOOD ZONE-FP) -iP FlOOpLAN DISTRICT CITY OF ®SHOW LINE DISTRICT ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 (M COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX L37 ouALIfIEo unsslFlurlox CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 ff--000 YLMITY fACILITIESIEDIICATIONALIDISTNKT ]COMMUNITY FAC:LITNSIRECREATIONALIDISTRICT AMENDED ZQKCASE GAD NO AYENOED F4r+S. F f�Pq:Ns, ® LOW DENSITY RESIOENr-DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH M pUY DEMOT RE9IDENL4 DIBTAICT 5-162 2)4 BB9 2-1-12 11-NIHI I]H ®MEDXN--DE-11 pFSNIFxTIAL-T-1 12)-62 2BI,2B2 9)B 2-]-]2 ]1)IIJI IT16 HIGH pENSITY pE51DENlIAL p9TRICT -21-67 17 Bb 6-5-7Z )I-),IAMBI 1749 �� -IB-b) 67-16 1)4tl T-I1-T2 1)-K1 176) EjM GENERAL BUS ME" DISTRICT o-I9-w 68-)1 112 2-LD-T) 1-41 1619 INDUST VIAL DISTRICT I-7D 70-W 1606 b-)-1S 1CnYfaO! ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5.)71 rl-I 1" 2--6 I—; 2- [,] MEIGHBOpNDOO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT t i-�iz il-jiBS,) ii o z=1e?6 r eN`OI zu [ cuwwuxrtY BuslCOM RCIALDISTRICT rt 7i-alUI vu z-z°-7=. ie-z7 z55o i T-7z 1�)IEI 171z -7-w P SA795 pES No4&. SUFFIX LIEGE Do 7 It 71-)IF 111J -8-62 - 15x L�J COMBINED WITH OIL FRODUCTION P 2-1-72 71 SIIGI 1114 q�1]-b) B]-t-A 2616 A B)-£-e 26a6+ COMINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION IN ARE). ♦ BZ IO-Ii-B) 85-2-C 2646-C BOUNDED BY PALM AVE.ON NE,GOLDENNEST • \ CO 'LT/ 2-21-BC BO-1) 26tl2 e-2-B4 Ba-] 2>06 SOUNDED ON NW,OCEAN AVE.OR SW,IS SEVENTH$T.ON •,y °P gp/ -M-A B6-W 1856 ®DESIGNATES PRECISE PLAN OFSTREETALIGNNENT T 9S I-IT-8) FLOOD ZONE2606 4 ) Ca1M HI COBED WRH UE DUICTIfIN Dog O V b.P V~\T Cl COMBINED WITH OIL FNooucroN� L `N, fS --•—COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY .��/ � AFL 9 r c_ f • 1 D°,M2-0-CZ Pti - hEwRI-0 RI-0 R4-0-CZ - s M2-01-CZ °` •° % Q` g` I �N�` � cio� lA, fia '✓ �� �V �+Fy N ;e CF-E TOWN.T SPECIFIC PLAN A'. ISECTX)M•A•1AREA CIRE �CTC, yT4 S t � A 1 ° A , TOWNLO P PLAN svECA.aFK PLAN AREA ONE Y O F~ fry`f ISEDrIuI•A-1 O\ r J� F4 ti 0 "o —ALE IN FEEI NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET ANY ZONE AD—NING ANY RIGHT OF WAY IS INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER OF SUCH RIGHT Of WAY PLANNING- ZONING DM 12 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP II-6-II LEGEND �/• wTHW FLDDO NNE-FP2 _ ADOPTED MARCH 7.1960 MI F�—� TYWCm CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0.754 C9]oUALNED u6xwR:Argx CITY OF , ZONE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDED Ag OR N AMENDED CA�^{ON ILL AMENDED c=A,ORD.N0, --'�oRST11L ZONE BOUNDARY !2:.60 IN i56 8�5-1A TI-T '930 B-M-B6 Bfi�q 2n56 --0.DTOWN SPECIfIC PLAN 6.19-CI 111 .1 6�11 n-T — B-M-66 H-II 2B56 ]SHI MOBEEIIOME DISTRICT 11-6-61 201 tl]6 tl-5 M )5-1C MI B-1&B6 H12 2856 �� PLANNED UE VELOPMENi DISTRICT 5-7-6Z 257 900 9-Y.-]••TGWNLGLA)I! B-IB-B6 wo 2856 10 -E2 266 929 1-ISM YOR—T2D2A 8-IB-B6 B6-N 2856 �A.1] LOW OENSITY RESIDENTI4 DISTRICT 11-1-61 2.2 9. ]-6�16 T6-3 20n0 B M-B6 tl6-15 2856 M27 MEDRAM DENSITY flE.DE ITIAL-TRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 5-GS Y2 .1 I_,- 71 2111 .IB d6%16 2836 B IS- 3A1 996 I-S-TT )62!11S2 02T n6 PPSM1612b11 (R]] RIEDRARI-MW DENSTY RESIDENT—DISTRICT 1-65 OBe I aWn OLDT0V , II-IT-66 B6-M 2BW tP� HIGH DENSITY ME9MENTIAL DISTRICT I-11-6fi 316 IIW 2-6-]d ]]-2O'1269 ® GENERAL WMHE39 DISTRICT 2-21-66 3A5 IM6 -)46 17-23 2243 -5-66 66-1] 1221 12-On ))-2A 2294 t*Ll LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 10-3-666fi-AI 1238 2:Z. ])-312268 LFA COMMUNITT FACILITIES(RECREATKMAUDISTRICT 1-8.6T 66-68 I)03 11-i-71 TT-IB 223tl ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA A-1i-61 61-5 Il16 2- 7 76 18 2— [F,E COMMUNITY PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT NAL)D9TP.I.T 9-IB 61 6]-S I)3B 2-5-]9 TR 11 2396 CFQ Off ICE COMMUNITY FA 4gNAl DISTRICT '1 9-6-69 6B-Y9 1 65 e7-W 79-8"WAYS 323A09 [£1] NEIM19ORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 7-11-69 69-14 1311 Eti-BB-PPT41411 LLB COMMIMITT BUSINES]DISTRICT 8-4-69 09-1) 15.1 h•dFRUflliC: 646C 12 LL 11 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 9Q0.10 69.35 -2 1.6-tl195 Y6-05 F,PPA!-2 WN".991-21-W q ® DESIGxArES PRECISE PIAx Of STREETALWNYENT A-q MO6 IG�l]-B36ApPT 2360 )1B! GDMRMED WITH OIL PRODUCTION -3-)IIHS tliT-d36C l'�1-6-]I ]I-q 1655 1-2-H6 --- SETBACK LINE 11-1-71 i1-29 682 -S BJ 11 1� Q-9-)2 1Z-!1 179A II-3-n4 PPH-2 2736 LM COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 2.2013 12.43 IN11 9-3-85 B5-6 Z)W IN AREA BOUNDED BY PALM 21 I123 1-D-B3FLWDZOEZ609 11!IY `I ADAMS AVE. AVEMwN ocCANEVVE EONT SWT LI L_J�1 LJL_1 L_J L I �� ��I l I IB SEVENTH ST ON SE.Ip/L e` v> c�?r _—•h\b•, 1-0 RI-0 RI �Rl R-I F R-I r R-I R2 -I f010LDT0' wc2---- 4r �F— ,r •4. Rio, RI RI RI RI R2 N !C41 sPECIFlC„LAN _ ---- yA y! COMA AVE PORTLAND AVE z _ _GR-- _D (+M!1';i:i•:.Iii:Ji 3,+�±`)., .•5i2A RI -Q � PORTl 4N0 CR (DISTs RoIcT .]-0 EI . RI $ EH RI RI a RI R2 OTHIRTEENTH sT- OSwECO AVE. AVE. I I -PD-IOCF-E R I R I -o� oM 0 0 -o R -p oa ao ::�PDID �. :: 1 L:,vY..H .._.....:.1 RI RI Ye R I (r- I` j r y �-•. ":''''��'r' C NASHVILLE AVE. RF D� ST L IC sr R I R I Z F N I R2-PD-IO- h rI EL -d,; PLAN{DI RIOT TWO) R 1 R I R I C F-R 125 1 R2-PD-10 ED MEE F" F 30TH 00NE UAIJ RIsT 6 RI ¢ L'N, LNR3 C4 ,,� RI RI j I HE 19R 7EN 1a 1 T Ed' 1, cy I R I mR2 5T So ti (ONt2 R 1 30 _ •� RI HNO%NIECE I AVE �e RI ¢ T [ 0 S Cl IC n TDWNLOr SPECIFIC .p (0)R2 y` L N I IaF R3 R3'^ R3 Cal PLAT. RI A ONE (` J JLL�JIII��JJL LJJ (SECTION'B•) T I AVE. Ar R 3 R D HII�� u a to�R3�R3 o R3 C• �..I �11�I13 135 p � INL'4NAP0..... h wR 3 R3IIII'I��II'f IIII( IALUL � EF1 -1 LJ� P P6 s HAH-f ORD AVE. a O GE NE VA ,,,' •J 14 AVE. �� �� �I•��� M V FRANKFORT �- OLD T N ��.� ����� -E,E•� F_ I SPEI QIS RI L E I L ELMIRA AVE. I SDI - 'Ar PECAN M H-FP2 DE TRO- IT AVE /s p ti gc .kc - q� hA Rp6 v I=Fl cf9cAco • b CHICAGO—�p�.AVE�'x� R2-PD- Q 'bl2 ti IFIC < � a o 117 ry C2-FP2 w Sj• � U a� z •} ?r1;lEQ n m O L 4` DI D d S ,gl (sLi_-rFr f` �tr: 9C Oki, 2 P RALTIMORE AVE 1N�•1 LL' , -FP2 o _IC T $i, _ -BEaEnc-oejily_ ___I�•_ .. ,9/�i O� •9j / P v cV , C � r r�3 41• � p —__ �' Q' ��.R2-PO-C2-FP2 ! i R2-PD-CZ-FP2 �;,'°<y 'sr��OF *'s < �� Bpi✓ - --- roll) IJ 0-1 'cA3 '9/Cr*/ yOoh�4O?�,`+ ATLANTA � D J/l000 AV /- / 1 / / IN fEEr V li NOTE: ALL EN ARE IN FEET ZONE ADJOINING �\\\ ANY ZONE ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF WAY IS INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER �O/s• OF SUCH RIGHT OF WAY PLANNING ZONING Dm 13 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 12-6 -11 3L.LE NOT E ADOPTED AUGUST IS,1960 L ORENSONS ANE IN FEET CITY OF CITY COUNCIL-ORDNANCE N0.783 Ax N r ZONE Y 2ONE ADJgNING •Y RIGHT Of RA AMENDED � ORD NO. AMENDED CASE ORD.NO. IS Klrt nofD TO EXTEND to THE CENTER 2-6-61 145 801 8-7-72 PP7" 1767 OF SUCH R...T Of NAY 5.15 61 16I 639 13-6-73 73-12 1862 LEGEND 9-61 213,215 877 7-7-75 75-4 1994 _ 5-7-62 257 900 6-6-77 77-6 2190 PLAxNED DEv�EELoP�rENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 9'IT-62 316 923 12-I3-7B 78-9 2405 I-21-63 Boo 948 3-16-79 79-1 2356 Q NEDHDORHOOD COMMERCIAL 6-i-63 316 969 12-3-79 79-9 2405 aQi 6e1OlE fANILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-3-64 394 1034 4-5-82 81-15 2546 8-19-64 461 1079 1-17-83 FLOOD tore 2604 GE CON IIMITT EDSINESS DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7-64 514 1145 9-I6-86 85-5 2854 F R COMMUNITY FACILITIES ISTRICT T ONLLI DISTRICT 6-4-63 514 1145 7-21-86 86-17 2854 0 NK4IwAr COMMERCIAL agiRK'T II-IS,65 531 1165 COMMUNITY FACILtTIig It-Al—DISTRICT ,F Nola:Dnmenslons are apprO,Nnale 1.3-66 540 1177 RESDENTAL AGRICLTUIIAL DISTRICT and Dased OnlMapproYedstlf 1.16.67 66.62 1290 FLOODPLAN DISTRICT pions. Amore rgecilic pion 6-19-87 66-66 1330 4. I wITHiN iLO0O ZONE-FPE ril l Oe$Ub Jlled with the 9-18.67 67.22 1349 final Iraq map. 10-19-7U 70-10 1606 (� DI_CO ING ggTRICT11 7.17.71 71-11 1658 : _. DENOTES PRIVATE STREETS 9-7-71 71- 1657 - SETBACK LINE J I ADAMS� Iz-zo-n 71-34 noz 7 t + — �° r :- SABR ''j'• I RI RI ~ RI �I �R g �ryLg z 7 e PEC IFIC E NORTNPORT DR CR Y R1 u o _ s! o�-PLAN:",• - RI RI RI, RI R RI RI RI e CR. � D•. RI i B O N CR HAM N yIS fn RR -OI RI RI RI ESSOI S BELLSHNE DR J CR R I RI R1 RI RI R RI I R I. KNIGHTS CA `F•,V m NONFOLN RI E DflKELSO R RI _a RI R SCRahm. GALLAT p R DR Lis 1 = EWBUIY R 11 Ma Eq e R 1 RI o RI RI s ' r R1 °DR 3 BURLCREST DP r, CF-R RI [ RI RI ._ RI -•`�•AS• F D RI Y JSEALROCKo DR RI Z CF-C K J HENTON DR. 'Ry LLLIII s g RI RI I RI R! I+aFrFTT:✓nxaLLx.l RI (fie; Z •SEAPORT OR J Y DR 1•If i-.i C9 h Q pEDE DR. C2 3, .6 RI RI Aa J RI l RI 1 NUNSTER DR J TRUM N ° RI 4G RI °R �R1 RI RI � CF R / I 7" z a a RI LOYRI I RI s i 4:rFETT P0.RK) �Dqh = RI OR RIRIo RI R i R I CHARFONO DR. BAINf DO R 2J' o RI T�— RI = RI RI RI RI RI 7 INDIANAPOLIS - AVE R1 RI IZ5RI RI CI D :TR1 R1 � R I „_ a RfTV/000 D sso s> anz- •R I .., I i }}gy� p[• ,�"'4[. RI REILLY DR h }I,y.. .•S' �A ,8 O.y i ` •, , ! c R1 R1 C F E TERN CR R I V R I - ! ., R I RI.',1 SAIL CR. ti9 RI l -a; ;(`. •-�.- '1 ;�kd:({,{ / RI RI RI R I R1 HERON CR j 1� �l'• i :' - --i/ MERMAID C RI t••'.T.� ',/' i,. -OP. /• �`Z pa y'" r'[ LRI ` KINGFISHER r 1t RI S �..,Y w 11 R1 N C J....E. n., uuu RI ...(I'1�r� tag -,•..,,, • ; NARY CR VARA q. R I - i'I"U �� •„ p`� �F}' E`.mob' r RI RI RI EAR ,.c-..f•_N fRI u R I D RI RI RI ItLERTOR w i' :..::. > T R2-PD o ..r-EVELYN CR CA-':.LIAN O'• ,'.-��-` :Tf''ri„ '�5 R 2 a t - r:os , W RI N. RI RI ^� saf m/ NOW BIRD OR _al 3]rl R I i''` -'--------- I '1 RI RI � R! wC4s�1• t •'"RI RI 'd11....RI s s C4 ATLANTA � 13 la AVE ,PLANNING ZONING DM 16 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 14-6-II NOTE: CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH],1960 OIL DIME NSIONS ARE IN FEET CITY CWNCIL ORDINANCE NO.754 ANY TONE UJOINING RIGHT OF WAY INTOAD EO TO E}TFNU TO THE CENTER OF SUCH 'GMT Of MAY. AMENDED 2_5 QRO NO, PMENDED ZONE CASE ORO NO LEGEND 62 232 9W 12 3-GG 2dl S. //, THIN FLOOD ZONE-FP2 40-65 5N IIIB J.fI MEDIUM-nGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.STRICT HUNTINGTON B EACH II 6]_I WOOEA Y MFALILIT,ESIRE REATroNAL1 DISTRICT ]-6-IO PP]092 ISbA [I I COASTAL ZONE SUF 11% -]O PP/0-3 I OI rFP27 fLUO.T-MN.STRICT 2-Ibit 521 TMPPRI-A KiI 2360 ICI I HEIGHN°"WOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -]-]6 ]d l I- ISSf HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 12-19-]2 ]]-3'0' 2253 -4 NO T9-B 2a09 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA o PdA 26 6A COMBINED WI°"P"°D°`TI°" COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 10 1]-83 B3-2C 26 6C 01 COMBINED WITH OIL PRODL'^.TION II-2221-63 .9$p-I2 2663 �� I-11-8j iL000I0NE 211 1 DESIGNATES PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 10 21tl6 PPSAe6-1 2dil DII] ME.—LENSITY WSIDE—_:STR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT / p.�f• ,,l Y MNATE STREET MOBILE HOME DISTRICT ATLANTA j II 12 T O —LIFIED CLASSIFICATION STREETS ! -a - + ,`r7''sA pry R S9:o Cy dlyt,F, yN�tiP� y�F -- Dl ;�:IOR2-w;z-FF�� Tu,R2-PD-CZ-FP2 IRI/` IV, Val- Q3 :I- -L 12 l-A---- -- ---• ry NO 3CA 3�p' i ]� „a:ilO1N2FY2 CZ / � ._ -- Ingo__ R2-PD-CZ-FP2 isl I 1` J!:ro1R2-P Ic2 DOW, TOWN S-EFFIC PC "a s a"IMNiPIMWFR2-PD-CZ-FP2 m GIST ICT#SoJ qn'.( � _ a F.- \� ;Nei.€ rP.n+a ,\ Y D ��R2'Po-CL-FP2 tip ,O �' ..WINMAjT-__-�••,• '-.Cq •� / *N •°01 c �' R2-PD-CZ=FP2 \J 1W R2-PD-CZ.'fP2'. /4�.��i ••]?•.,�, Op�� O/sTj�SpFCi O�s,T�Tp�^J ACT �/�,/•- os"TyJr•;q `.,�� R2-PD-CZ-FP2 `.,,, R2-PD-CZ,FPz cT Sod T Op z">°a MWCZ-FP2 ': T FOiS R2-PD-CZ FP2 0 a 3 At �1 •�41' \ -O DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN-OH,- -ZaD— \ Opp' DIST T#8b-FP2 x` l ,\ *+so O O�rTQZccic\ ' p/s>R -0 �A2 4ry ,\ r S V pCFQry m t PLANNING ZONING D M 22 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 19-6-10 NDTE' pINFnB10N5 A.f FE p, v]ONE AD�OIrunG s IWt OF W CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH 7,1960 uF Iiui A.G,ro E.tEnol ro rNE - ADOPTED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.754 LEGEND' W t (:RD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ZONE ZONE AS OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT AMENDED CASE ORD'NO AMENDED CASE ORD�NO. T AT I��,/T 6 20 60 1 FL ONE C =RESTRICTED MAnUfACTUN DISTRICT H V 1 ,TINGTON BEACH 13-5-6D 54 604 �] NIG WAY COMMERCIAL 01ST T -20-6t 55159 - 26 ��l 3-6J 1344 *O0 nn�RESIGFNTWL AWi1LULTURAL DISTRICT .1 416 1065 ® TWO fAMILV RESIDENCE DISTRICT IO-4-65 52] I V-6-65 529 116tl RJ WO FA MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT -1]-6] 66-6T 1317 ® LMII ED USE DISTRICT 10-19-]O tt7A 1643 FPI FLUUDPL AIN DISTRICT ORANGE (�,12 A N 1r, T I7 T\ F�1 YCALIFORNIA 5-3-]I ]]-I 1606 n `J "+ i` '-, COUNTY,+ •T +, 2 ZO i2J )2—Al.- 113N © CO STAL ZONE BOFFIN COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 2-19-]] 2251 — SETBACK LINE 4-I1-1B ]B-3 22]tl 0 CONGX..WIT.OIL -tl IU-2fi-BI2 54-7 2516 01 COMBINED NIT.OIL ]-2 -] 2]00 /// W11.1N FLOOD ZONE-iP1,F P2 FPJ 1316 B 17 UR �MANBLEHE \. RI _PLAYA DR VLI �—TCLrpE _U $ RI °� RI-OIRI-01 s' UN e RI R "-Y U U MOLOKAI I.oDR "it c'tl9S N Q' d r RI '"R I U R1 LA JOLLA CR. JTIKI CR. J RI I nJ I 1 °RI f P RI RI RI�Jv6 I ,TA I CR LAW CR, 8 a RI3 RI RI W s 0 C OR LEILANI OR. O1 Z `cD RTR DA NI a RI0.6, GATES.EAD OR RI �� �C4 �Q v U h/ O \ u R1 / G. 2 _ r 3 i 0 u 0 VO u C 0 A / /c O JI ° ° o � .D4\ C1 TY Of "f w" "J, Y °'Qf N 61 o h aozu Nr PLANNING ZONING DM 24 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-11 - _ ADOPTED APRIL 4,1960 NOTE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION IME ns1oN5 wRL In fC[T CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0.7CH wnY 2onE wo3D EIA wY o * [ wA AMENDED ZONE CASE gi0.N0. AMENOLD 20NE CASE gi0.N0 Il IwiCND[D 1 linE oFNTERY 6-20-60 106 TrT 12-20-TI T1-201H1 169T OF SUCH RIGHT Of w 9-G-60 113 r9O 12-203!1 T1-201U 1698 LEGEND: -]-61 IBS 9-T-T2 TI-25 1660 9-IB-6I :I95 12-4-T2 T2-]0 1191 FP2 flA00RAW pISTRKT -62 2[] beoV 10 1-Tl T]-15 18)I HUNTINGTON BEACH 6-i9 e2 Z26 B95 B_5-r4 ),19 N]I o LDN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 64-D? 41 9U) II IB-)4 P'a4-I 1.46 OP OFFICE-PROFESSIONLL DISTRICT -21-65 296 .8 2-24-)5 -8 1965 6] ]°I 956 4ZM PPATT TA 22T2 yOry MOSILEROUE DISTRICT '-]-B] — 970 IS 21-TB2lUS 5-AI-64 435 1056 4-21-BO W-1 2426 C2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 6-I-64 43S 1060 9-15-SO-5 -B6 BS0TD 24529 264 4T2 q90 .-58 82-1 251 8 _.— SETBA,, LINE 4-5-65 4T6 097 5.19 B-T 265 g D ENSITY RSOENTAL DISTRICTORANGE COUNTY' CALIFORNIAA 1.12 l 2 R! MEMlA4 64-65 512 I145 1-11-SmOOD ZONE I-66 2606 ©MIGNYMY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT B- 66->0 1— '1 BT T-I 2906 12-19.66 66-M 12r4 CR.4]MULTIPLE FAMB.Y RESIDENCE DISTRICT II-20-6T 61-25 I164 [qZ]MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT I I1-6B 6r3 4 16 OUAFIED LLASSIFICAT1011 -1 1ge]I 0 U e-5-68 9-S-6B 6& 14)B C[iZl COMMUNITY fAC1LIT IEDUCAi ION)DISTRICT 8.18-69 69-16 ISIT RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE A-11 TP2g11 I6 T 16 12-20-TI TI- WI, 1635 Q COLIBN PLAN IT OIL 22 ���T� 36 //// 12-20-TI TI-20(GI 1696 PR EC EDINGER � AV� ���� ����/�V WIT—LOOD ZONE llLGl1�LL-� J\ } C2 RI RI RI RI RI --- __.85,La TQ -_- !OS TO N7f � RI - RI RI RI - d HENRICKSEN J DR, T OR. O = R C2 RRI RI MANGRUM RI RI CF-E RI RI :�R I ' 1 E66IS 560l8-- �C4PDD LITTL R R. SNEAD OR. _zRI z o RI RI CLARK DR SISSON R I DR ""°° RI RI �RI L G C C_ CF-E R1 160 TO R I J MEADOWLARK DR RI (M."A"Yo.,:'Ii:IY ti\!�l:•i::.) Rx DR PDUWLP z z z z In ME RI 11R1 7 PAR CR MH VENTURI DR RI RI RI RI RI RI RI CIR1 I RI i RI RI a W s RI U O loci,"N Iw= N W Z DR. Yr616f a t G _ RI RI C2 w CALIE NI DR W MIDDLEI w DR.LL �I-F [ON MH RI RI R1 RI ]0'RoP c2 4, r R I R I R I R I I-FP2 AD HEIL 4 — !1!) sax! R2 R2 RI RI-FP2 TI.I u R ; FP2 o L CR bb f N I CR 'C2 R2 R2 MH RI G RI R3 :RI RIBFP2 OK � RI-FP2 O 4z THE CR �� RI-FP2 a RI RI ROS C g STALLION Y Cfl. R C F- R N R I-FP2 RI a RI u RI RI .41111 DONLYN DR O � a RI Me qq •a. R I-FP2 RI RI FRANMAR CR RI \( ° s R I-FP2 '� EDMONDS CR. (Q)MH g �RI ROS-OI RA R 2 R 1-FP2 TMf R1 -lA C W GILDRED CR. (Q)R2 s R I R I-FP a RI U ]9600 4H 4I —_. i 6W 59 _ •oac4w,a.-:--- ------ al-" RI-FP2 G I w= ARBM}, ROS-FP2 $� TROPHY DR. G J RuNngjA"DR'- Z a J R� R4 �, a N RI-FP2 ` z o m Rio x C4 x w R nay= a e Y VIEW CR, C4'FP2 u� oP m--- a-FP2 e — - -- —� WARNER xo z1 AVE xe xe � _x1 zx 2e xT PLANNING ZONING DM 31 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 26 - 5 - 11 - 000 lCwCE IN I[CT NOTE N]IONS w FEET CITY OF ADOPTED APRIL 11,1980 VFINTONE wOGo F° ME cENTCR LADED TD N><T" i0 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 759 w'N AIDNT u LEGEND: ZONE 9RDI. ZONE NY • RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL W.TNICT AMENDED SE I. AMENDED ME N� fA� HUNTINGTON BEACH a M ,w o ° DENSTY RESOENM DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES(EDUCATION)DISTRICT IWITx * ®� OFFICE PROFES5M�Nl�L DISTRICT !->Z P C-_I LIGMT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT �1 ' Z�ce �9a � MOWLENOME PARK OVERLAY !-i-52 x!T 90 2-l-TS P>ix I F� LAIR 9 L^J LOW DENSITY RESCENTWL DISTRICT m W M R) MEDIUM-MW OEMSITY RESIENTLL DISTRICTORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2 ; FCt 9GNWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRT 9 t] !ea KqI CF-R COMMUNITY FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT If 2!!! 10-eq M9 10 '3-=?m ITa1 -CD CIVIC DISTRICT )DOD[DK CF--Cl COMMUNITY FACILITWS(CIVW)DISTRICT t:io In i132 io]-eT B T9at MS I MULTISTORY FP2 FIDOplAWI gSTRIR -.AtN ilvi ��/ WT R FLOOD ZONE-FP2 21 20 N-6T LAST i s-ai P eo'1384 I1J1IId- PLAN OF STIEET LLIRIENI W-TI- <�I ULTII4CTE RIGHT OF WAT i_pD eixx U _..—.— $ET9xC1(LINE 27 21 WAR ER D t 6; 9: ,lD AVEI E71 z6 z) R2 OP ` T- I MI tt FIR DR. J R2 ,o. CAIN AVE , C4-MS r, IIL - f '"ORE _-�_ iO �^ CF-E N N w- � ('2ii5�1?:R30JN0 HIGH SCFIDDL) MI W MI ; u � R • J Qo I CF-R — 0 -"` - < A >.2 R2 - CEDAR AVE. jl 190 MI I R 2' I R 2 I R2 D ° I LINE TO RI R� CF-E ]]D TO BETTY DR _ M I-M £ M I M I (OAK V;EY,�..r•:,.DL) R3 NRYiT)N CN, NANORELL OR R i DDt TO, R3 R3 5 C4: RI RI J RI RI zRI9 C BARTON OR R3 � e CITY YARVA - R3 FORD J DR. 3 N J M I RI aGT.9T TO CF ° R3 u N) M M CM M EET M D RI- CD RI-CD N R3 _ ¢ PRI DR. � :0 I-CD RI-CD R3 o W 3 R3 R3 R3 o R3 R3 LLj gJ AVE --` ♦1 K J M jCD o MI 4 2.2 4-CD e M H TD I � 0M I � . C3 LI O O J40 O C SPEER - Y NEYNOL CA. 6M a E R2 c Q40 MI < TY - C F-R - M I R3 ]96� (KINTINGTDN CENTRAL PARK) $ - R2 C4 V GA R3 3 NEWMAN :::a )0000MI-cp MIR2W � ' 3 AS �2oYl•E Q _ _ RONALD DR. MI C-3-R 3 MI R2 D� �J R2 C4I m xDNE - D MI Mi R'= R SDc ,IE OP � OPD MM I !)D E V/ 1+ I T TAL8ERT AVE PLANNING ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-II D NOTE: IN rcn ADOPTED AUGUST 15� 1960. _ ALL DIMENaglla ARE IN FEET CITY OF y ANY SUCH DJDNI F ANY RNM OF N Y IS INTENDED To EXTEND TD THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO�.pN�783 OF sunl Rwl1r or r4r AMENDED CA6f ORONO AMENDED LASEORO N0. LEGEND: M NESIOENTNIL AGUCITURA.DISTRICT 6-3-63 515 970 I-iP-82 81-3 2530 CONeE<D wnn OIL FNQO w HUNTINGTON BEACH 4-53-6 505 1132 1-I3-8282- 2531 �� COMBINED YSTR OY 15TRICT N 12-5-66 66-49 1271 -,a- IN. 81-14 2536 � LON DENSITY NESOENTML UISTRCT 2-3-69 66-46 1/67 5-3-82 82.2 2553 YI LNNIT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-26-70 70-8 1578 4-9-82 82-3 2551 ® NGNNAY CONLERCML DISTRICT 10-19-70 70-10 1606 12.5-8383-482666 in CON rdJUND WITMFACILITIESORODUCTION ATIONALI DISTRICT 7-17-71 71-9 1659 7-2-84 64-7 2706 Cr9It DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1p_16-71 71-261681 10-14-8581Y13W2800 [FG] PLANNEO DEVELOPMENT 1-17-72 71-17 1709 117 83FLOODZCW2606 ® MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 2-22-72 71-44 1722 CM LIMITED USE 10-15-73 73-20 1876 � OUN-FIED CLASSFICATIUN 4-7-74 74-22 1977 ®$ RE—ATKN OTFN APACE 9-15-75 74-5 2010 © COMNUNITY0uSV1ESSD15TRKT 7-6-76 74-22 2077 II-21_77 77-19 2229 COASTAL ZONEsuFFlz ZO SUFFIX 27 28 ssls4 i ® FLoaanAN.STRICT 34 as FtD00 zaE-Fn /' �WLVN ulE R. CENTRAL RTNI( RI-CZ RI-CD-CZ RI-CD-CZ 13200.6 RI-C2 NE_ ON ' JA NNOoO RI RI- D4 ,` RI-cZ RI-cz RI-CD-CZ o RI CZ D aD.aX .RI: RI RI RI s W 1a V~ 6 {{yy c a W R RI-CZ RI-CZ R o ; INLCTIX, IWE T CFjAR n JUOMI 2�• � � � U C//� U Q CJ� rc o d FIR 1.".tlNrr.c>T:r: /, .•i.I:.RxI RI-CZ /f NENwICR ; 40 e - CR, V �, Q Q RI-C , 8 74L R�-C L ITi�OE 2 O4° n �01 FED AS- - I C2 RA-0—CD Cl.> RI-CZ h (PREZONED) RA-0-CD RI—CD e�E /J�4 D.,r e� ,�•• -0cD s•o-cD o-cD (PREZONED) R I ;J OS-0•C R-0•CD ROS-O-CD s n•u os N C2-0 1A• t �°°' 'Jab r. (PREZONED) -0•CD OCD O-CD - —CD U-O-CD RA-0 CD N19.42 51 M ENo 959 Eo RA-0-CD LU-0•CD )-RF(3)•0.6,000-CD 6O _ RA-0 x LU-O-CD „d U-0 CD 3 -IV E ee9.9 6MI-(2.7)-0-8,0 0 RA-0 "" RA-01-CD RA-O-CD �I lid RI-(2.7)-0-8, 00 0 0' o o }RI(2.7)-0-8,000 a _0_ u c� r-"-On�R---------D9-- s,aieiN6--cq Q •D)•RI-M-0-8,000 "4 330 o RA-0 N.9•.I'DI•M 726.; RA-01 RA-0 LU-O-CD RA-0-CD /Q of - ... ...._/�N RA 01—CZ M1% 3 ELI RA-01 ( RA 01 RA-0-CD RA-O-CD - PI S SO-41'07'E 2181.3d K>a GARFIELD AVE. Sa�a4 a4 as s a e PLANNING. ZOB"NG DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11 -- NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET ANY IONE CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH E ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF MAY IS INTENDED TO EXTEND CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. 7(5��� To THE CENTER of SUCH Rgni of war AMENDED 09 onn No -MENDED�`A. �'� AMENDED nA QW_Na ® QUALIFIED CLASSIFICATION 96-fi0 )9U 6-IB)3 15-5 IBSA 12l-b° -fi 2T3b q-l-fi0 126,12T 195 6-IB-13 13-I. IBS3 2)-tl6 86-2 b [RD] PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 11-)-60 13U,1l3 ]9B 10-15-T3 15-. IB]° 9-B-8 7 "'10 291! [RAC RESIDENTIAL AD—ULTURAL UISTNICT 12-N{013A/!B b08 IIN-i3 13IB Itlib 9-21-tl)PPSAtl122916 l 5-tl-61 MI,IA9 Bag 5-1)3 PPAT!-I 1112 IO-S-1 b1- 29U6 1-MZJ —ST.-INS IC' - HUNTINGTON BEACH 02 61 N6 610 -))° 931 n9 LIDni INOUSTRIAL DISTRICT 11-6-61 212 B)6 12-I)-i! T3-2. BT COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 5-1-62 211 111 OIS-)3 T3-20 w1B -I 1-62 23B 900 tl-5-)° T9-b 1956 SETS ACN LYE M-62 250 90B 12-9-)A ]1-6 HAB 8-6-62 25B SIR II-19.1A PPT1-3 1951 LOW DEN511T RESIDENTIAL.DISTNCT 11-19-62 2.1 951 ]-6-T6 >6-I1 20BI OP Of FICE-PROFESSIDIIAL DIST-T ,.-6a 293 9A6 S-Ib-69 929 O56 2-]-]]Tti-26B 2- 4 R2 NFDIM DE STY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT -a-65 a05 1132 I-S-)T 16�26C 215] ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7-66 312 ;IB2 5-2-1]PACGOMP 2IB° 53 MEDIUM-.-DERSYY RfSDEMTIAE DISTNR:T 12-IB-66] 61-21 3]3 6.261) )1-1 yp P-1T-T;9 6B-St IOT'1! 2-b Ttl1 1T-12T1 223E �� HIGHWAI COMMERCIAL 6-Mi-69 69-II 1506 W-IT.)5 SP15-I Re3B10 () RESTNICTED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT 9-2-69 69-21 1522 2-2FTB 6P]3-I R6<590 [� COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN—ATIONALI DISTRICT q-19)O )0-10 606 3'.1-BD )v-q 2°18 COMMUNITY FACLITIESICIVICI DISIIUCT A-2)NiSB L�rJ` B-I6-]I )1-1A 662 )-21-tl0 110-9 2AV9 ❑q] MULTIPLE FAWLI RESIDENCE DISTRICT 1-1)-12 11-1]1'09 2-I)-BI BO-1T 29]2 °-3-T2 T2-B °O 5-15-B2 PPABZI Re510I C�V SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 21 16 B-)-)2 PP]2-81]6tl 5-15-b2 -a 25AA COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION !A >5 9-5-12 'PIl III ,1- -B2 tl2-15 258A - J COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 9-5-T2 ]2-19 I]]9 I-1-B2 B992ii-I° 2582 DIVIG DISTRICT 6-5-)2 12-6 I741 j 5 B3 Bl- K,I DZ!!!2 PRECISE PLAN OF 6TREE T ALIGNMENT TALBERT 2-A-Tz '2-3°'�26 S-M-B3PPAB21 R11526A "' PRIWTE STNEET .-2-15 12sA AVE. 3s n MI-CD MI-A 1 tUP -PD U) 1 �R4- - s MIA ' SR ;i HAP'I ION 00� m R4 ySR R2-SR 4 ; C4 ' CF-R MI-CD . I-.-- R ENTRAL(,,N',) M I-A ------' R4-SR R I,'; ix 66 E M I-C D r" R I 4 CF-R :76mGE: :r: -'RI A C2 -OF'fHE TAYLOR DR m =�l RI 511- M I so RA-0-CD M I RI ONTARIO DR C 2 _ W RI RI C F-C Q 6DD.e W M) CR. :-OUEBEC DR RI RI a 311 i— 2e9.1I G(FlRE.b7!,R TRAINVII FACT R3 I5' y -------- a2oe2E RI 7Eu eoNrur__. c MOUNTJOY RI '`_i .I CC'-C ALBERTA — o F RI RI RI RI Q R3 MI YY K0 FRANKLIN DR C4 MI7--l'i MI-CD DR It1 �H R3 N R3 J PPPLEBNm RI k3 RI RZ R3 m R3 �_-_-_ E LIS I —�------ Y—e'L-- i R2 --- — MI-0-CD �� R2 S ( ao ;MI oI R2 __ « = + rg C2 C2 . �— 65o M 1 si 11 *, I RA-0-CD D R2 0 N A Mt wnlrrinT--of---� , 50 660 COMMODORE CR 1PR!RDN- 2017! M2-0 R3 6604 ISO Dr 329T5 TO P,CP OP RA-0 M I-0 �3m R2'- WISER D li •R2 ti TWO)- LOT T DO a Le,H2T i v.. ; 12 NO a o�I• $RA-O-C _✓T 299,90 MI-D -2I; ':R2 (DISTRICT§ ERNEST a AVE MI m OP ONE) C4 -CD w - � So _ 3 MI D• 3TD IC PACIFICA Col AMUNITY PLAN s R3 MI-01 atRR •� (DIS ICT ONE) N ML-OI 9 29990�'- IDS_._ _ W MI-A-01-CD 1-0 .UD ur�R x 99 MI-01� oP oP�o R2 RW J, m Weze SOP 3ol.ro o- nay' <m R3 MI-A-CD = MI-O - R2 R2 - ao f 3Op I-A-OECD MI- OP R2 R2 8� �°RQ-Qm OP>" R2 GARFIELD AVE 5A as 15 a6 411blish Nov. 10, 1988 ` b NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal to Planning Commission' s Approval of Zone Change No . 88-11/Use Permit No . 88-25/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report 86-1 (Springfield Oil Recovery Project) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will 9 Y hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, November 21, 1988 TIME: 7 : 00 PM SUBJECT: Appeal to Planning Commission' s Approval of Zone Change No. 88-11/Use Permit No . 88-25/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 APPLICANT: Angus Petroleum Corporation APPELLANTS: 1. Councilwoman Grace Winchell 2 . Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach LOCATION: The project site consists of two blocks located on opposite corners as follows (See attached map) : Block A (Tract 12747) : bounded by Springfield Avenue, Delaware Street, Rochester Avenue and California Street; and Block B (Tract 12746) : bounded by Toronto Avenue, California Street, Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . PROPOSAL: Zone Change: Rezone Block A (Tract 12747) from "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities (OT-2-0) " to "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities with Oil Drilling(OT-2-01) " to allow the drilling of new oil wells . Use Permit : To develop an oil consolidation drillsite on Block A and associated oil facility on Block B. Also requested is a reduction of exterior sideyard setbacks from ten (10) feet to a minimum seven (7) feet for the north and south elevations of both blocks . (1150d-13) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. ) On October 18, 1988 the Planning Commission approved and recommended adoption of Zone Change No. 88-11, approved Use Permit No. 88-25 and approved and recommended certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City Council is required to certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and recertify Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to any action on Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25 . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Connie Brockway City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5227 Dated Nov. 8, 1988 (1150d-14) r(,RIt ILWM .r Mw't ' .. I I AVE- C2 C4 R2 0 2 p CF-C CF-E-CD :��*tDl R2-0-CD ¢ RA R2 C21 CF-E-CD x o r o o co-o R2-0 R2 R2 tR b CF E oG -CD-0 vFNgt �,,.. -CD 0 0 -3 _wHr sn'Fl l v JL 1 UIICA -- I VC tM R2-0 RQ-0 w e -CD-0 ' 0�1C01 OC)DO CF-R RI RI RI RI RI 2 -CD-0 D uylo 1 I 0 0 i CD o N N , 1 0 2 D N co-o Y _ � � SPRIMWILLD :Vo � I 1��,{ 0 0 _ `. IG _ Q• W I F NV. RI-0 Oco Q�-0 '0 -0 KZ RI RI RI RI RI R2 -0 ROgr1i ST Rii^r -0 0 0 0 0 J R3 �•.0• as _ 010 211? RI-0 R-I R2' r. - ._ .,.k . C2� RI-O RI JI 1 roI OlDTO ry\ R Ia fir,. ---- •� R I R2 C4 0 �=sPCCIF LAN -0 "�� : I (14" mt., C'.1 V ,1 0 •on.•ro a.AV IWST RICT 2) O I -0 _ to -0 RI RI ~RI RI �'�FQ.IR2 OCCHIAVC 1 R2-PO.10 0, -ORCF-E RI0 6 '0 ` 0 0 I Imtor,...Roaa • RI RI RI IlI/YIR Rn.00i,1 R E ',: ♦ vu Av 1� >5 OLDTO SPECIFIC l � RI RI : �`�_G a;F DI PLAN( RICT TWO)ill _ :..'a'°o-;, 1 ? 1 ZC813-1 1/0 P813-ZS/El R69--o-1 HUNTINGTON!EACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION s� M r 9Ps � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To CONNIE BROCKWAY From ARTHUR J . FOLGER City Clerk Acting City Attorney Subject Notification of the Public Date November 10 , 1988 on : Code Amendment 88-3A; Conditional Use Permit 88-11; and Code Amendment 88-25 I have examined the notification process use in each of the above matters and find that there is compliance with state and substantial compliance with city codes and directives . This matter can, therefore , be held on the scheduled date of the City Council without further notification. ARTHUR J . FOLGER Acting City Attorney AJF/gj c Legal Notice M i City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 !' " Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ? l'; tA � * r ri , , t:L C _ Ay. �%iC`!1 1'i`���j'1-i—ice •�t - — .V R , ! I. FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEACH TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Office of the City Clerk P. 0. Box 190 ntingtoP-Be i#ch, To WARDUVG ORD i i;; ".• i.ii Ir I — �j _`-1�'•a i �� ;—I�hFi, _.-. _ .-��l-fir j i f I I .I City of Huntington Beach ` Office of the City Clerk / '• - ; r P. O.Box 190 / • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 e • 1(/ I�if::a�i��c;::�:<: ;: U.L•�•r of(1 r;a. I��h!I.i I:1.1'll::: I:i..•:1•Ll /. 1 �j FIRST CLASS MAIL :1.;.'�,.,,:3:1. 1::�(:11...`:ir:l f:;1••1:1::(:;F�, `.:ti..f� ':11::: :1 :::: 1 11..13,!'f' ,��(:::I I (:::,°� •.'::::r:,'3.•:a...;:1'•:;`: HUNTINGTON MACH T.U I:�i`I -f l::l f:31:::ND 1:::I:;, Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1 :: (i:l.��il'1<'�:I. 1::3�11:i •T•:I:i''11::: H �``� .i:>;':�;:3:1. I::�(:3f...'.:ir^, f.;h•i:1::r":r'', �;'f ' �11�;:;:1. :: C."'A FIRST CLASS MAIL i;a:::►l.11:�:i'I f(::I .:,1:-�11:�1:::r;: HUNTINGTON UACH Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r' 1 1 Ho ir:;::� ;:;01-'T,: (:r� :L.':,°��::3:1. 1�,(:IL..`::it`, fa••1:1::(:;r•'', f: �•(• ' �Il :aa.;:::: HUNTINGTON MACH FIRST CLASS MAIL 1 11.13•!T 1 ,1:::�'ti(::1 I (::: , f f:, ::1, ;_� i"a:::T11RN 'TCi Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntingtori Beach,CA 92648 �= c •` .�T` S� jE..1 Q �• a� ., !� I,,c ti U R � ' Lrii•.LI_Y .I-i` �t._: i GRRR ✓✓✓"""___--- �` _a J/ E;I...A>s: i''S >,?1. .1 :I. f-bll:) fa:i'4f::: I:::XI D • ]..••.>U:;':I. ::r('i i'fl*i°1 I::�1�'i l�il��f�l l�{(�1 I...i'•! (�i' I FIRST CLASS MAIL 1 It.Jrar:r..t�c:,rt� r:ca 1 i:;ra �::<:>,1<r-:<>:��::�:►� ��' ► i HUNnNGTON MACH M:::'f1. IRN TO sEADEA:-, IIIIl1II1111I1111lII11111111l1f1 Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 9264$ li' _..._. _ _.-__ - Ti fir✓ :;t.l 1•.;:I I: t I c.,1. I••���1..1 ..i.I.I''i I::. 1::..- I I.1 I/ � fir— l� " __? i..ir:�r�:�'ir�li•I�: r::a..1 :i.r';;5::3:I. I::,(:11...`:�r", f.:a'•I:I:C:r�l fa"f � �II�;::.:L;:?: FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEACH •1•• a,! -f(a Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. B 190 Huntington Beach,CA 926 i tr-='f"';fi �ttctacwn —_'K s Ln ��tcyr� k,yr7 Mdrm--.__Route Number Order FIRST CLASS MAIL I I1111111l111,Il1l11111l fllfl llll l!!11 11111111111111 IJ Legal Notice �\J�l'� City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 fat►" ,l i(GI?''il f)SUC1. 'iCl`'(; i_ .. -.r:- - '_=-1 '•�. _,_- j`- �.vU!l'✓=. tB_ 1 FIRST CLASS MAIL t HUNTINGTONKAC" `r,rtl�rlttlrrtltlr�„t,irttl»� ( ,��� City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 - } Huntington Beach,CA 92648 n` rn .,:j•- _,-2�j_�rv-ham..':' t• ,.i;-'�.. _.'jam:C. 1L__:� I Ce': ��fq I FIRST CLASS MAIL WMnNCTON KACH i I ILII III1!I!II,III III III I II,II 11 •. 1 ___7 TT-- T7n YM1 T- mn 7•(TS /..'1 _ Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 rf _ - - - - 1/ HUNTINGTON� FIRST CLASS MAIL Ii,I,11111111iII,l„ll,lill„III Legal Notice ---- - -- - City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190iJ.::i:I. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ;l;a:::i... EJ; i:;(:iF;F' }"l�C (:t°ih: f AVID 1 I 1 He FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON WACH . I Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. B 190 Huntington Beath,CA 926 i i 10`,fkp Ir- ti.'itlsdd .,NoS!Jch i�rgl6e[>_�< := i' Hcar� ,+� --Route Number f Older Exp�`"~—IA1 FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEAC" 11�IIItII�II„ifl�IlI�1�II,I��I1�1���I�III,II���IItI v� v vv I C e , Q .. .ol.ro.a .rsw• . . i I`' AVE c 012.0-CD tCq R2 0 CF-C 2 ° CF-E-CD R2-0-CD M RA R2 C2 I �CF-E-CD '` oo ~ o o co-o R2-0 R2 R2 b CF-E _ -co-o pco-o u I Id � �a AAA, C 0 O 0 0 0 .0 R2 0 R2 0 w coo a .�.. CF-R RI i�l,d RI RI RI 2 CD 0 oa�to �- ` 0 0 -CD-0 O -0 -0 s rc o a ".• -Co-0 Y ..,..,., a R2 4I ]VMIMfiI l` t I O`-•• • •. O l7 0 C O -0 ! 0wra Cr ow; C4 + r z_ ' 4�+`� • a ; - b � S' CCRI RI RI RI RI R2 0 slln R,_O ° a °s R3 R3-0 0 s aw'�j 1 RIRY, 1 >: 0 E r ql ► 'RI p10lD eC2 T Iw /O •;,, �, RI RI RI w RI R C4 -p w� �r(CI AM _--- I AY ~ IwITH UCMON.I �.� b -0 .eul..�e O (DISTRICT tI ;'` •� I RI RI SH RI RY ° _0 -p —,��..e%ji "0, v I R2�.q i CF-E RI RI _ r IL I I . R _p 0 aRt.o-Io•9•• ] I "I-PO-10OLDTO SPECIFIC I i PLAN( RIOT TWO), M11411 MACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Legal Notice City of Hm*-Itn Beech Office of the City Clerk ___: ..0.. �G corn P.O.Box :` F Huntington Balch, s26�B PRESORT � a� , e z NOV 0 A FIRST M, !�S A . # r 02fit0':3422 )b CONNER BEVERLY BRAD_HAW 1139 4 B iRA BORA �y RINA DEL REY, GA 9if2292 FIRST CLASS MAlL Publish Nov. 10, 1988 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal to Planning Commission' s Approval of Zone Change No. 88-11/Use Permit No. 88-25/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report 86-1 (Springfield Oil Recovery Project) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, November 21, 1988 TIME: 7 : 00 PM SUBJECT: Appeal to Planning Commission' s Approval of Zone Change No . 88-11/Use Permit No . 88-25/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 APPLICANT: Angus Petroleum Corporation APPELLANTS: L. Councilwoman Grace Winchell 2 . Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach LOCATION: The project site consists of two blocks located on apposite corners as follows (See attached map) : • Block A (Tract 12747) : bounded by Springfield Avenue, Delaware Street, Rochester Avenue and California Street; and Block B (Tract 12746) : bounded by Toronto Avenue, California Street, Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . PROPOSAL: Zone Change: Rezone Block A (Tract 12747) from "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities (OT-2-0) " to "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities with Oil Drilling(OT-2-01) " to allow the • drilling of new oil wells . Use Permit : To develop an oil consolidation drillsite on Block A and associated oil facility on Block B. Also requested is a reduction of exterior sideyard setbacks from ten ( 10) feet to a minimum seven (7) feet for the north and south elevations of both blocks . (1150d-13) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. ) On October 18, 1988 the Planning Commission approved and recommended adoption of Zone Change No . 88-11, approved Use Permit No . 88-25 and approved and recommended certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City Council is required to certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and recertify Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to any .acti>pn on Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25 . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public . HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Connie Brockway City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5227 Dated Nov. 8, 19B8 (1150d-14) i-iry or Huntington Beach � Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' ' t:SV ' 0 28 S� t .- TURryF TO I'i _�I`� .L '�'.]I i�i': f_;i_:j i _ =r Q\ �q R " �ZJ 1� SENOE PO" FIRST CLASS MAIL �fl MUNUNGTON aEACH _ / . I Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk - - -. P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 FIRST CLASS MAIL ►_: 1I 'i':1 �:; _ E:, jI,!: !: �nwcioa KACH i 1(:1 1:'f*)I:!..i'1I"I:::Li`1C7 Legal Notice City Of Huntington Beach P• O g Office of the City Clerk . h C Huntington Be A9 2 A I . „ FIRST CLASSMAIL I LATy OT IlununyWn oaawl ! Office of the City Clerk P. O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CAA2648 �Yi'chy�; sEmwo '1 i 1 .., [� MOVED,' "NO,-ORDER / [� INSU :'03 ENT ADDRESS < 111INTL�D, UNKNOWA SUCH NUMBER I'If'i •:aF'< (;�.'.i"•!:. /:I.F�/(:3(: / • :i 1(:; (:)I;I:)1:::1: (:)t1 I :T.1...►::. FIRST CLASS MA. .._ 1.1l�! tlal•'.1::: 1(:) r c:n��lnr:r.) HUNTINGTON BEACH t}t,ltltil� ltlltttlstt,lll Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach - Office of the City Clerk c . P. O. Box 190 (' ` - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RETURh�, % TO OWN WING ORDER EXPIRED R r1 i :f l I 9 FIRST CLASS MAIL W04INGMN KXH Illiddtitltl;Ills tlillll,Illtllllt.11tl►tlttl,ltll Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 PE ohFO ;� Huntington Beach, CA 9264E3 FORMING ORDU mplar, FNFIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON�EACl/ ' I11ttllill,Itlt►tlttll,tl,t�llllltltttttlilttl„l,ll Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk Huntington Beach,CA 926 10 rrc..rr --�Nosure,4 (bbig) iA:.�1 � Uft NO A. —Route Number = Cb FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 .J— v Office of the City Clerk j& City of Huntington Beach ;^ - ~ rzcNOV 70"� P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9�''1 $� j._ ± 1 r g T o t1 ' 025-032-19 ((� Wu Susan Su Chun 901 Huntington St. J �1.. ��t�'` `` ` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 y v Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk •. c; P. O. Box 190 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648 .d Rft ❑ MOVED, ITFT (!n n DQ Pss 1 J� ' FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON KA01 Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 9264E3 96 9 }Po ;j;_ a 1 i i`!' ';i_il`a E';C H H FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON VACH 11111 fill!Il11111111111111111111 Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk - P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 L,P r0 tiF _ p arj=Lip_' i 1: Li r' ,-li J i LA, /U FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEACH <� i Legal Notice .City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk • >_ , Y<��'" \ _ _ . P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - - ,, ( `°>y ! 0 Ew y yQ Ho N FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON MACH Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 •v� FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON MACH , I Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 41.1 Hi NTIh.G , � a s `~ FOB FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON MACH goo TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 0IL RECOVERY PROJECT [ZONE CHANGE 88-11 AND USE PERMIT 88-251 EIR 86-1 : SCH N0, 86040917 1 . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT 3 CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 1 . 1 Aesthetics 3 1 . 2 Risk of Upset/Health and Safety 4 1 . 3 Seismic Impacts 5 2 . POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE 6 NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 2 . 1 Topography, Soils and Geology 6 2 . 2 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality 9 2 :3 Biological Resources 12 2 . 4 Archaelogical/Paleontological Resources 12 2 . 5 Land Use , Zoning and General Plan 13 2 . 6 Light and Glare 21 2 . 7 Traffic and Circulation 21 2 . 8 Air Quality and Odors 24 2 . 9 Noise 26 2 . 10 Risk of Upset/Health and Safety 29 2 . 11 Public Services and Utilities 33 2 . 12 Energy Conservation 36 lit 2 . 13 Growth Inducing Impacts 36 Exhibit A 5954 0 2 . 14 Cumulative Impacts 37 3 . Findings Regarding Alternatives 41 3 . 1 No Project Alternative 41 3 . 2 Reduced Intensity Alternative 42 3 . 3 More Intense Drilling Program 43 3 . 4 Abandonment of All Oil Production Sites 44 3 . 5 Alternative Sites : Parcel 1 45 3 . 6 Parcel 1 Development Only 46 3 . 7 Alternative Sites : Parcel 2 47 3 . 8 Alternative Sites : Parcel 3 48 3 . 9 Alternative Sites : Parcel 4 49 3 . 10 Medium Density Residential Project 50 ii . FINDINGS . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (ZONE CHANGE 88-ll AND USE PERMIT 88-251 EIR 86-1 : SCH N0, 86040917 The State Guidelines ("Guidelines") promulgated pursuant - to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provide : (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those insignificant effects , accompanied by a -brief explanation of the rationale for each finding . The possible findings are : (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. [This finding shall be referred to as "finding M . "] (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding . Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. [This finding shall be referred to as "finding (2 ) . "] (3) Specific economic , social , or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alteFnatives identified in the final EIR. (Guidelines Section 15091 . ) 5954 • • (This finding shall be referred to as "finding (3) . 11] The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the oil recovery project ("Project") proposed by Angus Petroleum Corporation ("Project Applicant") identifies significant effects on the environment which may occur as a result of the Project . Section 1 of this Attachment identifies the significant environmental effects of the Project which cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of significance . Section 2 sets forth potential environmental effects of the Project which are not significant because of the design of the Project or which can feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance . Section 3 summarizes the alternatives discussed in the EIR. Section 4 consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the City' s specific reasons for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable environmental effects . The findings set forth in each section are supported by findings of facts established in the administrative record of the Project . 2 . 1 . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT_ EFFECTS THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. The City has determined that EIR mitigation measures and proposals included as part of the Project will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects , but that these effects cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance . 1 . 1 AESTHETICS 1 . 1 . 1 Significant Effect : The neighborhood surrounding the Project Site consists of medium density residential uses , predominantly in small (8-10 unit) developments and single family residences . Views of the Project Site from adjacent residences will consist of the screening block wall and landscaping . During the initial drilling phases , drill rigs will be visible . During the production and injection phases , temporary drill rip will be used periodically for maintenance and will be visible from adjacent residents . Tanks will be visible above the wall . Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in Sunvort of Findings : The following measures will result in a substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect . (a) The Project shall comply with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 15 . 22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . -(b) - All - trees shall be a minimum -of . 24-inch,.-_..box type , and spaced -no more than 20 feet on center . (c) Landscaping and the construction of masonry walls and street improvements shall occur concurrent with excavation and construction. (d) .Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year , and no more than 4 well service rigs may be on the site at any one time . These service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height . (e) Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in height . Upon completion of initial drilling of injection and producer wells , all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site . 3 . 5954 (f) The enclosure of both parcels of the Project Site will provide the most direct mitigation of visual impacts . Surrounding the drill site with an acoustical wall will provide a more aesthetic viewshed . (g) During the initial drilling phases , when drill rigs are visible , the drill site shall be surrounded by an acoustical wall and portions of the rig will be acoustically wrapped . (h) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 6 , addressing light and glare , hereby are incorporated by reference . (i ) The Project requires the drilling of 30 to 45 wells from the drill site . These wells shall be located within the fenced and landscaped drill site and the wells shall be concealed from view. (j ) The topography of the Facility Site would be substantially lowered to reduce the height of the storage tanks . (k) These mitigation measures included within the Project Design and imposed by the Use Permit will substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts of the Project . Nonetheless , the Project will result in a change in the views from adjacent residences , because of the addition of a 30-foot sound barrier wall and a 165-foot drilling derrick. This ,is an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project . 1 . 2 RISK OF UPSETIREALTH AND SAFETY 1 . 2 . 1 Significant Effect : Under a worst case scenario , assuming that.--all -oil tanks are full and the tanks are set out in an open field without surrounding perimeter Walls-, there is a "rare" (defined in the standard methodology for risk assessment as 1 : 10 , 000 to 1 : 1 , 000 , 000 chance that an oil tank fire could result in radiant heat effecting the area outside of the immediate Project Site . Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will result in the substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect : (a) Oil handling facilities will be lowered - to six feet below the level of the surrounding streets . This measure , coupled with the eight-foot perimeter wall , will 4 . r very significantly reduce any "radiant .heat hazard footprint , " which is calculated using no containment whatever . (b) Oil will be shipped on a continuous basis . Therefore , only a minimal amount of oil will be required to be held in the tanks . Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted , and these tanks shall never be completely full at once . (c) Prior to the issuance of building permit , a preliminary emergency action plan (EAP) shall be prepared and submitted . A completed EAP, based on as-built plans , shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The EAP shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto streets from Site would be handled , the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials , and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment . A copy shall be on file at the Fire Department and updated every five years . In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills , etc . , not otherwise covered in the EAP shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . (d) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 11 . 2 , relating to fire prevention/protection, hereby are incorporated by reference . (e) Although the likelihood of this impact occurring is extremely low, if it did occur , the impacts would be significant . Therefore , it is considered a significant unavoidable impact . 1 . 3 SEISMIC IMPACTS 1 . 3 . 1 Significant Effect : If an earthquake of M 8 . 0 or greater on the Richter Scale occurs with its epicenter in the Project Area, structures in the Project Area, including tanks and walls of the Project facilities , would be damaged . Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in SUDRort of Findings : The following measures will result in a substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect . 5 ' 5954 (a) The Project engineering will prevent the well cellars from being damaged , even in an M 8 earthquake . (b) Oil will be shipped on a continuous basis , so that all of the tanks in the oil storage area will never be full at the same time . Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and these tanks shall never be completely full at once . The oil storage area is located six feet below grade, and the area is surrounded by reinforced concrete retaining walls . The volume of this depressed retaining basin exceeds the Uniform Fire Code, and Division of Oil and Gas requirements , by a factor of 2 . Even if the retaining wall is ruptured , the retaining area would hold oil released by tanks which burst or overturn . (c) The Facility would shut down under a "fail-safe" system, as soon as the power went off during a major earthquake . No emergency situations would be created requiring immediate attention by, or an augmentation of , public safety personnel . (d) Engineering soils analysis and fault line investigations were performed to determine if near surface faulting is present within the Drill Facility Site Areas . The resultant study concluded that no faults or related fracture zones were observed in the trench exposures . Accordingly, an active fault line is not known to be present within the trench limits . The fault line investigation report show that no faults were found . (e) Although the above measures would prevent the creation of an emergency situation during an earthquake of M 8 or greater , no known engineering or other mitigation measures could avoid.. damage to the.. Facility if such a major earthquake occurred . In conjunction with damage that would occur to the surrounding area, this is a significant unavoidable impact of the Project . 2 . POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The City has determined that the following effects will not be . significant , for the reasons stated below. 2 . 1 TOPOGRAPHY. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 2 . 1 . 1 Potential Effect : Development of the Project will alter the existing topography of the Drill Site and Facility Site . The existing surface of the ground on the 6 . Drill Site will be graded and recompacted to substgntially follow the contours of the abutting streets , . Z.jceavotion to a depth of approximately 12 feet will be required tp permit construction of three subsurface well collero , The topography of the Facility Site will be iowexed approximately two feet below the street elev4tJ9uq on the south and west and six feet below the street elev$tiotis on the northeast corner , in order to reduce the height of the storage tanks . Tess : The City hereby makes finding (1) , Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Project Site currently consists of two parcels , which are vacant except for existing oil production facilities and well pumps . The vaGBHt areas of the parcels are covered with filter piles from prior construction activity. Because the existing topography of the Project Site is disturbed and covered with* piles of dirt , the effects of grading are not significant . (b) The surface can be restored at the and of the Project ' s life span. Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department , showing how the Site will be abaHdc?ned and restored to its closest natural state . (c) All loose upper soils within the foundation areas for process equipment on the Facility Site should be removed and replaced as compacted ,fill . Foundation areas for the well cellars on the Drill Sites shall be overexcavated a minimum of two feet vertically and three feet horizontally and replaced by compacted fill . Superficial -fills near the cellars should be removed and replaced as compacted fill . 2 . 1 . 2 Potential Effect : Land surface subsidence has occurred in the Huntington Beach area , with a fiajor subsidence area roughly correlating with the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field . According to the last leveling survey for the Huntington Beach Pump Station located near the intersectipn of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard , the subsidence in the Project Area i8 -0, 1 to -0. 2 feet for the period from 1976 through 1986 . The current average rate of subsidence per year is approximately -0 . 02 feet . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . 7 . 5954 Facts in Support of Findines : (a) Several reports indicate that the rate of subsidence has decreased since water flooding of oil producing zones was initiated in 1959 . The Division of Oil and Gas (1973) reports that the maximum recorded rate of subsidence was 0. 15 feet per year from 1955 to 1968 , but decreased to 0 . 05 feet per year from 1968 to 1972 . (b) Experience in other oil fields , such as Wilmington, shows that repressurization of the oil producing zones through water injection has caused reduced rates of subsidence and often has completely halted subsidence and even caused from rebound . (c) Based on the studies by the Division of Oil and Gas and experience in Wilmington, cited above , the implementation of the Project will not increase subsidence , and should reduce the rate of subsidence , in the Project Area . 2 . 1 . 3 Potential Effect : In three cases , oil field operations or other fluid injection activities have been _ documented as relating to induced seismic movements . In the Wilmington Field , California, several small , subsidence-induced earthquakes occurred . In the U. S . Rocky Mountain Arsenal , Colorado , a series of earthquakes was caused by fluid emplacement in a liquid waste disposal project . In an oil reservoir at Rangely Field , Colorado, water injection operations resulted in induced seismic movements . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) None of the above situations is likely to occur at the proposed site . The Project is a water injection project , which will not cause subsidence . The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 1 . 2 hereby are incorporated by reference . (b) The Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rangely earthquakes in Colorado occurred in hard brittle rock. This rock is geologically different from the young sediments of the Los Angeles basin . (c) Micro-earthquake monitoring systems , designed to accurately locate small , shallow earthquakes that .might be generated by oil operations , have been in operation about 11 years in the vicinity of Inglewood and Wilmington oil 8 . fields . No earthquakes have been located in either field or in nearby fields , that would indicate oil operations to be a causative factor . 2 . 2 EYDROLOGI. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY 2 . 2 . 1 Potential Effect : Storm water runoff will be increased because the existing permeable land surface will be decreased by approximately three acres of land , resulting from the paving of the Project Site with asphalt . findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The increase in storm water from paving the Project Site will not have negative impacts on the existing storm drain system because the Project has been designed to utilize all on-site storm water runoff for water injection purposes . (b) The construction of new half-section streets with concrete curb and gutter will alleviate the present water ponding problems along the City right-of-way. (c) Surface drainage , including storm water , on the Drill Site shall be diverted to catch basins , then by gravity flow via underground pipeline across the street to the Facility Site . The water will be collected in sand interceptor No. 1 and then pumped into the water processing area, filtered and mixed with the production brine and injected into the oil bearing zone as part of the water flood . The interior of the Facility Site will —be 'partially paved with -asphalt over -a rock base -and the remaining portion will be paved with crushed rock. The majority of storm water and surface drainage will infiltrate into the soil through the crushed rock. Any remaining storm water and surface drainage will be collected in catch basins , diverted to the sand intraceptors and then follow the same process as water from the .Drill Site. (d ) In the event of a power failure during a 100-year storm, '. an emergency valve could be opened on the Facility Site and all storm water could be directed via gravity flow pipeline to Well Cellars A and B. When the cellars are partially filled , water will flow to a three-stage clarifier , then, if necessary, via pipeline to the County storm drain in Delaware Street . Cellars A and B have been specifically engineered to perform as additional 9 . 5954 clarifiers for this emergency use . 2 . 2 . 2 potential Effect : The original EIR stated that produced water or make-up water would be released to the sanitary sewer system. This is no longer the case . Injection water will not release to the sanitary sewer system. Findines : The City hereby makes finding (1) . FactU in Support of Findings : (a) All water used for injection into the underground oil reservoirs will be obtained from the following sources : storm water runoff ; produced water from the production wells ; and make-up brine water (water to initially fill the underground reservoirs) purchased from Chevron U. S .A. At present Chevron U. S .A. is treating and releasing the make-up brine water into the sanitary sewer system. Use of the brine water for injection purposes will initially reduce the existing load on the sanitary sewer system by approximately 30, 000 barrels per day. (b) All brine produced with the oil will normally be cleaned by circulation through sand filters and settling tanks and will then be reinjected into the formations . (c) In the event of a complete electrical failure , y all production wells will go down, and there will be no produced water . The flow of make-up water will be stopped at the source . The water filtration system will include reserve capacity to allow for continued operation during equipment maintenance or repair . If a longer time period is needed to make repairs or to replace equipment , make-up water will be reduced and/or- a partia-1 shut-down of --high water-cut production wells will be implemented . 2 . 2 . 3 Potential Effect : The drilling of the wells for the Project will involve penetrating both shallow and deep groundwater acquifers to gain access to oil-bearing layers below, resulting in potential adverse effects on groundwater . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) The water found in the shallow and deep groundwater acquifers is , for the most part , brackish . 10 . Potable water has been extracted from acquif ers in the Huntington Beach area, although usually only in areas east of the Newport-Inglewood Fault . The Project Site is west of the fault and is , in fact , located between two branches of the fault . The injection of water and extraction of oil in the oil-bearing strata will not have a significant effect on the quality of groundwater because the water currently is not usable for either domestic or industrial uses . (b) State Division of Oil and Gas Regulations require that the base of all fresh water sands that are penetrated be protected from salt water invasion from below by cementing . The Division of Oil and Gas will require that water test be performed to assure proper seals were formed . The Use Permit requires that pipe string cementing through fresh water-bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent saltwater intrusion into the acquifers . (c) During drilling operations , the drilling fluid which is circulated in the well board to remove cuttings forms a membrane around the bore hole wall and inhibits water infiltration into the formations which have been penetrated . The area of water infiltration from the drilling mud is usually no more than a few feet in diameter . . 2 . 2 . 4 potential Effect : Make-up water will be transported to the Project site through a pipeline . If the pipeline ruptured , brine could be released . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding: The following -measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) The make-up water pipeline will be buried approximately 30 inches below the street surface measured from the top of the pipe . The pipeline is above the groundwater surface and will not encounter any surface water . (b) The pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors so that any sudden pressure drop will trigger an alarm and shut down the transfer pumps . This will insure that any release of water is minimal . 11 . 5954 (c) Fact (a) in Support of Finding 2 . 2 . 3 , relating to the quality of groundwater in the area, hereby is incorporated by reference . 2 . 3 EIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 . 3 . 1 Potential Effect : The development of approximately 3 . 1 acres of the Project Site will destroy weedy species on the Project Site . Findines : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Supuort of Fin" (a) The Project Site is currently disrupted , containing piles of dirt from earlier construction activities . No cultivated or native species exist on the site , except for weedy plants . Landscaping will replace all vegetation lost during grading and add additional vegetation . (b) No rare or endangered species are known or expected to breed on the Project Site. 2 . 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 . 4. 1 Potential Effect : The grading of the Project Site and excavation for foundations and well cellars will _ disturb any undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources . Findings.: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findines : (a) There is little likelihood —of undiscovered resources on the Project Site . The majority of the known archaeological sites in the City are located along the bluffs along the banks of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers . The two archaeological sites nearest the Project Site are approximately 0 . 6 and 1 mile away from the Project Site . (b)- During grading and excavation, earth moving crews shall .observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . • In the event of a potential find being located , operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined . The project will be conditioned through the Use Permit to follow specified procedures in the event that remains are located . 12 . 2 . 5 LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN 2 . 5 . 1 PotentialEffect : The Project site currently is zoned "Old Town Specific Plan" (District 2) , combined with Oil Production (0) . The "0" Oil District prohibits drilling . In order to implement the Project , a zone change from 110" to 1101" Oil District is required . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a)_ Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City ' s Zoning Code provides for the establishment of 1101" Districts . The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet) , as required by section 9682 . 1 . The proposed drill site for the Project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by section 9682 . 1 . Therefore , it is consistent with this provision. (b) Section 9682 . 2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements . All City-required dedications will be implemented through the terms of recorded tract maps for the Project site . Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. 2 . 5 . 2 Potential Effect : The project zoning must be consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan . According to the General Plan, "consistency between the zoning proposal and the General Plan would be determined by considering all the policies and programs of each element of the General Plan and their relationship to the proposed zoning . " Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . The following policies of the General Plan apply to the Project . The Project is consistent with these policies for the reasons stated below. (a) Open Space and Conservation Element Section . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 3 : "Encouraging beautification of oil producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil lands . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites , thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites 13 . 5954 i scattered over 160 acres . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site , the appearance of the Project site will be improved over its present condition. Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Figure 2-1 . "Priority Open Space Areas" : "Oil Production Areas" are included in "Third Priority Areas , " defined as "areas containing valuable assets (not of less significance) which should be incorporated into a comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Program. " The Project site is not included in any adopted Open Space or Conservation Program. Figure 2-2 . "Resource Conservation Priority Areas" : "Mineral Resources" are listed as a "Second Priority Areas , " accompanied by a policy to "encourage utilization of mineral wealth; prevent blight , pollution, and undue destruction of natural features . " The Project will use secondary .recovery techniques to increase the efficiency of oil production. As conditioned and mitigated , the Project will not add to blight or pollution. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Figure 2-3 . IIQDen Space and Conservation Plan" : "The plan encompasses all existing and planned open space and conservation programs as well as several additional projects . " (General Plan at p. 16. ) No open space developments , open space plan areas , or scenic corridors are designated on the Project Site or within the subsurface Project Area. The McCallen Park site , the nearest identified site , is two blocks to the north of the site . (b) Seismic Safety Elements Figure 2-6 . Flood Hazard Areas : The Project site is located 'in Zone C , "Minimal Flooding . " Therefore , the Project is not in a flood hazard area . Section 2 . 2 . 4 . 1 . 3 : "Continue to require geologic investigations of all significant development projects and to stipulate by Conditions of Approval that all construction within those projects be designed to withstand predicted probable ground motion accelerations . " 14 . Project structures will be designed to withstand predicted probable ground motion accelerations . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. (c) Noise Element section 2 . 3 . 2 . 1 : "Goal : To reduce to acceptable levels the degree of noise exposure from all transportation, stationary and other nuisance sources in the community to insure the public health, safety, and welfare . " Section 2 . 3 . 2 . 2 . 7 : "Objective: To minimize external noises and prevent them from penetrating existing quieter areas . " Section 2 . 3 .2 . 3. 2 : "Policy: The use of quieter auto- mobiles , machinery and equipment should be encouraged . ,, Section 2 . 3 . 3 . Optimum Noise Levels : "The optimum noise level for all residential uses in LDN 60 for outdoors (approximately equivalent to CNEL 60) and Ldn 45 for indoors . " The Project will be conditioned , through the CUP, to exceed the requirements of the City noise code . Therefore , the Project is consistent with these policies . Section 2 . 3 . 4 . 14, Noise Abatement Plan. Noise From Oil Pumpine Operations : "Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of an electric motor-driven pump. " Although this section is not directly applicable to the Project , it implies that a 25-foot buffer should exist between pumps and residential areas . The pumps on the Project site will be in excess of 100 feet from the nearest residential unit . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. (d) Recreation Element Figure 2-13 . "Existing and Proposed Recreation Faci i.ties" : "Figure 2-13 shows the existing and proposed parks `at ultimate development . " The Project will not adversely affect or preclude the development of any recreation facility shown in Figure 2-13 . Therefore; it is consistent with Figure 2-13 . (e) Circulation 15 . 5954 Section 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 : "Goal : To provide a multi-mode transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods . " The Project will not cause or result in significant traffic increases . It will only require three truck trips per day, which is too low in volume to create a significant adverse impact to safety. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 5 : "Policy: Provide adequate truck and rail service to industrial and commerical areas while providing minimum disturbance to residential areas . " Project truck routes have been planned to minimize disruption to surrounding residential areas . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. (f) Scenic Highways No policies in the Scenic Highways Element apply to the Project . (g) Housing Section 3 . 3 . 4 . 2 .2 : "Action: Monitor changes in industrial and commercial land uses to assess their impact on residential land use . " The EIR discussion of growth-inducing impacts describes the effect that the Project will have on residential development , as well as the impact on further residential development if the Project is not approved . Therefore , the City ' s review of the Project complies with this policy . Section 3 . 3 . 5 . 2 . 1 : "Action: Review all changes in planned land uses to determine the cumulative impacts on community facilities . " The EIR discussion of cumulative impacts describes the Project ' s cumulative impacts on community facilities . Therefore , the City' s review of the Project complies with this policy. Section 3 . 3 . 5 . 2 . 8 : "Action : Continue to actively enforce land use ordinances . " The Project will be subject to all City land use ordinances and regulations , enforced through conditions attached to the CUP. Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. 16 . (h) Land Use Element Section 3 . 4 . 2 . 3 . 5 ; "To provide for the proper development , maintenance , improvement , preservation, and use of the City ' s natural resources by removing and restoring oil production areas as wells become non-productive . " The approval of the Project will permit the abandonment and removal of 22 wells . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 4 . 2 . 5 . 1 : "To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic , social , and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach - by providing an adequate level of community services , facilities , improvements , and maintenance in all areas of the City . " As conditioned and mitigated , the Project will increase the quality of areas surrounding wells to be abandoned , because - the appearance of the well sites will be improved and they could be developed for residential uses . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 4 . 2 . 9 : "To seek out and encourage industrial development that will broaden the City' s economic base , that is diversified , that is well related--t.o. other-- land uses , and that provides local job opportunities by: " Section 3 . 4 . 2 . 9 . 2 "Locating industrial uses adjacent to compatible land uses . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites , thereby eliminating potentially incompatible land uses- from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site , the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood . Overall , the Project will reduce the potential for land use incompatibilities from oil developments in residential areas . Therefore, it is consistent with this policy . Section 3 . 4. 2 . 9 . 4 : "Establishing effective environmental standards that minimize the external effects on other land uses and the environment . " The conditions and mitigation measures imposed on the Project will minimize its external effects on other land 17 . 5954 uses . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 4 . 2 . 9 . 5 : "Eliminating conflicts between existing industrial uses and non-compatible uses . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites , thereby eliminating potential incompatible land uses from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site , the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood . Overall , the Project will reduce the potential for land use conflicts from oil developments in residential areas . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy . (i ) Community Facilities Section 3 . 5 . 6 . 3 . 1 : "Coordinate the installation of community facilities with street improvements where possible . " The Project will provide concrete curbs and gutters in conjunction with the construction of half streets . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. (j ) Coastal Element Although this element addresses coastal policies , the following policies relating to energy resources could be applied to developments throughout the City. Section 3 . 6 . 2 . 6 . 2 : "Encourage the production of energy resources as efficiently as possible with minimal adverse impacts . " The Project will use secondary recovery techniques to increase the efficiency of oil production. As conditioned and mitigated , the Project ' s adverse effects will be minimal . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy . Section 3 . 6 . 2 . 6 . 2(c ) : "Encourage unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations . . . to the maximum extent '. feasible and legally permissible when such activities (1 ) reduce the area used for oil facilities , (2) are not more environmentally disruptive than existing arrangements and (3) do not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare . " 18 . The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites scattered over a 160—acre area and consolidate them on a 3 . 1 acre site . This will reduce the area used for oil facilities . The abandonment of existing wells will eliminate potentially incompatible land uses from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site , the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood . As conditioned and mitigated , the Project will not jeopardize the public health, safety, and welfare . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 . 2 . 6 . 2(d) : "Utilize the oil suffixes to ensure that coastal dependent energy extraction is accommodated in areas designed other than resource production, except for environmentally sensitive habitat areas . " The change of zone for the Project will utilize an oil suffix to ensure that energy extraction is accomodated in an area not specifically designated "resource production . " The Project is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 . 2 . 6 . 2 . (e) : " . . . (Consider] ' enhanced ' oil recovery activity and . . . ensure the evaluation of impacts different from those associated with conventional extraction. This EIR discussed potential impacts of secondary water techniques which are different from those associated with conventional extraction (see , e .g. , discussions of subsidence and injection water) . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 . 2 . 6 . 4: "Promote compatibility of oil and other energy—related activities with surrounding uses to the maximum extent feasible . " a . " . . . include measures such as additional requirements regarding fencing , planting and landscaping to ensure aesthetic and environmental compatibility between oil activities and other uses . " The Project will comply with Chapter 15 . 22 of the City Oil Code (Screening and Landscaping) . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. 19 . 5954 (k) Zoning and General Plan Consistency Figure 4-1 "Zoning and Land Use Element Matrix" : "-01" zoning is shown on the matrix to be compatible with Medium Density Residential . The Project Site will have "-01" zoning . The surrounding neighborhood is designated Medium Density Residential . Therefore , the Project is consistent with the Land Use Element , as shown by the Matrix. Section 4 . 2 : "A finding of consistency may only be made after analysis of the proposed zoning in terms of all nine elements of the General Plan . A finding of consistency with only one of the elements , such as the Land Use Element , is not sufficient for a finding of consistency with the General Plan. After considering all nine elements , a finding of consistency with the General Plan may be made for the zoning proposal in question if it can be shown to further or possess a measure or significant degree of compatibility with the General Plan policies and programs . " This analysis has examined all elements of the General Plan on a policy-by-policy basis . The Project will further a number of General Plan policies and programs , _ and is consistent with the remainder . Therefore , it is consistent with the General-Plan.- - - - _ With respect to the Land Use Element , the policies have been translated into a Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix which is included as Figure M. The Matrix shows that as a miscellaneous district -01 may be combined , (i . e . , is consistent) with any land use category. It is specifically consistent with low, medium and medium-high density residential categories . 2 . 5 . 3 Potential F fect : The Project will be located in a predominately residential area , which could have adverse land use impacts on surrounding residences . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) with respect to all land use impacts except those specifically identified in Section 1 . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Project will result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area . It will also remove 7 associated tank batteries . Therefore , the Project will reduce the number of residences which remain adjacent to 20 . oil-producing uses . Currently some residences are within 20 feet of existing wells that will be abandoned under the proposed Project . For example , on the Villa St . Croix site , 5 operating wells are located within 20 feet or less of condominium units . In total , therefore, Project will reduce land use impacts from oil-producing uses . (b) The Facts in Support of Findings 1 . 1 , 2 . 5 . 1 , 2 . 5 . 2 , 2 . 6 and 2 . 9 hereby are incorporated by reference . With the exception of aesthetic impacts . discussed in Section 1 . 1 , mitigation measures and elements of the Project which will reduce impacts on the environment will also ensure Project compatibility with surrounding uses . (c) Use Permit 88-25 includes conditions intended to ensure that the Project is consistent with the surrounding residential area . 2 . 6 LIGHT AND GLARE 2 . 6 . 1 Potential Effect : The drilling phase of the Project will be in operation 24 hours a day. Lighting for safety will be required at night . Some lighting will be visible to adjacent residents and passers-by . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvvort of Findings: The f ollowing measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) Light and glare shall be directed or screened to prevent any direct glare from Project lighting outside it parameter boundaries . (b) No flood lights shall be used . Lights will be low profile (i . e . , will light low valve and equipment areas only) . (c) During drilling , the derrick will be enclosed and all lights , except the aircraft warning light , will be on the inside of the acoustical blanket . Lights around the auxilliary equipment will be near ground level and well below the top of the 30 , acoustical wall . 2 . 7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 2 . 7 . 1 Potential Effect : During the drilling phase of the Project , 3 heavy vehicle (truck) trips a day will be generated by the Project . 21 . 5954 Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) During the drilling phase, all heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 Freeway and the Project site : Beach Boulevard , Adams Avenue , and Delaware Street . Entrances to the site shall occur only on Springfield Avenue and California Street . These truck routes and accesses were reviewed by City staff and were chosen to reduce impacts on the adjacent local neighborhood . (b) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7 : 00 a .m. and 5 : 00 p.m. _ (c) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no trucks shall wait on the street for longer than five minutes . No trucks shall be permitted to -park--on -the streets . (d) Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local -streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and -- - - - r e c o n s't r u-c-t a d-per-city-r a qu i r eme nt s-at-t he-eap en-s-e -of,- the Project applicant . (e) It will not be necessary to restrict parking on the side streets to accommodate trucks . Trucks with a turning radius of 55 feet can easily turn from Springfield Avenue onto California Street . Curbs will be painted red to prohibit parking for 10 feet on either side of the driveways . (f ) An overload permit shall be obtained from the City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets . 2 . 7 . 2 Potential Effect : During the drilling and construction phases , traffic will increase nominally in the Project vicinity. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impacts to a level of insignificance . (a) All employees shall park on-site . 22 . I (b) Because the Project will pave and add curbs to currently unfinished streets , approximately 1 ,700 feet of additional curbside on-street parking will be made available to area residents by the Project. (c) During the construction phase , all truck traffic shall be limited to streets reviewed by the City staff and chosen to reduce impacts on the adjacent local neighborhood . Entrances to the site shall occur only on Springfield Avenue and California Street and Delaware Street. (d) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. (e) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no trucks shall wait on the street for longer than five minutes . No trucks shall be permitted to park on the streets . - (f) Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected- before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the Project applicant . (g) Additional Project-related traffic will be of - - - -short-- duration and-.will --involve less traffic --than a--normal.- construction project . (h) During the production/injection phase , there will be no increase in traffic in the Project neighborhood resulting from the Project . 2 . 7 . 3 Potential Effect : The water pipeline from the Chevron site will disrupt traffic over a short period along the following route : from Golden West Street east along Clay Avenue to Huntington Street , then south along Huntington Street from Clay Avenue to the facility site at Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . JEacts in Support of Findings : The f ollowing measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . 23 . 5954 (a) No more than one lane of traffic shall be closed during the day and no lanes shall be closed at night . (b) Busy intersections shall be either bored or plated over so that traffic interruptions will be kept to a minimum. (c) Several hundred feet of pipeline will be installed , surveyed , inspected and the trench back-filled in one day. Therefore , no one area will be affected throughout the period of construction. 2 . 8 AIR QUALITY AND ODORS 2 . 8 . 1 Potential Effect : Temporary dust impacts will result from Project construction activities , including the construction of the water pipeline. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suviport of Findines : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuanre__of building permits-.. _. (b) Exposed dirt areas shall be minimized in the Project design. Roads and parking areas shall be paved and other open areas shall be landscaped or covered (with gravel or asphalt) to minimize dust generation. 2 . 8 . 2 Potential Effect : Pollutants will be emittted by construction equipment and by vehicle trips . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) During the construction phase , only 17 two-way trips will be generated by the Project . Thirty-two two-way trips will be generated during the drilling phase , and 7 during the injection/production phase . The emissions from this number of trips is not significant . 2 . 8 . 3 Potential Effect : Oil production facilities , particularly tanks , can be the source of fugitive hydrocarbon emissions . 24 . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) As required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District , Project oil handling and storage tanks will use a vapor recovery system which will reduce 95-98% of hydrocarbon emissions . (b) The Project will replace 16 existing tanks which are uncontrolled for air pollutant emissions , including hydrocarbons . The replacement of the 16 tanks will reduce total estimated emissions by 24 , 357 pounds per year . The 7 new Project tanks with vapor recovery, assuming 95% efficiency, will generate 3 , 159 pounds of emissions per year . The total emission reduction will be 21 , 198 pounds per year , 58 . 1 pounds per day, or an 87% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions . This is the substantial net- benefit of the project . (c) Further hydrocarbon emission reductions also will be achieved through the elimination of other antiquated process equipment , including open sumps , oil-water separators and other similar equipment which is currently uncontrolled for air pollutants . _(d.)-=She _ .immediate neighborhood surrounding the _ Project site will be exposed to 3 , 159 pounds per year of emissions , or approximately 9 pounds per day . The neighborhood currently is exposed to twice this amount because of existing tank batteries located nearby. 2 . 8 . 4 potential Effect : Oil and gas production activities can emit benzene , a known carcinogenic air contaminant . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) An evaluation of the benzene emissions which may be associated with the Project was conducted using the South Coast Air Quality Management District proposed Rules 223 (Air. Quality Impact Analyses) and 1401 (New Source Review of Known and Suspected Carcinogenic Air Contaminants ) . The Project ' s potential benzene emissions , using a conservative figure , will be . 00057 cubic meters per second , which is 8 to 10 times below the release limits that require further air quality analysis . 25 . 5954 • s (b) The Project will eliminate existing tanks that are totally uncontrolled for air pollutant emissions , including benzene . Therefore , Project probably will result in a net reduction in environnmental risk from benzene emissions in the Project Area. (c) South Coast Air Quality Management District approved vapor recovery systems shall be used for tanks in oil contact . (d) Low-level , short-term exposure to benzene is not subject to SCAQMD proposed rules , because such exposures are not thought to constitute a health risk. In the event of an on-site spill , the system is designed to pump the spilled fluid back through the separation system and into the tank. Spills would be contained on site . 2 . 9 NOISE 2 . 9 . 1 Potential Effect : Oil well drilling and pumping operations , production wastes and earth moving equipment , and repair/maintenance equipment will generate noise which could affect residences in the area of the Project . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support gf Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) The Project shall fully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No . 2379) . (b) A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval prior to commencing drilling . The report shall describe noise levels at the Project Site property line and at the nearest residential property lines , both with and without acoustical treatment on the drilling rig and service rigs . The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to assure compliance with the Huntington. Beach Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No . 2379) . This shall include the provisions of the ordinance regarding a maximum hourly average noise level of 50 dB(A) during the hours from 10 : 00 p .m. to 7 : 00 a .m. (c) Excessive vibration, as determined by the Director of Development Services , shall be reduced to acceptable levels . 26 . (d) Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effort . The monitoring shall include the following: (1) Pre-drilling Dhase monitoring . Prior to the start of the drilling phase , noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site . In addition, the noise control measures which have been, or will be, applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the Noise Ordinance shall be identified . (2) Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10: 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 =a .m. ) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase . Monitoring shall occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to noise levels specified in the Noise Ordinance . Where an exceedance of the Ordinance is identified , noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required .- (3) During the Drilling Phase . Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10: 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. at least once each month during the Drilling Phase of the Project . The noise level data obtained shall be conpared to the Noise Ordinance standards . Where an exceedance of the standards is identified , noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required . (e) • Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. No trucks shall park on the street , and truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no truck will wait in the street for longer than five minutes . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles 27 . 5954 from the Drill Site between the hours of 10: 00 p.m. and 7 : 00 a.m. , except for emergency purposes . (f) A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances . (g) No speakers , loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site . (h) Sudden high frequency noise shall be kept to a minimum by using rubber lined pipe elevators if necessary and rubber tires to absorb the impact of tubulars being rolled onto the walk in preparation for running casing. Acoustical blankets shall be used to reduce this type of remaining noise to insignificant levels . (i) All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. No emergency generator shall be used . (j ) Double mufflers shall be used on production hoists and earth moving equipment , further reducing the impact to the neighborhood . (k) Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year between 7 : 00 a.m. and 7 : 00 p.m. or daylight hours , whichever is shorter . No more than 4 well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time . The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double-muffled and utilize acoustical blankets . (1) The 24-hour drilling phase shall not operate for longer than two years . 2 . 9 .2 Potential Effect : A backhoe will be used during the construction of the water pipeline . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in SupRort of Findings : (a) Double mufflers will be used on backhoes during the construction of the water pipeline , and workmen will be cautioned to work as quietly as possible . (b)' Any residual noise impact will not be significant because it will be temporary in nature and will only occur during the day. Residents of each block will only be affected for approximately one day. 28 . 2 . 10 RISK OF UPSET/HEALTH AND SAFETY 2 . 10 . 1 Potential Effect : The potential exists for oil spills from the pipes , valves , tanks and equipment, and from the small amounts of crude oil which will be contained on the Facility Site in storage tanks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . I Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) If an oil spill occurred during a rainstorm, surface drainage water could become contaminated with crude oil The Drill Site and Facility Site have been designed to provide containment of surface fluids such as stormwater , and in emergency conditions , crude oil . The Sites shall be enclosed with masonry walls which provide compldte control of surface fluids . All truck gates and maint gates shall have raised thresholds with either sloped ramps or raised stoops which preclude surface fluids from leaving the Site. All surface fluids shall be diverted to catch basins . (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 2 . 1 , describing the diversion of surface fluids to catch basins , hereby are incorporated by reference . (c) If the tanks ruptured and spilled oil , the containment area for spill will contain approximately 69, 000 cubic feet , almost two times the minimum volume required by the State Division of Oil & Gas . The containment area is below grade, approximately 4 feet lower than the water processing area and 6 feet lower than the adjacent street level . The containment area will contain any oil spilled from tanks . (d) The Project will use all new pipelines , valves , fittings , tanks and equipments . All pipelines will meet the requirements of the State of California Pipeline Safety Act . All items will be protected against corrosion by one or more of the following : polyvinyl cloride coating on exterior buried pipelines , cathodic protection system, .paint coating on all above-ground pipelines and equipment , epoxy coating on interior of water processing tanks , and use of stainless steel fittings . (e) An Operating Procedures Manual shall be prepared for the training of all new employees . Each operator shall be required to thoroughly understand and be able to 29 . 5954 ! i operate each piece of equipment in the system. The operating procedures manual shall explain in detail how to operate each piece of equipment and include emergency procedures , shut-down of equipment and notification of authorities . 2 . 10. 2 Potential Effect : Various chemicals , both non- hazardous and hazardous , are utilized in oil and gas drilling production. Chemicals may be used to enhance the drilling mud properties during drill of oil and gas wells , for dehydration of the crude oil to marketable quality, to inhibit corrosion, scale and baterial levels , and in treatment of the produced water to suitable reinjection quality. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvuort of Findings : The f ollowing measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) None of the chemicals used for the Project will be used in large quantities , or would ever be used off of the 2 Project sites . (b) All federal and state regulations , including worker and community disclosure programs , site Business Emergency Plans , Proposition 65 warnings , hazard labelling and Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plans , shall be fully enforced . (c) Fact (c) in Support of Finding 1 . 2 . 1 , describing emergency action and spill prevention plans , hereby is incorporated by reference . (d) If a localized spill of hazardous materials should occur , it would be contained in the area and no impact would occur outside the Site boundaries . Procedures to mitigate impacts to on-site workers shall be included in the Operations Manual . (e) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 10 . 1 , describing the containment of materials on the Drill Site and Facility Site, hereby are incorporated by reference . (f) The State Department of Health Services has 30 . approved a list of non-hazardous additives to rotory mud . There is nothing in the Huntington Beach oil field drilling history that would indicate that hazardous materials will be required . Therefore, to the greatest extent feasible , the operator of the Project shall use non-hazardous additives in the Project 's drilling mud . 2 . 10. 3 Potential Effect : Crude oil will be transported in an existing Chevron pipeline from the Facility Site to Chevron' s re-pump station. There is a possibility of pipeline rupture . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The addition of the Project' s oil stream will reduce pressure on the Chevron crude oil pipeline . Because the oil from the Project will enter the pipeline at a higher temperature than the oil currently in the pipeline , it will reduce the viscosity of the oil . This n turn will reduce pressure in the pipeline, thereby decreasing the possibility of pipeline rupture when compared to existing conditions . (b) Even if the pipeline ruptured , the only oil that would be released would be the oil in the pipeline between block valves . Automatic shutdowns would keep the incremental volume of oil attributable to the Project at an insignificant level in the event of pipeline rupture . (c) Chevron completed hydrotesting its pipeline in March 1988 to a pressure of 750 pounds per square inch. The test was witnesses and approved for the State Fire Marshal by the Karin Corporation on March 8, 1988. 2 . 10 . 4 Potential Effect : The rupture of the water pipeline , or accidents resulting from pedestrian access to trenches during the construction of the water pipeline , could have public safety impacts . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvvort of Findings : (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 2 . 3 , describing measures mitigating any impacts on water quality, hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The water pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors , so that any sudden 31 . 5954 • 0 pressure drop will trigger an alarm and shutdown the transfer pumps . This will ensure that any release of water is minimal . (c) No trenches will be left open at night , and several hundred feet of pipeline will be installed , surveyed , inspected and trench back-filled in one day. During the day, barriers will ensure that pedestrians do not approach trenches . This is standard operating procedure in the construction of underground pipelines . 2 . 10. 5 Potential Effect : Oil-related gas leaks could lead to fire or explosion. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) A report made by GeoScience Analytical , Inc . (Roberti Report) determined that a Los Angeles fire and explosion was caused by gas that was biogenic , or the result of bacterial decay, not related to a leaking pipeline or poorly abandoned oil well . It was also determined that only one of the 91 gas samples analyzed in Huntington Beach was petrogenic , or associated with oil . Eighteen samples subsequently taken in Huntington Beach were determined to be of biogenic origin. These studies indicated that the problem of methane gas hazard does not have its roots in oil field-related activity. (b) Water flooding in an oil reservoir reduces the amount of free gas and lessens the possibility of gas leaks . Any free gas flows to areas of low pressure. Producer wells are areas of low pressure , and gas will flow there throughout the process of repressurization. Injection wells will be located away from poorly abandoned wells and in close proximity to producing wells , ensuring that free gas will flow to the producing wells . (c) A contingency plan shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval , with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any abandoned wells which do not meet present day abandonment requirements finds its way to the surface . (d) . The possibility of fire and/or explosion at the drill rigs does not constitute a significant impact because the drilling equipment will be equipped with Class III blowout prevention equipment . Additionally', the reservoirs of the Project are well known, having been produced for over 60 years . The reservoir pressure is 32 . well below hydrostatic and will be easily controlled by the drilling mud . Therefore , all anticipated subsurface pressure will be contained by the weight of the mud . If a fire did occur , the open cellars will allow the Fire Department to control it from the surface , without having to enter the cellars . 2 . 11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 2 . 11 . 1 Potential Effect : The Project could increase the demand on police protection services , including potential increases in vandalism and noise nuisance complaints . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The f ollowing measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) The proposed site will be enclosed with a decorative masonry wall and with a landscaping berm. The wall and landscaping will avoid providing easy access to the site . (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 9 . 1 , relating to noise impacts , hereby are incorporated by reference . 2 . 11 . 2 Potential Effect : The potential for fire , odor or spill incidents could increase the demand on fire prevention/protection services in the City. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Supuort of Findings : (a) The Fire Department has stated that it will actually have a reduced workload due to the consolidation of many oil producing sites onto one fully equiped and protected site . (b) An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection. (c) - Oil wells shall be provided with gas detection systems from cellars to 24-hours monitoring locations . (d) Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel . (e) Metal open-grate covers shall be provided over the top of well cellars . 33 . 5954 I (f) Storage tanks shall have pre-plumbed foam injection systems and exterior deluge water spray systems . (g) The foam storage area and foam quantity shall be approved by the Fire Department, and fire hydrants shall be located in areas approved by the Fire Department . Hydrogen sulfide detection systems approved by the Fire Department shall be installed on the Project perimeter , and fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department shall be installed thoroughout the Site. All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installed in compliance with Fire Department Specification 403 . (h) A full vapor recovery system shall be installed , as required by SCAQMD. (i ) Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted , which shall never be completely full at once. (j ) Fact (c) in support of Finding 1 . 2 . 1, describing emergency action and spill prevention plans , hereby is incorporated by reference . (k) Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department, showing how the Site will be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state . 2 . 11 .3 Potential Effect : Paving of the Project site will increase stormwater , which could present additional demands on the sewer system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 .2 . 1 hereby are incorporated by reference . (b) The Project will take about 30, 000 barrels per day of produced water from Chevron, which is currently dumping approximately 40, 000 barrels per day into the sanitary sewer . Therefore , instead of adding more brine to the sewer system, this Project will relieve the system of about 30 , 000 barrels per day. 34. 2 . 11 . 4 Potential Effect : During the initial drilling operation, a fresh water demand of 21 ,000 gallons per day is expected . Following completion of the drilling phase , the water consumption rate will be reduced to 1 ,000 per day. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Fresh water use over the long term is roughly equivalent to an industrial use one-third of an acre in size , or about 6 attached residential units . Adequate water supplies exist to meet this demand . The available fire flow is 5 ,500 gallons per minute with 3 , 000 gallons per minute being the required fire flow at present . 2 . 11 . 5 Potential Effect : During the drilling phase, one truck per day normally will be required to collect and transport liquid oil wastes and one truck per day will be required to handle solid waste collected in medal bins . Following the completion of drilling. the volume of wastes will be reduced , particularly for solid wastes such as drill cuttings . The periodic cleaning of tanks during the operational phase will require the removal of sludge from tank bottoms . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The f ollowing measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insiginficance. (a) Dumping operations for oil field wastes are normally handled by contract service firms that specialize in waste disposal of this type . (b) Sludge from tank bottoms will be deposited in a special dump equiped to handle this type of waste, and deposited in a Class I landfill . (c) All waste materials , both liquid and solid , shall be collected and separated on site , temporarily stored in medal bins -and tanks , and trucked to appropriate disposal sites . (d) ' Liquid wastes shall be collected and stored in closed tanks to prevent the spread of odors prior to disposal . (e) Collection areas for waste shall be located 35 . 5954 within peripheral walls and will not be visible to residential areas . 2 . 11 . 6 Potential Effect : The Project will require three business lines and a public phone on each parcel. It is likely that an intercommunication line between the two parcels will be included in the telephone system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The General Telephone Company provides telephone service to the City and to the Project site . No current inadequacies exist in the system. The number of lines servicing the Project site is less than the number of lines which would be required if medium density residential units were developed on site . 2 . 12 ENERGY CONSERVATION 2 . 12 . 1 Potential Effect : Drilling rigs and production wells will be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps . Although a small amount of natural gas will be produced with the oil , additional natural gas may be required for production. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Proper sizing of the well pumps will save energy through reducing the amount of electricity used . (b) Southern California Edison anticipates no problems in providing electrical service of the Project . Southern California Gas Company, which will provide any additional natural gas required , also anticipates no problems in providing service for the Project . (c) The purpose of the Project is to produce approximately 9 . 0 million barrels of crude oil . 2 . 13 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 2 . 13 . 1 'Potential Effect : Compared to existing conditions , the Project will have a growth inducing impact of 57 units . At the City-wide average of 2 . 78 persons per household , the 57 dwelling units would house 158 persons . 36 . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The 158 persons who would be housed on the Project site represents a population factor of only 0. 08% of the estimated 1987 City population. (b) The Project will utilize two entire City blocks for the approximately 20-30 year life of the project . Based on existing General - Plan and zoning designations , but for the Project, both of the two Project blocks would be used for residential purposes . Under existing zoning, 108 residential units could be constructed on the site . Based on existing General Plan designation, 76 units could be built on the site . Therefore , the growth inducing effect of the Project could be less than the number of units that could be developed on the Project site . 2 . 14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2.14. 1 potential Effect : Two other oil consolidation projects are in the process of assembly within the vacinity of the Project . The cumulative effects of these projects could have impacts on subsidence and gas leaks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 1 . 2 , describing the effect of the Project on subsidence, hereby are incorporated by reference . (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 10. 5 , describing the effect of water flooding on gas leaks , hereby are incorporated by reference . (c) In the Wilmington Field , water flooding took place in an area where many wells were damaged badly and not properly abandoned . Even with this large number of improperly abandoned wells , there were no problems with injected. fluids or oil or gas surfacing via these conduits . (d) The Signal Hill Field was unitized and three water floods initiated in 1974 . Many of the wells in this field are as old as the Huntington Beach wells ; however , the Division of Oil & Gas has received notification of only two wells that have leaked . 37 . 5954 2 . 14. 2 Potential Effect : In conjunction with present , approved and proposed developments in the City, the secondary traffic effects of the induced growth from the Project could result in negative impacts on the circulation system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Growth induced by the Project is controlled by General Plan policies relating to land use designations and circulation improvements . The land use designations used to generate estimates of secondary traffic impacts from induced growth are consistent with the current General Plan designation. Therefore , the traffic generated by these uses has been taken into account in establishing the General Plan circulation plan of arterial streets and highways . This plan adequately accommodates traffic estimated to be generated by General Plan designated uses . (b) A recent traffic study conducted for The Waterfront , which evaluates cumulative traffic levels for the area of the City most likely to receive heavy traffic flows from proposed development , confirmed that traffic will operate at acceptable levels of service. (c) The 108 vehicles which would be associated with the 57 units that constitute the growth inducing effect of the Project represent a very small increment of the new vehicles that will be within the area. 2. 14. 3 Potential Effect : In conjunction with present , approved and proposed projects, traffic resulting from growth generated by the Project may add to noise levels adjacent to circulation routes . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Implementation of the Optimum Noise Levels , and of the Noise Abatement Plan for Traffic Noise contained in sections 2 . 3 . 3 and 2 . 3 . 4 of the General Plan Noise Element ,. will mitigate these cumulative impacts to a level of insignificance . 2 . 14 . 4 Potential Effect : In conjunction with existing, approved and proposed future projects , noise within the 38 . vicinity of the Drill Site and Facility Site could exceed City noise standards . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Facts in Support of Finding 2 .9 . 1 hereby are incorporated by reference . (b) The measurement of noise is , by definition, a "cumulative" measurement . It takes into account background noise . By conditioning the Project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, the City has ensured that cumulative noise levels will not constitute a significant adverse impact . 2 . 14. 5 Potential Effect : As a secondary effect of the Project , automobile emissions associated with the 57 dwelling units which constitute the Project ' s growth inducing impact , in conjunction with present , approved and proposed development , could result in adverse impacts on air quality. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) It is estimated that vehicle emissions constituting a secondary impact of the Project would result in a daily increase in vehicle emissions of 3 ,596 . 3 pounds per year . Any air quality impacts from these emissions is offset nearly 6 times by the improvement in air quality caused by replacement of existing old oil storage tanks with new tanks fully equipped with an effective vapor recovery system. The Project will result in a net reduction of 21, 198 pounds of hydrocarbons per year . 2 . 14 . 6 Potential Effect : As a secondary impact of the Project , the 57 units which constitute the growth inducing effect of the Project could generate additional school children, .potentially causing adverse effects on the school system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Huntington Beach city schools have been experiencing a steady decline in enrollment over the past 39 . 5954 10 years . Capacity in the school district currently exceeds student enrollment , and the schools impacted by the Project are particularly well situated to absorb additional enrollment . Projected increased in enrollment from the Project do not exceed the excess capacity, even taking into account the increase in enrollment expected from other projects . (b) The total number of students from approved and proposed projects , including Project-related additions , is 371 new students . Enrollment projections for Union High School District schools shows a decrease in enrollment until 1990 . An increase is projected from 1991 through 1995 . Even with new development , however , the expected increase in students from 1992 to 1995 is not enough to compensate for the expected decline in enrollment between 1987 and 1992 . (c) An increase in dwelling units does not necessarily result in an increase in enrollment . From 1975 to 1987 , an additional 9 ,223 new dwellings were constructed and occupied within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Union High School District . The net _ impact on enrollment was a minus 3 , 141 students , a 37% decrease . 40 . 3 . FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 3 . 1 "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE 3 . 1 . 1 Description of Alternative : The EIR defines the _ "no project" alternative as the maintenance of existing conditions . 3 . 1 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that the "no project" alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Findine: (a) This alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore , compared to the Project, it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . The existing wells would continue to produce oil , gas and water without the addition of the modern vapor recovery systems , secondary recovery techniques , or state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment which will be incorporated into the Project . The continuing use of existing technology would have detrimental impacts on air quality compared to the proposed Project . The potential for arresting subsidence, or causing rebound , through injection would be eliminated . Excess brine produced by Chevron would not be used for injection and would continue to be disposed of in the sewer system, thereby increasing the load on the sewer system in comparison with the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not be able to withstand the impacts of major earthquakes . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project ; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site ; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M 8 or greater . This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls , which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project . In weighing the positive and negative environmental effects of this alternative , however , the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . 41 . 5954 3 . 1 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "no project" alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not permit the recovery of 9 million barrels of crude oil by using secondary recovery techniques . Existing oil operations would only recover approximately 500, 000 barrels of crude oil . 3 . 1 . 4 Feasibility: The "no project" alternative is feasible . 3 . 2 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 3 . 2 . 1 Description of Alternative : The "reduced intensity" alternative would involve drilling a number of limited injector wells for secondary oil recovery, while retaining all existing wells currently operating in the 160-acre subsurface unit . Approximately 10 injector wells would be drilled from one of the existing well sites . 3 .2 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: (a) The "reduced intensity" alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore , compared to the proposed Project , it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . Some of these residences are within 20 feet of existing wells ; therefore , these residences wold be less buffered from the noise impacts of reworking the wells . This impact would be particularly significant in the Villa St . Croix site , in which five wells are located within 20 feet or less of condominium units . This alternative also would require routing high- pressure water through lengthy pipelines under City streets . The possibility of leakage or rupture is a significant adverse impact which would not exist under the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not withstand a major earthquake . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project ; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; 42 . and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M8 or greater . This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls , which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project . In weighing the positive and negative effects of this alternative, however , the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . 3 . 2 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The reduced intensity alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not result in optimum well spacing for injection. As a result, only approximately 3 . 5 million barrels of oil would be recovered . 3 .2 . 4 Feasibility: The reduced intensity alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : This alternative would require acquiring the right-of-way for a considerable length of underground pipes . Liability for these pipes could be significant . According to the Project applicant , the capital costs of this alternative would be approximately the same as the capital costs of the proposed Project , while less than one-half as much oil would be recovered . In addition, this alternative would not result in optimum spacing of injector wells . If secondary recovery did not work under this system, there would be no way to determine the source of the problem or to cure the situation. Based on these factors , the Project applicant has concluded that this alternative is not economically feasible. This alternative also is not feasible because it is not desirable , and may not be possible , to conduct well reworking in very close proximity to residential units . 3 . 3 MORE INTENSE DRILLING PROGRAM 3 . 3 . 1 Description of Alternative: Under this alternative , the proposed Project would proceed as described in this EIR, except that the drilling program would be' intensified to reduce the time span of the drilling phase of the Project . A second rig would be used for drilling . The two-year drilling period would be reduced by several months . 3 . 3 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby 43 . 5954 • i finds that the "more intense drilling program" alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding : (a) Approximately twice as many heavy trucks per day (6 instead of 3) would be required for the intensified drilling program. Two 165 ' rigs would be used instead of one , resulting in increased aesthetic impacts and making it more difficult to control noise and light/glare impacts . (b) The Project site would be occupied for oil-producing facilities for a slightly shorter perior of time , because the intensified drilling program would reduce the construction period by several months . Impacts of the drilling phase, including the noise and traffic impacts (although intensified) , also would occur over a slightly shorter time period . When weighed against the more severe and unmitigable impacts that would occur, however , this reduction in the drilling period does not outweigh the negative impacts of this alternative . 3 . 3 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "more intense drilling program" alternative would meet the Project objectives . 3 . 3 . 4 Feasibility: The "more intense drilling program" is feasible , but would be more expensive than the proposed Project . 3 . 4 ABANDONMENT OF ALL OIL PRODUCTION SITES 3 . 4 . 1 Description of Alternative : Under this alternative , the oil facilities on the Project site would be removed and 22 scattered wells over 160 acres would be abandoned , as under the proposed Project . The Project site and the 6 scattered sites would be available for other uses . Residential use is designated in the General Plan and Zoning. 3 . 4 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that - this alternative is environmentally preferable to the Project because it would eliminate the effect of oil-producing uses throughtout the Project Area. 3 . 4. 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not result in the recovery of any oil from subsurface reserves . Therefore, it would not meet the Project objectives . It would reduce the amount 44. I , of oil which could be produced from 9 million barrels to zero barrels . 3 .4.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : It is highly unlikely that (a) oil operators would all agree to abandon their operations , and that (b) ready purchasers would be available for all of the sites . Therefore, in order to implement this alternative, the City probably would have to acquire the mineral rights for some or all of the wells and pay for the abandonment of the site . Some arrangement would have to be made with the surface owner for reimbursement of all or part of the City' s costs following resale and/or development of the sites . 3 . 4. 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : It is highly unlikely that (a) oil operators would all agree to abandon their operations , and that (b) ready purchasers would be available for all of the sites . Therefore, in order to implement this alternative , the City probably would have to acquire the mineral rights for some or all of the wells and pay for the abandonment of the site. Some arrangement would have to be made with the surface owner , for reimbursement of all or part of the City' s costs following resale and/or development of the sites . As a rough estimate, using the industry standard of $15 , 000 per average daily barrel of oil production, it would cost approximately $1 . 5 million to acquire the mineral rights for all of the sites . Abandonment would cost approximately $ . 5 million. This alternative also would deny access to the royalty owners of the mineral estates . Even assuming that the mineral rights could be purchased for $1 . 5 million, this figure does not assign any value to unrecovered reserved , which are worth in the tens of millions of dollars . This alternative does not appear to be "feasible . " 3 . 5 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 1 3 . 5 . 1 Description of Alternative : Parcel 1 consists of 1 . 8 acres located to the northwest of the Project site on Pine Street , bounded by Yorktown Avenue on the north and Utica Avenue on the south. The Project applicant .does not own the surface or the minerals below the surface . The Huntington Beach Company is the mineral owner . Parcel 1 is surrounded by approximately 15 acres of fee land which 45 . 5954 • s is also owned by the Huntington Beach Company. Although this land is currently vacant , it is zoned for residential use . Parcel 1 is too small to accommodate all of the facilities and well cellars necessary for an oil recovery facility . Therefore, the Project Facilities Site would still be used . Although some wells could be drilled on Parcel 1 , some wells would still have to be drilled on the Project Drill Site. 3 . 5 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: Approximately 60% of the wells for the Project could be drilled on Parcel 1 . Although this would result in a slight reduction in the effects of the drilling phase on the neighborhood surrounding the Project , drilling would affect two residential neighborhoods instead of one. Although the area surrounding Parcel 1 currently is vacant , it is proposed for residential use . 3 . 5 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would meet Project objectives . 3 . 5 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . y Facts in Support of Findings : The Project applicant does not own Parcel 1 . Furthermore, in order to use Parcel 1 as a surface site to drill into the southeast part of the Springfield Unit, the Project applicant would have to acquire pass-through rights from the Huntington Beach Company. The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development for the 17 acres site surrounding Parcel 1 , and that it would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the project . Therefore , the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfullly in a reasonable period of time , taking into account economic , social , and legal factors . 3 . 6 PARCEL 1 DEVELOPMENT ONLY 3 . 6 . 1 Description of Alternative : A project designed to be solely developed from Parcel 1 would need to be reduced in size considerably. The 1 . 8 acre site would 46 . only accommodate approximately one 20-well cellar and much smaller production/injection facilities . The southeastern portion of the Project could not be reched by directional wells from Parcel 1 so that portion of the reservoirs could not be exploited . 3 . 6 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative would have environmental effects of a magnitude equal to those of the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: Although the area surrounding Parcel 1 currently is vacant , it is proposed for residential use . Project impacts , including aesthetic impacts , the possibility of fire and impacts of an M 8 or greater earthquake , would affect any such residences . 3 . 6 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not meet Project objectives because it could only recover approximately 4.5 million barrels of oil , since injection rates would have to be lower and the Project could not be fully developed. It would also take longer to produce the reserves . 3 . 6 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : The Project applicant does not own Parcel 1 . Furthermore, in order to use Parcel 1 as a surface site to drill into the southeast part of the Springfield Unit , the Project applicant would have to acquire pass-through rights from the Huntington Beach Company. The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development for the 17 acres site surrounding Parcel 1 , and that it would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the project . Therefore , the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfu111y in a reasonable period of time , taking into account economic, social , and legal factors . 3 . 7 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 2 3 . 7 . 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 2 is located on the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue . . It consists of approximately 3 . 5 acres and is zoned 01 . Parcel 2 is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Springfield Unit and would require wells to be drilled which exceed the normal parameters of conventional 47 . 5954 directional drilling. The site is too small for the facilities necessary to accompany the wells . Therefore, the Project Facilities Site would still be used . 3 . 7 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally preferable to the Project . Facts in SuuRort of Finding: tinder this alternative , there would be a greater buffer to residential areas , and there is direct access for traffic from Beach Boulevard . However , impacts from the drilling of wells would affect residential areas and would be increased under this alternative because the wells would require a longer trajectory and would take considerably longer to drill . Drilling impacts would affect the people living in part of the Seabridge project because Parcel 2 is in close proximity to this development . The first phase , Seabridge Village, consists of 200 units . The second phase , the Lakes at Seabridge, is planned for 202 units . 3 . 7 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would meet the Project objectives . 3 . 7 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Su port of Findings : The Project =- applicant has been advised that the property owner is planning a surface development on Parcel 2 when the existing Chevron wells are no longer viable , and would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of this alternative . Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time , taking into account economic , social , and legal factos . In addition, the site configuration would not allow for the drilling of the necessary wells , even if the facilities were located on the Facilities Site . 3 . 8 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 3 3 . 8. 1 Description of Alternative : Parcel 3 is bounded by Memphis Avenue on the north, Knoxville Avenue on the south, Florida Street on the west , and Beach Boulevard on the east . It consists of approximately 8.2 acres- and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) facing Beach Boulevard and R-3 (Medium-High Residential) on the remainder of the site . 48 . Parcel 3 is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Springfield Unit and would require wells to be drilled which exceed the normal parameters of conventional directional drilling. 3 . 8 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is environmentally preferable to the Project . Facts in Sul of Finding: More buffering could be provided since the site is larger . The parcel also has good access for truck traffic to Beach Boulevard . The facilities and the wells could be consoliated onto one site , reducing the perimeter of the oil producing area. This could reduce the impacts of oil operations on surrounding residential areas . 3 . 8 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not meet the Project objectives . Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would not meet the Project objective of recovering 9 million barrels of oil , because wells would be unable to reach the thickest part of the resevoir . It is estimated that it would result in the recovery of a maximum of 6 million barrels of oil . 3 . 8 .4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development on Parcel 3 when the existing Chevron facilities are no longer viable, and would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the alternative . Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time , taking into account economic , social , and legal factors . The alternative also would be economically infeasible . The land costs of the alternative site would be prohibitively high because of the C-4 and R-3 zoning . No acre-for-acre swap with the Project site would be possible . 3 . 9 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 4 3 .9 . 1 Description of Alternative : Parcel 4, McCallen Park, is located west of Delaware Street between Yorktown Avenue and Utica Avenue . It is a dedicated park owned by 49 . 5954 the City and consists of approximately 5 . 1 acres . Surrounding uses are residential (R-2) . 3 . 9 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: The facilities and the wells could be consolidated onto one site , reducing the perimeter of the oil-producing area. However , the possibility of upset would be increased , because all of the wells wuold have to penetrate the main portion of th Inglewood-Newport fault . Well damage by fault movement is a well-known phenomenon in the Wilmington oil field , even when no measurable earthquake has been recorded . Although surface damage to the wells or surface installations probably would not occur , down hole damage at the fault intercept would preclude the proper abandonment of the damaged wells . This alternative also would eliminate a dedicated park. This impact could be partially mitigated by conducting a "land swap" in which the Project applicant traded the Project site to the City. A park could then be established on the Project site . The park on the Project site would be smaller than the existing 5 .8 acre site and would consist of two separate parcels divided by a street , creating an adverse safety impact . 3 . 9 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would meet Project objectives . 3 . 9 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Suvvort of Findings : The City does not desire to exchange McCallen Park for the Project site . Safety issues relating to the need to drill through the Inglewood-Newport fault make this a less desiable alternative . 3 . 10 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 3 . 10 . 1 •Description of Alternative : Neither block of the Project site would be used for oil recovery, but instead would be made available for development of a medium density residential development project . Oil recovery operations would continue at the 22 wells within the 160 acre Project Area. At density levels permitted -by the General Plan, the Project Site could be developed with 76 residential units . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code 50. allows for the development of 108 units , and other provisions of the Code may allow a greater number of units for special purpose projects . 3 . 10. 2 Comvarison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Supvort of FindinE: (a) This alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore , compared to the Project , it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . The existing wells would continue to produce oil , gas and water without the addition of the modern vapor recovery systems , secondary recovery techniques , or state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment which will be incorporated into the Project . The continuing use of existing technology would have detrimental impacts on air quality compared to the proposed Project . The potential for arresting subsidence, or causing rebound , through injection would be eliminated . Excess brine produced by Chevron would not be used for injection and would continue to be disposed of in the sewer system, thereby increasing the load on the sewer system in comparison with the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not be able to withstand the impacts of major earthquakes . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project ; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M 8 or greater . This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls , which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed ,Pr*oject . In weighing the positive and negative environmental effects of this alternative , however , the City has. determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . (c) In addition, the "medium density residential development" alternative also has the adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction and occupancy of residential units . The construction of 51 . 5954 residential units would involve the temporary impacts normally associated with residential construction including increased noise , traffic, dust, risk of fire , paint fumes and trash. Such construction related impacts would occur for a period of between nine months and a year . Traffic and parking impacts are associated with the sales of rental activities involved with residential units . Such sales or renting related impacts may occur over a period of between three months and a year . Noise, traffic , parking, risk of residential fire are impacts assocites with the occupancy of residential units . Such impacts would be permanent . 3 . 10. 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "ono project" alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not permit the recovery of 9 million barrels of crude oil by using secondary recovery techniques . Existing oil operations would only recover approximately 500 .000 barrels of crude oil . 3 . 10.4 Feasibility: This alternative is feasible . 52 . SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 for the Springfield Oil Recovery Project identifies certain unavoidable adverse significant environmental effects . CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 , requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether the project should be approved. If the decision-maker concludes that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the effects may be considered acceptable. The final EIR identifies three separate unavoidable adverse environmental impacts . (See Section 2 . 0, Draft Supplemental EIR 88-1. ) These are: 1 . Aesthetics : The neighborhood surrounding the project site consists of medium density residential uses, predominantly in small (8-10 unit) developments and single family residences . Views of the project site from adjacent residences will consist of the screening block wall and landscaping. During the initial drilling phases, drill rigs will be visible. During the production and injection phases, temporary drill rigs will be used periodically for maintenance and will be visible from adjacent residents . Tanks will be visible above the wall . Exhibit B 5954 - 2 . Risk of Upset/Health and Safety Under a worst case scenario, assuming that all oil tanks are full and the tanks are set out in an open field without surrounding perimeter walls, there is a "rare" (defined in the standard methodology for risk assessment as 1: 10, 000 to 1: 1, 000, 000 chance that an oil tank fire could result in radiant heat effecting the area outside of the immediate Project Site . 3 . Seismic If an earthquake of Magnitude of 8 . 0 or greater on the Richter Scale occurs with its epicenter in the project area, structures in the Project Area, including tanks and walls of the project facilities, would be damaged. Each of these effects is lessened by the mitigation measures suggested in the Supplemental and original EIR, which measures will be required and incorporated into the project . Here, the City of Huntington Beach does find that the benefits flowing to the City and its residents from the project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects which remain after the project ' s mitigation measures are implemented and that the aforementioned unavoidable significant effects are acceptable, based on the following overriding considerations : -2- (1466d) 5954 1. The project will replace 16 existing tanks which are not subject to controls for air pollutants. This will result in a net reduction of 21, 198 pounds of hydrocarbon emissions per year, or an 87 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. Further reductions in hydrocarbon emissions will also result from the elimination of other antiquated process equipment . 2 . The project will bring about the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area . As a result, the abandoned sites can be used for other purposes consistent with their General Plan and zoning designations . Fewer City residents will live adjacent to or in close proximity to oil activities . This will have positive aesthetic impacts on the City. 3 . The project will result in the abandonment to modern standards of wells which have been abandoned, but not to modern standards . This will contribute to the public health and safety. 4 . The consolidation of a number of oil producing operations on a single site, with modern fire control equipment, will reduce the workload of the City fire department . This will contribute to the public health and safety. 5 . The project will use approximately 30, 000 barrels of produced water for injection purposes . This water is currently dumped into the sanitary sewer by Chevron. This will reduce the demand on the sanitary sewer system. 6 . The use of water injection has been shown to arrest subsidence, or even cause a slight rebound. The project will help to arrest subsidence in the Huntington Beach oil field. -3- (1466d) 5954 Another important consideration is the increase in oil production, from 5 million barrels of oil to 9 million barrels ultimately, resulting from the consolidation. The oil will be used to produce gasoline (180 million gallons) and other petroleum products (162 million gallons) . -4- (1466d) 5954 w RESOLUTION NO. 1407 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 88-1 (SEIR 88-1 ) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 (EIR 86-1 ) FOR THE SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT LOCATED ON TWO BLOCKS ON OPPOSITE CORNERS, SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST, AT THE INTERSECTION OF SPRINGFIELD AVENUE AND CALIFORNIA STREET AND INCLUDING 160 ACRES OF SCATTERED WELL OPERATIONS BOUNDED GENERALLY BY FLORIDA STREET ON THE EAST AND SEVENTEENTH STREET ON THE WEST, BETWEEN YORKTOWN AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND MEMPHIS AVENUE ON THE SOUTH . WHEREAS, the Springfield Oil Recovery Project ' s related entitlements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 have been prepared; and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 was adopted and certified by the Planning Commission on September 3 , 1986 and City Council on October 20 , 1986 ; and The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the preparation of the Supplemental and original Environmental Impact Reports; and All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given have been heard by the Planning Commission either through written notice or during a public hearing on October 18 , 1988 , and such responses and comments as were made were duly noted and responded to, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : -1- SECTION 1 . The Planning Commission does hereby find that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all state and local guidelines therefore . SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission has considered all significant effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and- Environmental Impact Report. No. 86-1 , together with existing and proposed measures to mitigate such significant effects . ( Exhibit A) SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission further finds that through the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures , the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the Springfield oil Recovery project can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance . SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission finds that the benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by virtue of the consolidation of existing oil producing operations to a single site, abandonment to modern standards of many existing wells and replacement to modern standards of existing tanks override the unmitigatable effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact No . 86-1 and the att.ached statement of overriding considerations (Exhibit B) . -2- M SECTION 5 . The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 and recommends that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th. day of October , 1988, by the following roll call vote : AYES : Slates , Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES : Ortega, Livengood ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: Higgins ATTEST: Mike Ad&ins Victor L p Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: City A rney -3- FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-1 AND USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 18, 1988 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 88-11: 1 . A change of zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-O" (Oil Operations excluding Oil Drilling) to "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-01" (Oil Operations including Oil Drilling) will be compatible with surrounding residential uses based on the mitigation measures described in the environmental impact report and conditions of approval outlined in the use permit . 2 . The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations is encouraged because it reduces the land area used for oil facilities . Approximately 5 .3 acres of developable land will become available after the consolidation on the two blocks (3 . 1 acres) . a. Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Code provides for the establishment of "01" Districts . The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet) , as required by Section 9682 . 1. The proposed drill site for the project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by Section 9682 . 1. Therefore, it is consistent with this provision. b. Section 9682 .2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements . All City-required dedications will be implemented through the terms of recorded tract maps for the project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. C. The project will remove oil producing facilities from six sites, thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites scattered over 160 acres . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the project site, the appearance of the project site will be improved over its present condition. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. d. With respect to the Land Use Element, policies have been translated into a Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix. The matrix shows that as a miscellaneous district -01 may be combined (i .e. is consistent) with any land use category. It is specifically consistent with low, medium and medium-high density residential categories . e. A General Plan Amendment is not required because the combined acreage of the proposed site is less than 20 acres as set forth in the Size Criteria for Determining Land Use Designations table contained in the General Plan. 3 . Compliance with Title 8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the use permit conditions of approval will ensure that the proposed use allowed by the zone change will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety of the community. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 88-25 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the oil operation will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building based on the conditions of approval and compliance with Title 8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 2 . The proposed oil operation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Oil activities are a consistent use in any land use category of the General Plan. 3 . The project will consolidate oil operations in one location reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Springfield Oil Field area. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes . The project will result in the abandonment and reclamation of 31 existing wells and 16 oil storage tanks in the Springfield Oil Field area and will not significantly increase traffic in that area. 4 . Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 have determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations . 5 . Conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 88-18 have eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible. 6 . The project will result in increased tax revenues for the City of Huntington Beach and other governmental agencies . 7 . The conditions of approval are desirable and necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the official General Plan Land Use Plan and the best interests of the City. Further, they include mitigation measures set forth in the final Environmental Impact Report that will assure the location is suitable for the type of use proposed and the following will not result or be reasonably anticipated from the project: (1613d) 4* • • a. Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration; hazards from explosion, contamination or fire. b. Hazards occasioned by unusual volumes or character of traffic; incompatibility with surrounding development. c. The project complies with all requirements of Division 9 except for the identified reduction of exterior sideyard setback and other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 8 . The conditions imposed include requirements of plans for the disposition of oil wells and for oil operations on the property involved, and for berms, walls and landscaping to provide maximum feasible screening of equipment and facilities . 9 . Changes have been required and incorporated in the project to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the project : a . The Division of Oil and Gas enforces rules and regulations for the conduct of secondary recovery operations . b. The mitigation measures incorporated, proposed and adopted, together with application of the rules and regulations of the Division of Oil and Gas, will substantially mitigate all of the adverse impacts identified. C. Public agencies other than the City, including the Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District, will be reviewing aspects of this project for mitigation measures as to matters within their responsibility and jurisdiction, including subsurface operation, water and air quality; the critical need for oil renders infeasible the alternatives of no project or delayed project implementation, and alternative surface locations are infeasible because of their limited availability, or the greater disruption to the community at large which would result therefrom. 10 . The subject location is centrally located within the Springfield Oil Field area; relocating the proposed project to another site is infeasible. 11. No substantial public purpose would be served by denial of Use Permit No. 88-25 but rather: a . It is important that the United States develop its existing oil reserves in order to meet its energy needs without increasing dependence on foreign oil, and this project will result in incremental recovery of approximately nine (9) million barrels of oil; and (1613d) b. The project will consolidate oil operations in one location, reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Oldtown portion of the City; and C. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes; and d. The project will be only an interim use of the surface site involved, and at the termination of the project the site will be available for recycling into other uses; and e. The project will benefit and accrue to the general welfare of the City and the public for each of the reasons set forth above. f . Approval of this project will reduce the immediate demand for more off-shore drilling facilities . 12 . The proposed oil consolidation project will have 24 hour on-site personnel, and will be safer than the existing non-continuous monitoring of the 31 scattered wells to be abandoned throughout the area. This will reduce the possible attraction of younger persons . 13 . The most modern, efficient energy-saving equipment available will be integrated into the design of the project which will mitigate environmental impacts such as fire, noise and air pollutants . 14 . The applicant has submitted a property value protection plan which will be implemented as outlined prior to drilling . 15 . The reduction of the exterior sideyard setbacks from ten (10) to seven (7) feet is based on the following: a . The reduction of exterior sideyard setback for perimeter wall from ten (10) to seven (7) feet will result in improved design and utility of the project. b. The design of the perimeter wall will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C. The proposed perimeter wall with reduced exterior sideyard setbacks will not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare or setback privacy of surrounding residents . d. Variation in the wall setback is provided through the_ use of offset landscape pockets, architectural features and building materials . (1613d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 : 1 . The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13 , 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout . a . This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect . 2 . All structures and procedures shall conform to Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the Division of Oil and Gas Standards . 3 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical and building permits . 4 . Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effect. The monitoring shall include the following : a . Pre-drilling phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance shall be identified. b. Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10 : 00 PM to 7 : 00 AM) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to those specified in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance by the Department of Community Development. Where an exceedance of the ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. c. During the Drilling Phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10 : 00 PM to 7:00 AM at least once each month during the drilling phase of the project. The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards by the Department of Community Development . Where an exceedance of the standards is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. (1613d) I 5 . Measures to reduce erosion should be used during grading and site preparation. Grading and construction activity shall take place only during daylight hours after the issuance of a grading permit by the Department of Public Works . 6 . During grading and excavation, earthmoving crews should observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined. 7 . A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits . 8 . All street improvements for both tracts shall be constructed after the heavy grading operations have been completed (approximately 4 weeks) : a . Final grading, or any other on-site construction shall be prohibited until street improvement construction has commenced. b. Prior to any on-site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed subject to the approval of Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works . 9 . Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval . a. All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 15 .22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and all trees shall be minimum 24 inch box type and spaced no greater than 20 feet on center . 10 . Prior to the installation of the office structure, elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Department of Community Development . a. The office shall be on a permanent foundation. b. A mansard or pitched roof shall be provided. 11 . The applicant shall enter into a franchise agreement with the City for the installation of the underground connection between the two blocks, if required. 12 . The proper sealing and abandonment of the existing scattered wells which will be replaced by this project shall take place following approval of this project and must be completed within eighteen (18) months . (1613d) 13 . The surface of the site shall be completely covered with an appropriate material (such as gravel and/or asphalt) subject to review and approval of Public Works Department, Fire Department and Department of Community Development . 14 . A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to commencing drilling. Said report shall describe noise levels at the Angus Oil Site property line and at the nearest residential property line both with and without an acoustical blanket on the drilling rig and service rigs . The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Code. This shall include the provisions of the Ordinance Code regarding maximum hourly average noise level at nearest residential property line of 50 dB(A) during nighttime hours between 10 :00 PM and 7:00 AM. a. A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances . 15 . Noise attenuation for the drilling operation, oil operation and service operation shall be provided pursuant to the Oil Code and noise report specified in Condition 14 . a. If a noise violation occurs, the entire drilling structure shall be wrapped with an acoustical blanket for greater noise attenuation. 16 . No speakers, loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. 17 . Excessive vibration, as determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be reduced to acceptable levels . 18 . Light and glare shall be directed and/or screened to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent residential properties and shall be energy efficient subject to the requirements of the Building Division. 19 . All heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 freeway and the subject site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street . For entrance to the site only Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used. 20 . Heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7: 00 AM and 5 : 00 PM. a. No trucks may park on the street . b. Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no stacking shall occur on public streets . (1613d) 21. All employees must park on either one of the two sites . Street parking for employees is prohibited. 22 . Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the applicant . 23 . All driveways shall be radius type and constructed to Public Works standards . 24 . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the drilling site between the hours of 10 : 00 PM and 7 : 00 AM except for emergency purposes . 25 . An overload permit should be obtained from City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets . 26 . Pipe string cementing through fresh water bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent salt water intrusion into the aquifers . 27 . A system for collecting, treating, and releasing storm drainage shall be provided by the applicant and approved by Public Works . 28 . Brine water shall not be released into the sewer system. 29 . A recycling plan of produced zone water back to the oil reservoir shall be certified by the Department of Oil and Gas and the Fire Department and all its conditions and restrictions shall be adhered to. 30 . Well service rigs shall be operated no more than a total of 48 days per year between 7: 00 AM and 7: 00 PM or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. 31. No more than four well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double muffled and utilize acoustical blankets as deemed necessary. 32 . All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. 33 . The 24-hour phase drilling rigs shall not operate for any longer than 2 years from the issuance of the first drilling permit . 34 . Drilling rigs for remaining wells after the two year period shall comply with the conditions . Subsequent drilling shall be limited to 7 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM only. 35 . Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in overall height. (1613d) 36 . Upon completion of 24 hours phase of injection and producer wells, all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 37 . Service rigs shall be erected only during maintenance operations. 38 . Applicant shall install blowout prevention equipment . 39 . A full vapor recovery system shall be installed as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District . 40 . Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and shall never be completely full at once. 41 . Prepare and submit a Preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP) prior to issuance of building permits . A completed Emergency Action Plan based on as-built plans shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The Emergency Action Plan shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto street from site(s) would be handled (stockpile of sand, etc. ) , the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment . A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis . In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc. , not otherwise covered in the Emergency Action Plan shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . 42 . All oil must be transported by pipeline. 43 . An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection pursuant to Fire Department requirements . 44 . Celler requirements for oil wells : a. A hydrogen sulfide detection system for the well cellers shall be installed subject to Fire Department requirements . b. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel on-site. c. Provide metal open grate covers over top of well cellers . 45 . Storage tank requirements : a. Must have pre-plumbed foam injection system installed on all product storage tanks . b. Must have exterior deluge water spray system on all storage tanks . (1613d) 46 . Site requirements : a. All diked areas must have an engineered drainage system. b. Foam storage area and foam quantity to be approved by Fire Department. C. Fire hydrants to be located in areas approved by Fire Department . d. Hydrogen sulfide detection system approved by Fire Department to be installed on project perimeter. e. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed throughout the site. f . All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installation must comply with Fire Department Specification 403 . 47 . Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent waste accumulation. 48 . Twenty-one (21) abandoned wells have been identified within the project area which do not meet present day abandonment requirements . A contingency plan shall be outlined and submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any of these abandoned wells finds its way to the surface. 49 . Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Community Development Department, showing how the site shall be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. 50 . There shall be no pipeline construction activity outside the site except between the hours of 7 : 00 AM and 8 : 00 PM, Monday through Saturday only. 51. The methodology of oil recovery for this project shall be limited to water injection only. Steam injection shall be prohibited. 52 . The operator shall at all times during the term of this use permit and any renewal or extension thereof, maintain in force an insurance policy or policies insuring the operator, and as additional insureds the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the City acting in the due course of his employment or in his official capacity, against liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person or per- sons, and from all costs and expenses of litigation brought against the insureds, in the amount of not less than $5, 000, 000 combined single limit for any injury to persons or damage to property, including (but not limited to) (1613d) injury or damage from subsidence and rebound, resulting from the operator ' s oil drilling and production activities and operations incidental thereto. Said policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced by the insurance carrier without the City having been given at least ten days prior written notice thereof by such carrier. The operator shall not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. At all times during the term of this use permit, and any renewal or extension thereof, the operator shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate or certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or carriers showing that said insurance is in effect in the amount required above, and a copy of each insurance policy. If the operator does not keep said insurance in full force and effect, the City may obtain said insurance and pay the premium thereon, which shall then be deemed a debt owned by the operator to the City. Any insurance policies procured by the operator hereunder shall provide that the insurance carrier waives all rights of subrogation against the City. If the City obtains any policy of insurance hereunder, such policy shall include a waiver by the insurance carrier of all rights of subrogation against the operator . 53 . The Planning Commission shall review and, if necessary, may modify the conditions as set forth in this use permit, at the first regular Planning Commission meeting in October, 1989 , and at five year intervals thereafter, and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews; provided that the phrase "change of ownership" as used herein shall not include any sale or other transfer to a corporation, partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas-United States and/or one or more of its shareholders or subsidiaries owns the controlling interests, or any sale or transfer so long as Angus or one of its subsidiaries retains responsibility for the operation of the project . 54 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . The City shall provide the property owner with notice in writing of any violation, stating the City' s basis for determining that a violation has occurred. The property owner shall have a reasonable time to cure the violation before further action is taken. The City may require the property owner with notice in writing to submit written documentation of actions taken to remedy any violation and may require monitoring or other procedures to be implemented in order to ensure that the violation will be cured. 55 . The nine member project review committee shall monitor the project during the drilling phase and semi-annually thereafter. The Fire Department and Community Development departments shall jointly provide a staff liaison. (1613d) I 56 . The property value protection plan submitted by the applicant shall be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 57. In the event that either one of the two blocks is to be without 24-hour supervision, a video camera shall be employed on-site to provide continuous surveillance which can be monitored by personnel at the other site. 58 . All mitigation measures given in DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 shall be includd as conditions of approval . 59 . Emergency discharge through the City' s storm drain shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. CONCERNED CITIZENS FO Ek4lNT1NGTON BEACH — �u"Tti"c 9 Alsuha Lane QCj 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 October 26, 1988 Honorable Mayor John Erskine C/O City Clerk, Connie Brockway P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Erskine: RE: Planning Commission Decisions on the Springfield Oil Recovery Project, October 18th Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach, a non-profit corporation, wishes to appeal the following decisions: C-4a - To adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and EIR No. 86-1 by adopting Resolution No. 1402 with Statement of Overriding Considerations. C-4b - (1) Approve and recommend that the City Council Adopt Zone Change No. 88-11. (2) Approve Use Permit No. 88-25. Concerned Citizens are appealing for the following reasons: A. The accepted SEIR's are inadequate, for all reasons stated in our prior letters and our consultants, The Chambers Group. B. The intensity of the oil operation is an industrial use that does not conform with the General Plan. C. Individual citizen-lot owners have every right to enforce their CC&R's recorded February 21 , 1978 in Official Record of- Orange County. D. The citizens are being subjected to the degradation of their residential neighborhood by industrial uses. E. The 57 or 60 conditions for oil drilling permits will never be entirely met or entirely enforced as past experiences with the applicant, Angus Oil, has already proved to us. We will appreciate your kind and fair attentions to our appeal. Very Truly yours, Ma M Pa h Treasurer R d Abramso Se tary eele, rest en� > cc: John Murdock, Attorney CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR John Westermier, CHAMBERS GROUP HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • • HUNTINGTON 8WH TO Honorable Mayor, City Council FROMGracel ic We Members & Connie Brockway, City Clerk Councilwoman SUBJECT DATE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 1988 ACTION ON EIR 88-4, ZC 88-11, AND UP 88-25 I hereby request a public hearing before the City Council of the above applications. I challenge the Planning Commission's certification of EIR 88-4, Zone Change No. 88-11, and Use Permit No. 88-25 for the following reasons: The mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report and related conditions on the Use Permit do not offer the neighborhood adequate protection or address all of the concerns presented with an expanded industrial use project in an established residential neighborhood. c� a N c, 1548d �.` �� GW:ss Q7 om� un _ r s� � C-4a DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 88-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 86-1 FOR THE PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (IN CONJUNCTION WITH ZONE-, CHANGE NO, 88-1 AND USE PERMIT NO, 88-25) APPLICANT: ANGUS PETROLEUM DSEIR 88-1 was prepared to augment the analysis of the proposed Springfield Oil Recovery Project undertaken in EIR 86-1. EIR 86-1 was published and certified as a Final EIR by the Planning Commission in September 1986 . Subsequent to the certification of Final EIR 86-1 and approval of Zone Change No. 86-4 and Use permit No. 86-7 by the City Council on October 20, 1986, litigation brought against the City and ANGUS Petroleum Corporation (As Real Party in Interest) by the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach, Inc. was settled by an agreement dated May 9, 1988 . As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City Council ' s vote of October 20, 1986 by which Final EIR 86-1 was certified, was set aside. On May 6, 1988, new Project applications were filed with the City. Those applications are for Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25 . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1, once certified and recertified respectively, are intended to be utilized for the aforementioned discretionary actions . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 (DSEIR 88-1) and adopt and recertify Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 (EIR 86-1) adopting attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407 with Statement of Overriding Considerations . Commissioner Higgins stated he would be abstaining due to a possible conflict of interest . C-4b ZONE CHANGE NO, 88-11/USE PERMIT NO, 88-25 APPLICANT: ANGUS PETROLEUM CORP. Zone Change No. 88-11 is a request to rezone Block A (Tract 12747) and add the "01" suffix to allow the drilling of new oil wells . At present, both Blocks A and B are currently zoned to allow existing oil operations . Block A requires the "01" suffix to permit new oil wells . Use Permit No. 88-25 is a request to establish a consolidated drill site and oil operation of both blocks . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -14- (1527d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (a) Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt Zone Change No. 88-11; and (b) Approve Use Permit No. 88-25 based on findings and conditions of approval . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED (COMMENTS WERE TAKEN ON BOTH ITEM C-4a AND ITEM C-4b) Spencer Sheldon, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project . He explained the $1 million bond set aside was for the protection of the property owners; if property was sold during drilling operations that resulted in a loss of value the owner would be reimbursed out of the fund and if at the end of the drilling one-third would go to the City, one-third would go to the property owners and one-third would go to Angus . John Carmichael, 5772 Bolsa Avenue, Vice President-Angus, spoke in support of the project. He stated there were 250 royalty interests that were also supportive. Jean Melious, Attorney representing Angus, spoke in support of the project and the environmental impact report . She feels the project furthers the policies of the general plan and the environmental impact report is very thorough. John Van Houten, acoustical engineer for project, said he has already complied with Condition #14 (regarding noise) and has identified 9 control measures . John Westermeier, Chambers Group (EIR consultants) , referred the Commission to a letter submitted by his firm outlining the inadequacies of the environmental impact report. He said it is highly flawed and needs to be revised and recirculated. His firm completed comments/responses and the City took the responses and made rebuttals to them. George Corry, 1801 California Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He said the CC&R' s for the tract are not being adhered to and the property owner ' s rights are being taken away. He feels additional setbacks should be required and the 30 foot wall surrounding the project is not aesthetically compatible. He feels the $1 million trust bond set up for protection of property values is worthless since none of the property owners wish to move. Joyce Riddell, representing the Chamber of Commerce, feels the project is environmentally attractive and will clean up the present oil rigs, is financially beneficial, will provide employment and a model for the resolution of oil problems in the downtown area . She urged the Commission to approve the project . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -15- (1527d) Richard Abramson, 1804 Alsuna Lane, urged the Commission to deny the project. He feels it is incompatible with the area and does not comply with the General Plan. He feels all of the sites should be considered together rather than separately. Jay Osborn, 203 Utica, feels the findings for approval are misleading and urged the Commission to deny the project . He suggested the project be moved to the neighborhoods of the people in favor of the proposal . Roger Fain, 1908 California Street, feels the project should proceed because it will clean up the neighborhood. Robert Biddle, 1710 Pine Street, feels were gambling with people' s quality of life. He is not in favor of turning a residential neighborhood into an industrial area. He feels the project will create noise, traffic and safety problems . Don Griswold, 1906 California Street, spoke in support of the project . He feels the consolidations should be considered one by one since they can be shut down at anytime. Edd Schofield, 1101 Bennett Street, spoke in support of the project and feels Angus has been very cooperative with the homeowners . Kevin Williams, 5912 Carbeck Drive, spoke in support of the project . He has lived near an oil rig for 11 years and has no objection. Kathy Walker, 2730 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, spoke in support of the project. William Trinkl, 1901 Delaware Street, spoke in support of the project . He said his mouse (all outside windows) face the proposed project . He requested Angus to take $600 from his share of the bond and install double paned glass in his bedroom. Nancy Hartmann, 1810 Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to the location of this project . She feels there are better areas . She suggested the project be located at City Hall and urged denial . Denise deVines, 1811 California Street, spoke in opposition to the project . She said she is a writer and works at home and feels she will be severely impacted by the noise from the project . Mickey Shafer, 1818 Delaware, said the site was originally an oil field when the homes were built and purchased and feels the current oil wells should be cleaned up and is in favor of the consolidation. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -16- (1527d) Pamela A. Steele, 1713 California Street, President of Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the project . She said the project has turned into a war between the homeowners and Angus Petroleum and suggested that the Commission put dollar signs out of their minds and think only about the people. She said the promises made by Angus Petroleum are not beneficial to the homeowners . She suggested they change their name to "Anguish Petroleum" . Petitions in opposition were submitted. R. J. Serra, 1717 California Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project . He asked the Commissioners if they would like to have the project in their front yards for two years . He feels Angus is taking all of the little problems and concentrating it in one spot and then trying to control them. Wesley Abramson, 1713 California Street, said he was speaking for the " little people" (the homeowners) . He said his home was his major investment and was concerned about the investment along with the safety of his children. He does not feel a $1 million bond is a sufficient set-aside for probable law suits . He urged denial . Mary Parrish, 1919 Alsuna Lane, spoke in opposition to the project . Martha L. Block, Omnibus Environmental Services , 2134 Main Street, said she was hired to do an air quality analysis of the site and found it to contain major air pollutants . Patricia West, 215 Wichita Avenue #204 , spoke in support of the project . She feels the oil wells in the City need consolidation. Randy Readman, 16000 Villa Yorba Linda, spoke in support of the project . Leo Shaffer, 1902 California Street, said Angus is not a good neighbor and that the $1 million bond is not a big enough carrot to wave in front of the property owner' s noses especially when Angus can cancel the bond at anytime. Lynn Moseman, 1716 Delaware, stated her home is 100 feet from the proposed project . She said nothing like this has ever been constructed in a residential area and that up to this point the City is unable to enforce code violations she wonders why they say they can enforce possible violations with this project . She does not feel the bond is sufficient, the project is wrong and urged the Commission to support the citizens of the City. Dean Albright, 17301 Breda Lane, asked if the existing oil lines could hold the added pressure from this project . He said that a map in being prepared presently to show where all of the oil lines are because no one knows their locations. He feels this project is wrong for this particular site and that the City should protect its citizens . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -17- (1527d) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bourguignon asked legal counsel if the bond could be cancelled. The City Attorney said if the project is cancelled the bond can be cancelled. Commissioners that supported the request felt that a consolidation was needed and that the proposed site needed cleaning up and that it would be an improvement for the City even though they did share the homeowner ' s concerns . Commissioners that were opposed felt that the oil operation (an industrial use) should not be located in a residential area, questioned its conformance to the General Plan, felt the environmental impact report had too many holes and the land use was not compatible. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY AS ADEQUATE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 AND ADOPT AND RECERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1407 AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Ortega, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1 : 1. DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as amended June 1986, and all State and local quidelines therefore. 2 . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Springfield Oil Recovery Project and is found to be certifiable. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - DSEIR 88-1: 1. The economic and social benefits of the proposed Springfield Oil Recovery Project outweigh the project ' s unavoidable adverse seismic, energy, aesthetic/view and cumulative air quality impacts . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -18- (1527d) MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1• 1. The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13 , 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout . a. This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect . MITIGATION MEASURES 2 THROUGH 58 ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 . A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-11 AND USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Leipzig, Bourguignon NOES: Livengood, Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 88-11 : 1 . A change of zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-O" (Oil Operations excluding Oil Drilling) to "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-01" (Oil Operations including Oil Drilling) will be compatible with surrounding residential uses based on the mitigation measures described in the environmental impact report and conditions of approval outlined in the use permit. 2 . The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations is encouraged because it reduces the land area used for oil facilities . Approximately 5 .3 acres of developable land will become available after the consolidation on the two blocks (3 . 1 acres) . a . Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Code provides for the establishment of "O1" Districts . The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet) , as required by Section 9682 . 1 . The proposed drill site for the project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by Section 9682 . 1. Therefore, it is consistent with this provision. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -19- (1527d) b. Section 9682 .2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City i may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements . All City-required dedications will be implemented through the terms of recorded tract maps for the project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. c. The project will remove oil producing facilities from six sites, thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites scattered over 160 acres . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the project site, the appearance of the project site will be improved over its present condition. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. d. With respect to the Land Use Element, policies have been translated into a Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix. The matrix shows that as a miscellaneous district -01 may be combined (i .e. is consistent) with any land use category. It is specifically consistent with low, medium and medium-high density residential categories . e. A General Plan Amendment is not required because the combined acreage of the proposed site is less than 20 acres as set forth in the Size Criteria for Determining Land Use Designations table contained in the General Plan. 3 . Compliance with Title 8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the use permit conditions of approval will ensure that the proposed use allowed by the zone change will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety of the community. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 : 1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of the oil operation will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building based on the conditions of approval and compliance with Title 8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 2 . The proposed oil operation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Oil activities are a consistent use in any land use category of the General Plan. 3 . The project will consolidate oil operations in one location reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Springfield Oil Field area . Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes. The project will result in the abandonment and reclamation of 31 existing wells and 16 oil storage tanks in the Springfield Oil Field area and will not significantly increase traffic in that area . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -20- (1527d) 4 . Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 have determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations . 5 . Conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 88-18 have eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible. 6 . The project will result in increased tax revenues for the City of Huntington Beach and other governmental agencies . 7. The conditions of approval are desirable and necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the official General Plan Land Use Plan and the best interests of the City. Further, they include mitigation measures set forth in the final Environmental Impact Report that will assure the location is suitable for the type of use proposed and the following will not result or be reasonably anticipated from the project : a . Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration; hazards from explosion, contamination or fire. b. Hazards occasioned by unusual volumes or character of traffic; incompatibility with surrounding development . c. The project complies with all requirements of Division 9 except for the identified reduction of exterior sideyard setback and other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 8 . The conditions imposed include requirements of plans for the disposition of oil wells and for oil operations on the property involved, and for berms, walls and landscaping to provide maximum feasible screening of equipment and facilities . 9 . Changes have been required and incorporated in the project to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the project : a . The Division of Oil and Gas enforces rules and regulations for the conduct of secondary recovery operations . b. The mitigation measures incorporated, proposed and adopted, together with application of the rules and regulations of the Division of Oil and Gas, will substantially mitigate all of the adverse impacts identified. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -21- (1527d) C. Public agencies other than the City, including the Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District, will be reviewing aspects of this project for mitigation measures as to matters within their responsibility and jurisdiction, including subsurface operation, water and air quality; the critical need for oil renders infeasible the alternatives of no project or delayed project implementation, and alternative surface locations are infeasible because of their limited availability, or the greater disruption to the community at large which would result therefrom. 10 . The subject location is centrally located within the Springfield Oil Field area; relocating the proposed project to another site is infeasible. 11. No substantial public purpose would be served by denial of Use Permit No. 88-25 but rather: a . It is important that the United States develop its existing oil reserves in order to meet its energy needs without increasing dependence on foreign oil, and this project will result in incremental recovery of approximately nine (9) million barrels of oil; and b. The project will consolidate oil operations in one location, reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Oldtown portion of the City; and C. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes; and d. The project will be only an interim use of the surface site involved, and at the termination of the project the site will be available for recycling into other uses; and e. The project will benefit and accrue to the general welfare of the City and the public for each of the reasons set forth above. f . Approval of this project will reduce the immediate demand for more off-shore drilling facilities . 12 . The proposed oil consolidation project will have 24 hour on-site personnel, and will be safer than the existing non-continuous monitoring of the 31 scattered wells to be abandoned throughout the area. This will reduce the possible attraction of younger persons . 13 . The most modern, efficient energy-saving equipment available will be integrated into the design of the project which will mitigate environmental impacts such as fire, noise and air pollutants . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -22- (1527d) 14 . The applicant has submitted a property value protection plan which will be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 15 . The reduction of the exterior sideyard setbacks from ten (10) to seven (7) feet is based on the following : a. The reduction of exterior sideyard setback for perimeter wall from ten (10) to seven (7) feet will result in improved design and utility of the project . b. The design of the perimeter wall will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed perimeter wall with reduced exterior sideyard setbacks will not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare or setback privacy of surrounding residents . d. Variation in the wall setback is provided through the use of offset landscape pockets, architectural features and building materials . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 : 1. The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13 , 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout . a . This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect . 2 . All structures and procedures shall conform to Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the Division of Oil and Gas Standards . 3 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical and building permits . 4 . Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effect . The monitoring shall include the following: a . Pre-drilling phase monitoring . Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance shall be identified. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -23- (1527d) 1 • • b. Start of Drilling . Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10 : 00 PM to 7: 00 AM) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to those specified in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance by the Department of Community Development . Where an exceedance of the ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. c . During the Drilling Phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10 : 00 PM to 7: 00 AM at least once each month during the drilling phase of the project . The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards by the Department of Community Development . Where an exceedance of the standards is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. 5 . Measures to reduce erosion should be used during grading and site preparation. Grading and construction activity shall take place only during daylight hours after the issuance of a grading permit by the Department of Public Works . 6 . During grading and excavation, earthmoving crews should observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined. 7 . A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits . 8 . All street improvements for both tracts shall be constructed after the heavy grading operations have been completed (approximately 4 weeks) : a . Final grading, or any other on-site construction shall be prohibited until street improvement construction has commenced. b. Prior to any on-site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed subject to the approval of Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -24- (1527d) 9 . Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval . a . All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 15 .22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and all trees shall be minimum 24 inch box type and spaced no greater than 20 feet on center . 10 . Prior to the installation of the office structure, elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Department of Community Development . a . The office shall be on a permanent foundation. b. A mansard or pitched roof shall be provided. 11. The applicant shall enter into a franchise agreement with the City for the installation of the underground connection between the two blocks, if required. 12 . The proper sealing and abandonment of the existing scattered wells which will be replaced by this project shall take place following approval of this project and must be completed within eighteen (18) months . 13 . The surface of the site shall be completely covered with an appropriate material (such as gravel and/or asphalt) subject to review and approval of Public Works Department, Fire Department and Department of Community Development . 14 . A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to commencing drilling . Said report shall describe noise levels at the Angus Oil Site property line and at the nearest residential property line both with and without an acoustical blanket on the drilling rig and service rigs . The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Code. This shall include the provisions of the Ordinance Code regarding maximum hourly average noise level at nearest residential property line of 50 dB(A) during nighttime hours between 10 : 00 PM and 7 : 00 AM. a . A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances . 15 . Noise attenuation for the drilling operation, oil operation and service operation shall be provided pursuant to the Oil Code and noise report specified in Condition 14 . a. If a noise violation occurs, the entire drilling structure shall be wrapped with an acoustical blanket for greater noise attenuation. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -25- (1527d) I 16 . No speakers, loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. 17. Excessive vibration, as determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be reduced to acceptable levels . 18 . Light and glare shall be directed and/or screened to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent residential properties and shall be energy efficient subject to the requirements of the Building Division. 19 . All heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 freeway and the subject site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street . For entrance to the site only Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used. 20 . Heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7 : 00 AM and 5 : 00 PM. a. No trucks may park on the street . b. Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no stacking shall occur on public streets . 21. All employees must park on either one of the two sites . Street parking for employees is prohibited. 22 . Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the applicant . 23 . All driveways shall be radius type and constructed to Public Works standards . 24 . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the drilling site between the hours of 10 : 00 PM and 7: 00 AM except for emergency purposes . 25 . An overload permit should be obtained from City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets . 26 . Pipe string cementing through fresh water bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent salt water intrusion into the aquifers . 27 . A system for collecting, treating, and releasing storm drainage shall be provided by the applicant and approved by Public Works . 28 . Brine water shall not be released into the sewer system. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -26- (1527d) ! 0 29 . A recycling plan of produced zone water back to the oil reservoir shall be certified by the Department of Oil and Gas and the Fire Department and all its conditions and restrictions shall be adhered to. 30 . Well service rigs shall be operated no more than a total of 48 days per year between 7 : 00 AM and 7: 00 PM or daylight hours, whichever is shorter . 31. No more than four well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double muffled and utilize acoustical blankets as deemed necessary. 32 . All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. 33 . The 24-hour phase drilling rigs shall not operate for any longer than 2 years from the issuance of the first drilling permit . 34 . Drilling rigs for remaining wells after the two year period shall comply with the conditions . Subsequent drilling shall be limited to 7: 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM only. 35 . Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in overall height . 36 . Upon completion of 24 hours phase of injection and producer wells, all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 37 . Service rigs shall be erected only during maintenance operations . 38 . Applicant shall install blowout prevention equipment. 39 . A full vapor recovery system shall be installed as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District . 40 . Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and shall never be completely full at once. 41. Prepare and submit a Preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP) prior to issuance of building permits . A completed Emergency Action Plan based on as-built plans shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The Emergency Action Plan shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto street from site(s) would be handled (stockpile of sand, etc. ) , the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment . A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis. In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc. , not otherwise covered in the Emergency Action Plan shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -27- (1527a) 0 42 . All oil must be transported by pipeline. 43 . ',An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection pursuant to Fire Department requirements . 44 . Celler requirements for oil wells : a . A hydrogen sulfide detection system for the well cellers shall be installed subject to Fire Department requirements . b. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel on-site. C. Provide metal open grate covers over top of well cellers . 45 . Storage tank requirements : a . Must have pre-plumbed foam injection system installed on all product storage tanks . b. Must have exterior deluge water spray system on all storage tanks . 46 . Site requirements : a. All diked areas must have an engineered drainage system. b. Foam storage area and foam quantity to be approved by Fire Department . C. Fire hydrants to be located in areas approved by Fire Department . d. Hydrogen sulfide detection system approved by Fire Department to be installed on project perimeter. e. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed throughout the site. f . All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installation must comply with Fire Department Specification 403 . 47 . Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent waste accumulation. 48 . Twenty-one (21) abandoned wells have been identified within the project area which do not meet present day abandonment requirements . A contingency plan shall be outlined and submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any of these abandoned wells finds its way to the surface. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -28- (1527d) 0 0 49 . Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be :submitted subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Community Development Department, showing how the site shall be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. 50 . There shall be no pipeline construction activity outside the site except between the hours of 7 : 00 AM and 8 : 00 PM, Monday through Saturday only. 51 . The methodology of oil recovery for this project shall be limited to water injection only. Steam injection shall be prohibited. 52 . The operator shall at all times during the term of this use permit and any renewal or extension thereof, maintain in force an insurance policy or policies insuring the operator, and as additional insureds the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the City acting in the due course of his employment or in his official capacity, against liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person or per- sons, and from all costs and expenses of litigation brought against the insureds, in the amount of not less than $5, 000, 000 combined single limit for any injury to persons or damage to property, including (but not limited to) injury or damage from subsidence and rebound, resulting from the operator ' s oil drilling and production activities and operations incidental thereto . Said policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced by the insurance carrier without the City having been given at least ten days prior written notice thereof by such carrier . The operator shall not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. At all times during the term of this use permit, and any renewal or extension thereof, the operator shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate or certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or carriers showing that said insurance is in effect in the amount required above, and a copy of each insurance policy. If the operator does not keep said insurance in full force and effect, the City may obtain said insurance and pay the premium thereon, which shall then be deemed a debt owned by the operator to the City. Any insurance policies procured by the operator hereunder shall provide that the insurance carrier waives all rights of subrogation against the City. If the City obtains any policy of insurance hereunder, such policy shall include a waiver by the insurance carrier of all rights of subrogation against the operator . PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -29- (1527d) 53 . The Planning Commission shall review and, if necessary, may modify the conditions as set forth in this use permit, at the first regular Planning Commission meeting in October, 1989, and at five year intervals thereafter, and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews; provided that the phrase "change of ownership" as used herein shall not include any sale or other transfer to a corporation, partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas-United States and/or one or more of its shareholders or subsidiaries owns the controlling interests, or any sale or transfer so long as Angus or one of its subsidiaries retains responsibility for the operation of the project. 54 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . The City shall provide the property owner with notice in writing of any violation, stating the City' s basis for determining that a violation has occurred. The property owner shall have a reasonable time to cure the violation before further action is taken. The City may require the property owner with notice in writing to submit written documentation of actions taken to remedy any violation and may require monitoring or other procedures to be implemented in order to ensure that the violation will be cured. 55 . The nine member project review committee shall monitor the project during the drilling phase and semi-annually thereafter . The Fire Department and Community Development departments shall jointly provide a staff liaison. 56 . The property value protection plan submitted by the applicant shall be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 57 . In the event that either one of the two blocks is to be without 24-hour supervision, a video camera shall be employed on-site to provide continuous surveillance which can be monitored by personnel at the other site. 58 . All mitigation measures given in DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 shall be includd as conditions of approval . 59 . Emergency discharge through the City' s storm drain shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. PC Minutes - 10/18/88 -30- (1527d) t. publish Nov . 10, 19 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal to Planning Commission ' s Approval of Zone Change No . 88-11/Use Permit No . 88-25/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report 86-1 (Springfield Oil Recovery Project) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, November 21, 1988 TIME: 7 : 00 PM SUBJECT: Appeal to Planning Commission' s Approval of Zone Change No . 88-11/Use Permit No . 88-25/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 APPLICANT: Angus Petroleum Corporation APPELLANTS: 1 . Councilwoman Grace Winchell 2 . Concerned Citizens For Huntington Beach LOCATION: The project site consists of two blocks located on opposite corners as follows (See attached map) : Block A (Tract 12747) : bounded by Springfield Avenue, Delaware Street, Rochester Avenue and California Street; and Block B (Tract 12746) : bounded by Toronto Avenue, California Street, Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . PROPOSAL: Zone Change: Rezone Block A (Tract 12747) from "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities (OT-2-0) " to "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities with Oil Drilling(OT-2-01) " to allow the drilling of new oil wells . Use Permit : To develop an oil consolidation drillsite on Block A and associated oil facility on Block B. Also requested is a reduction of exterior sideyard setbacks from ten ( 10) feet to a minimum seven (7) feet for the north and south elevations of both blocks . (1150d-13) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. ) On October 18, 1988 the Planning Commission approved and recommended adoption of Zone Change No . 88-11, approved Use Permit No . 88-25 and approved and recommended certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City Council is required to certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 88-1 and recertify Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to any action on Zone Change No . 88-11 and Use Permit No . 88-25 . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Department of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications , exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Connie Brockway City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5227 Dated Nov. 8, 1988 (1150d-14) AV ir cz rY@ R2 0 �21 p t, C F-C ►� CF-E-CD "'Y'°'" 5 r R2-0-cD d RA ,.,,,,,.,,: •I:•I• . N.I I L„,,, R2 C o � CF-E-CD x o 0 o co-o �� R2-0 R2 R2 VcDo 0 0 t o VIIC♦ -c 0� Q R2.0 R2-0 -CD [0100C°1 o o .... . ... CF-R RI RI RI RI RI R2 CD 0 oN�Nlo O o CD_ I N N r r i _O q _p ¢ x c N -CD-0 Y _ ,f' \ l_ ..,..,�� R2 C4I $PRINGFIt LD r I \ . 4� r• p p r,.w,D. •lf r ' W I / N N 0 0 0 0 a ¢ n1 M x '`•, �+ rP� Z RI RI RI RI RI R21 -O RWN1— 51FR b ¢ a ... t,� a , - E l+ a W _ a b,�/'IEO V ��, ♦ co'•14;.. `y°t, R1-O �- d� -0 -0 ��'a 0 R3-0 •R3-0 1 RI-0 J i., RI RI I R-I R-IR2MOOT aC2RIRI R2 C4 -0 SPECIE LAN _--_ I ([VITM Rf.NDCI.I Y 1,1 _p p �D.II.MO �\ (DISTRICT ZI •� I I RI RI RI RI �' RI R2 r _per• \.o _p m 0 e tiw. Jo, AYE I R2-PD-10 no, CF-E R RI N RI p 1 ':>�. 'r. I B I . -lJ az•Po-a 4�.... 7 I RI RI R 1 I 1. I' o (0-Y[R T�IIDnI.) R ( N♦ VILL 4V �r3S1 '.� -....l!i I� y R� RI wt� `"r.�_q -v. PLAN(DI RIOT TM)I� t.\�,_.. .._... ....,. I Z C 86-1 J/U P 80 -Z S/E I R 130--wl � HVSMWTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE TO: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK THE AP LISTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR NOTIFICATION MAILINGS BY THE CITY CLERK MUST BE THE LATEST AVAILABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISION 7 HBOC REOUIREMBM *** ***PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE LIST MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE MAILING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS SENT. DATE IIGNATURE VERIFYING ADEQUACY OF LIST %CEIVE© l CIT CLE" M. %-W?jw9 M E ' i 12131 472-169 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI-I C/T-V CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 2-000 n/AlA.1 5'7. Nu,►.�„tea r. .roof. C4. 92 64AS A4-Iffla E RA@WSAFAr7- s4'r '?wry Govmciz- M0,45rinYs / -r OP Oil— DAW=-0PMW_Al-r: ut,S , M�— RbVA47y ;rtWc.,4r-. CXJlq-w M/AW-AS:,Z,4 4- C. A pG' /2iGf mr A-AeI [ i•✓¢ I'_.,/�/-,I.� ciL Yt/., Lu>f'v2Sr / gMS.,O,a--.orri,�rc._, i�✓ Nu�.ryi�/G?oar 1�i5�ae�c/. .oieOaf�c�.2.r, �S 'Ts�-/i-1'�/ems 2�i5c2.r��iv.�7o2y, o e De .4L c- Wi// /Ar J=b2 LDSr �o`�.4L-TiG'.r', 7o l;4T.�. /4NA0 Ft rW/Z? oiVt:�.eiu�1 J'G to 2 J l � r 4 . /1%/�T i�• .Lf l.�J C 864 N. Bundy Drive Los Angeles, California 90049 1_`N'•r 4 Attachment 4 r a Huntington Beach Energy Series Report * 1 Preserving Surface Access to Underground Oil Reserves in Developed Areas Q Q o O� ° U 0 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division February, 1981 Y a+ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITE' COUNCIL Ruth S. Bailey, Mayor Ruth Finley, Mayor Pro-Tem Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Bob Mandic Ron Pattinson John Thomas PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Porter,Chairman Grace H.Winchell, Vice-Chairman Wesley Bannister Ralph H.Bauer Bruce Greer Beverly J. Kenefick Jean Schumacher Frank B. Arguello Acting City Administrator J T i R0,1TINGTON BEACH ENERGY SERIES REPORT #1 PRESERVING SURFACE ACCESS TO UNDERGROUND OIL RESERVES JN DEVELOPED AREAS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAMES W. PALIN, DIRECTOR FEBRUARY, 1981 'T ,t i - 1 Table of Cor terrts PAGE FORWARD 1 DEFINITIONS 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.0 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS TO OIL RESERVES 7 3.0 UNITIZATION, WATERFLOODS, AND THE ACCESS PROBLEM 9 3.1 Primary, Secondary and Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology 10 3.2 Difficulties in Achieving Unit Operations 11 3.3 Voluntary Unitization: Difficulties in Assigning Costs and Benefits 12 3.4 Compulsory Unitization 14 3.5 Advantage of Unitization 15 4.0 ROLES FOR CITY GOVERNMENTS IN PROTECTING ACCESS 17 TO UNDERGROUND OIL POOLS 5.0 TOWNLOT/DOWNTOWN ANALYSIS 19 5.1 Brief History 19 5.2 Remaining, Recoverable Oil 22 . 5.3 The Possibility of a Unitization and Enhanced Recovery Pro jec t 27 5.4 Surface Area Requirements 30 ` 6.0 POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE CITY 36 6.1 Existing Land Use Regulations 37 6.2 Strategies to Help Preserve Existing Drill Sites 37 6.3 Strategies to Help Preserve Other Oil Operation Sites 39 6A Permitting New Wells in the Townlot Area 39 6.5 New Oil Sites 40 6.6 Other Possible Actions 42 7.0 CONCLUSION 43 8.0 NOTES 44 APPENDICES 45 Append ix A: Questionnaire and Cover Letter 45 Appendix B: Bibliography 48 i • Foreword This is the first in a series of discussion papers on energy-related issues prepared by the Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach is a center for many energy-related activities including onshore and offshore oil production, an electricity-generating power plant, and increasingly, solar and conservation technologies. The purpose of these reports is to help the City to accommodate the continued production of so vital a resource as energy while at the same time mitigating as much as possible and, adverse impacts on the community that such activities might incur. Other reports in this series include the following: #2 Fiscal Impacts of Oil Operations in Huntington Beach #3 Oil Spill Contingency Planning in Huntington Beach #4 Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology 05 Solar and Conservation Policies at the Local Level This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic. and Atmospheric Administration, lirnlrr the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and from the California Coastal Commission under the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. 1 .' Definitions This report necessarily discusses some technical aspects of the oil industry. Consequently, some terms are used which may not be familiar to the reader. The following definitions section was prepared to help clarify the meaning of some of these terms. To ease reference, all words defined in this section are italicized the first time they appear in the report's text. Consolidation: The practice of concentrating oil facilities into relatively small, ntensively-used surface areas. Economies of scale: Lower average costs or greater average profits resulting from a larger business entity rather than a smaller one undertaking a particular function. Enhanced recovery technology: In its broadest sense, any method which is used to recover more oil from a petroleum reservoir than would be obtained by primary methods; sometimes used to mean tertiary recovery only. Free-rider problem: Situation in which one party gains from the efforts of another party, without contributing to those efforts. e In'In'l�ctor_s: Wells through which pressurized water, steam or other fluids are coven or inlectedI into an oil reservoir. Joint organization: A cooperative group formed by several oil operators working a common reservoir or the purpose of investigating the feasibility of forming a unit. Participation formula: An agreement among oil operators who have formed a unit regarding the proportion of expenses and profits of the unit each operator will be allocated. Primary production: Oil &iven up through wells by natural pressure in the formation or by pumping units, without injecting water or other fluids to help force the oil to the surface. Producers: Wells used to pump out oil from a reservoir. Recycling: In this context, refers to the redevelopment of the surf ace area of an oil field or uses such as housing or commerce. Secondary production: Oil extracted after primary production usually by injecting gas or water into the reservoir. Technical committee: A committee established by a joint organization of oil operators prior to the f ormation of a unit which is responsible for investigating variables such as the geology of the oil reservoir, characteristics of the oil and the best potential recovery techniques. Tertiary methods: Oil recovery methods applied after secondary production which usually involve the injection of chemicals with water into the reservoir to help push out more oil than water alone can. In some cases, these methods are applied after primary production. 2 Unit: The entity formed by several different oil companies which work a common off pool Wider to share equipment and mineral interests to produce the reservoir as a single party. When the interests in a pool are fragmented, units are essential for the use of most enhanced off recovery methods which can only be applied an a coordinated, pool-wide basis. Unitization: The process off orming a unit. Water flood: A secondary recovery program through which pressurized water is injected into a reservoir in order to push more oil from the pores in the rock. Water injection: Another term for "waterflood." Well-bore: The hole drilled from the surface into the underground oil pool for the purpose of injiFit-Ing materials into the pool and/or extracting materials out of it. Zones: The underground rock strata which contain oil. 3 1.0 Introduction The City of Huntington Beach overlies an production rates. Thus, many parts of the old and very productive oil field which, field are recycling to new uses, especially to since its discovery in 1920, has produced housing. almost a billion barrels of oil. Although the field passed its productive peak decades In most cases, however, the recoverable oil ago, it still produced enough oil during 1979 in the underground reservoir has not been to rank seventh among all California oil exhausted when the surface area is fields in annual output. Over 1,000 wells developed. . For example, primary are still active in the field and production, simply pumping as much oil as approximately 472 acres of the City are possible without injecting water or other used for oil operations. substances to help force it out, typically extracts only 15 to 20 percent of the oil in For several years, however, the amount of place. Consequently, when an oil field in land devoted to oil extraction in Huntington which only primary production techniques Beach leis declined. The reasons for this are have been utilized recycles to new uses, the cir-w. In those parts of tlx, oil field where great majority of the oil usually remains in wut-,r bijection or other enhanced recovery the ground. technologies have not been applied, pruJur.tion levels have dropped Existing and well-known secondary ::ignifiv;ritly. At the same timr-, the value production techniques, such as water of Uw. surface area for new uses -- injection, can recover an additional 10 to 30 especially for housing here in coastal, percent of the oil. In addition, several new suburban Southern California -- has risen technologies, tertiary methods, are being dramatically. Building on the oil field developed and tested to extract the oil surface has become more profitable than remaining after secondary production. continued oil extraction at very low 4 tertiary methods as well. Figure 1.1 When the interests in an oil pool are highly fragmented, however, the numerous parties Secondary must act as a unit before these advanced technologies can be applied. The operators encounter several difficulties in forming a coordinated '"unit," and often cannot act Tertiary together to apply these more efficient production methods. P Pthis ��� �� �.•,;.�,,�� , ..� These difficulties are discussed later in f <^ report. However, if these problems are r f overcome, unitization curl be achieved and Remaining Oil-- enhanced recovery methods 3pplicd to i r:M �- Recovery by Future provide large amounts of oil. Technology? Oil may not 1)e rocovered (even if s',sr:`� <:%:r.>'f{:':s�':?`r' '•' ' unitization becomes economical) feasible) if there are no surface areas from which extraction can be accomplished. It is precisely those areas where secondary methods are not currently used that Percentage of Oil in the Ground production has declined so much that Which is Usually Recovered by abandonment of the field for redevelopment Different Extraction Methods. is more profitable than continued oil extraction. Thus, the parts of the field Source: Petroleum Engineer, which are most likely to be developed for January, 1976 residential or commercial uses and to lose future access from the surface are also the ones where secondary methods have not been tried and where their application could potentially produce large amounts of oil in Several of these methods are being tried in the future. parts of the Huntington Beach field. Domestic oil supplies are an increasingly Secondary and most tertiary techniques scarce and valuable resource. Their value cannot be applied on an individual well derives not only from their economic worth basis. Fluids, such as water or water but from other, less-tangible, benefits treated with cheinicals, are forred through related to the decreased reliance on foreign several wells (injectors), sweeping the oil sources. These benefits reach beyond residual oil out of the pore spaces and then the local community and have a regional and to several other wells (producers) which even a national importance. The pump the oil to the surface. Thr injectors greater-than-local importance of domestic and producers are typically arrnnged in oil would argue that the preservation of patterns so that the injected fluids can significant oil production opportunities efficiently sweep through an oil pool. Thus, should be the concern of the State or the entire oil pools must be treated as a whole federal government, and not primarily of or a unit and these methods must be applied the City. in a coordinated way. Local governments, however, traditionally When the entire pool is owned by a single have control over land use. It is the City company, use of these methods is relatively which must control surface activities if land easy. In fact, the major operators in for future oil extraction needs to be Huntington Beach -- Aminoil, USA and protected. The local government also Chevron, USA -- have been waterflooding shares the responsibility of protecting the their parts of the field for over two interests of the present and future decades, and both companies are testing community surrounding oil operations. - 5 Consequently, another reason for City continuation of a very valuable revenue involvement in this issue is to ensure that source in the community. The purpose of any adverse impacts on nearby uses from this report is to discuss the protection of future oil operations are reduced to access to oil resources as an important reasonable levels. One other consideration consideration for local land use policies. It that the City must weigh in assessing the discusses the numerous variables on which access issue is that oil production generates access preservation can be based, suggests a substantial tax revenues to the local range of protection strategies, and analyzes government. Protecting access and the specific areas in Huntington Beach where option to apply future extraction they could be applied. technologies may be crucial for the 6 I 2.0 Coastal Zone Management and Access to ON Reserves The California Coastal Act of 1976 calls for Among the considerations relevant to the the protection of the natural resources of long-term utilization of these coastal California's coastal zone. Among the goals resources is the need to protect surface of the Act is to: access to the oil reserves. The area of the City where the most significant deposits "Assure orderly, balanced utilization and still in primary production are found, and conservation of coastal zone resources where future access is most jeopardized, is taking into account the social and economic the Townlot/Downtown area, which is needs of the people of the state."1 partially in the coastal zone. (See Figure 2.1). The City recognized this issue in the Certainly the most significant natural Land Use Plan of its LCP, which includes resources in and near the Huntington Beach policies to amend the municipal code, if coastal zone include the long-productive necessary, to help ensure that such surface deposits of oil. In accordance with the access is reserved, if it is essential to the intent of the Coastal Act, the City is future development of significant oil concerned with the orderly utilization of resources. This report is intended to hcl;) these deposits. The City% Local Coastal the City analyze these issues, as a step Plan (LCP) policies are intended to toward refining its policies and ordinances accommodate the legitimate needs of the aimed at ensuring the efficient, long-term oil industry while also protecting other use of these important coastal resources. important coastal resources such as the recreational and visual amenities of the shoreline. 7 Coastal Zone Boundary ,sJ ��. L1C7L].C�.mm m mm MIMI[ Im 510" ID m OJ IE m m m I ] C0 M �1m �m�0 � [UM �] C7 ❑ mmmm �JO@Q� �7 �� ��OD mm m � � mmmmmmm �7mL�1M MN Pq E H H ffi N ffi �9 1� P� 1� H9 P9 P9 P� Pq Pq�q mQ1@� Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division. , 11 huntington beach planning division - 3.0 Unitization, Enhanced Recovery i and the Access Problem Providing future access to underdeveloped apply secondary or tertiary production oil reserves is usually a concern only where technologies. Consequently, a discussior of many operators work a common reservoir how unitization is related to these inetil ;,, and they have not been able to unitize -ind and why unitization is sometimes diffi- ; Pressurised Figure 3.1 Hater Oil j Injection Pump Producing ; Injection Well well 1 I I r, Oil Pushed by Pressurised Water Injected Water Enters Oil Zone Side View of a Waterflood Section. Source: Chevron, USA. 9 ,to achieve is very important to an analysis Much more of the oil can often be recovered of the access issue. if pressurized water is injected into the oil pool. The water helps to move the oil 3.1 Primary, Secondary and "Enhanced" through the pores in the rock. In this Oil Recovery Technology technique, the pressurized water is forced into the reservoir through "injector" wells. The simplest and most common method of The water moves out in all directions from extracting oil is to drill a well into the these wells, sweeping oil in front of it. (See oil-laden rock (usually sandstone in this Figure 3.1.) area) and pump as much of the oil as possible. However, oil is a sticky, thick Other wells, called "producing," are substance which does not flow very easily arranged around the injectors to pump out through the pores between the grains of the oil and water. (See Figure 3.2.) sand in the rock. Often, more than 80 percent of the original oil in place remains To efficiently use the pressurized water, in the reservoir after this "primary" producing and injector wells are arranged in technique is accomplished. patterns which allow most of the oil pushed by the water to be pumped out. (See Figure 3.3.) Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Y r V X v 74 ti• � 1 - 0 0 0 0 y i'-:i '• x X X X X 0 0 0 0 © x x x x x water x = injection well o = production well Example of Well Pattern in •Y. ' > �'� �' Waterflood Program. Source: Oil Well Drilling Technology, Mc ray and Pressurized water from the Cole, 1973. injection well Q forces oil toward the producing wells Q . Top View of Waterflood. These patterns are not always reflected in the surface locations of the wells because Source: Huntington Beach Planning wells can be drilled "directionally," that is, at an angle, and it is the location of the Division. bottoms of the wells in the oil pool itself which is so important to the application of these techniques. An advantage of directional drilling is that a few, centralized surface parcels can sometimes iv, practice of concentrating facilities accommodate many directionally-drilled into small, intensively-used surface areas, is wells through which much larger 1.0 Faller consolidation. underground areas can be topped.* Clearly, this method which is called "water program. In fact, an important reason why injection" or "waterflood," cannot be applied unitization is not tried in many cases is that through a single well. Rather, many wells there is no large company with enough of an are involved which must be worked in a interest in the reservoir to warrant the coordinated way; the location and depth of costs and risks of trying to form a unit. the wells, the timing of the injecting and Small oil companies usually do not have the producing phases, the pressure applied at technical or financial resources to instigate different times and locations, and many a unit. other variables must be planned together to get the best use of the technique. The However, even when a large corporation has entire pool must be treated as a whole, or as an interest in the pool, it must overcome a "unit" — otherwise a significant part of several barriers before unitization can be the investment in drilling the well and achieved. injecting water under pressure may be lost because much of the oil may be pushed First of all, there is a significant incentive about but not collet-teal. for any individual operator not to participate in a unit while hoping that his When a single company works an entire oil more numerous neighbors instigate the pool, this type of production method is project anyway. In this situation, the other easily accomplished. When several operators in the field incur the cost of operators are pumping from the *same pool, developing the secondary recovery program, they must agree to work together as a unit. while at the same time, if his wells are This, however, is often very difficult. These favorably located, the hold-out is able to difficulties will be discussed more fully in recover some of the oil swept by the unit's the next section. injection pattern. The hold-out does not share in the costs of implementing the Even after secondary recovery, more than program, but he shares in the increased 50 percent of the oil remains in the ground. production. Often, so many operators New methods are being developed to refuse to join a unit for this reason, that the recover some of this oil. Many of these program cannot be undertaken. This involve injecting substances into the oil predicament is often referred to as the zones along with water; these substances free-rider problem. help push out more oil than water can alone. Again, however, these techniques are Federal price controls on oil have often most efficiently applied on a pool-wide been cited as inhibiting unitization. The basis.` These technologies are often federal government has recently taken steps called "tertiary production" when they to deregulate the price of all domestic follow an earlier water injection program. production, so price controls are no longer However, in a reservoir where water an important consideration in analyzing a injection has not occured, these techniques unit% potential profits. might be applied simultaneously with or instead of a simple waterflood, to increase Some parties may not be interested in the efficiency of production. joining a unit because the oil operations are, in fact, owned by firms whose principal 3.2 Difficulties In Achieving Unit interest is in redeveloping the very valuable Operations surface land at a time when it is most profitable. Such firms do not want to A large oil company which holds a commit their surface holdings to a substantial fraction of an oil pool will be the long-term unit agreement for oil party most likely to try n ttniti»tinn production. This problem could be overcome if these operators are willing to join on the basis of mineral rights, but not * However, not all such technologies are so surface area or equipment -- provided applied. See Report 4 in this series, enough surface land still remains to produce "Enhanced Oil Recovery," for a fuller the field economically. discussion of these methods. 11 Another potential problem involves the that could be recovered and the suitability liability of a unit for production decline of the reservoir to secondary among non-participants. If enough production—and hence the potential profits operators are willing to participate that a that could be realized from a unitization unit waterflood is undertaken, the program--leads some of the parties holding operations could result in a non-participant's an interest in the reservoir to pursue a production declining (although often it voluntary unit agreement. increases as explained above).* The unit may then be liable for the loss in Usually, a major operator holding a production. Court cases in Texas and substantial fraction of the interest in the Kansas have absolved units of such liability; reservoir contacts other ownership interests however, some companies have cited the and invites them to a meeting to explain risk that the unit might be held liable as a why a unit operation and a field-wide reason for not participating. recovery project may be desirable. Often, many operators are not interested because Thus, for all these reasons, it is difficult to they have no first-hand unitization get all the parties that hold an interest in an experience, or they do not have the oil pool to join a unit voluntarily. In light of technical background to assess the potential this, and the fact that unitization and value of the project. Many operators are enhanced recovery is the most efficient simply suspicious of the true intentions of a method of extracting a very valuable major company, doubting that small firms resource, most states have established will get fair treatment in the joint compulsory unitization laws. These require arrangement. Other reasons why individual hold-outs to join a unit if a certain operators might not express even a percentage of the total interest in a field is tentative interest in the project were willing to participate. This percentage discussed above. varies from 60 percent to 85 percent. (See Table 3.1.) In some cases, however, several of the parties are tentatively interested in a The compulsory unitization laws in common operation and they begin to work California, however, are limited in their on a unitization agreement. This is usually application and may not be relevant to a very long, difficult and costly process. Huntington Beach. Voluntary and The first step is the initiation of a joint compulsory unitization are the topics of the organization. next sections. The joint organization usually establishes 3.3 Voluntary Unitization: Difficulties in several committees to research information Assigning Costs and Benefits necessary for developing the unit. The most important of these is probably the technical Despite the risks and costs of trying to put Committee whose task is to determine the together a unit, sometimes the amount of oil geology of the reservoir and to recommend the best recovery technique to be applied. This committee analyzes such factors as the *This could occur if the hold-out's well were areal extent of the oil zones, their depth so close to the unit's injectors that the oil in and thickness, faulting patterns, existing the zone near his well is swept away by the well-bore distribution, and surface areas pressurized water. The result would be a available for new wells and equipment. The large increase in the amount of water committee then evaluates possible recovery pumped from his well, but not in the amount methods. Historically, most units were put of oil. together to apply simple water 12 Percent of Working Percent of Working Percent of working Interest Required Interest Required Interest Required State For Compulsory Unit State For Compulsory Unit State For Compulsory Unit Alabama 75 Louisiana 75 Ohio 65 Alaska 62.5 Maine 85 Oklahpma 63 Arizona 63 Michigan 75 Oregon 75 Arkansas 75 Missouri 75 South Dakota 75 California 75 Montana so Tennessee 50 Colorado 80 Nebraska 75 Utah 80 Florida 75 Nevada 62.5 West Virginia 75 Illinois 75 New Mexico 75 Wyoming 80 Kansas 75 New York 60 Kentucky 75 North Dakota 80 Table 3.1 Percent of Working Interest Required for Compulsory Unitization Statutes. Source: FOR Potential in U.S., OTA, 1976 W huntington beach planning division 'injection. However, future units may use Surface areas are likewise unequally valued enhanced recovery technology with the — some locations are more critical than waterflood to recover more oil quicker, others. Different operators will also rather than waiting to apply such contribute more wells, more mineral rights, technologies after a simple injection more storage or processing equipment or project. The collection of data and the more surface area than others. Pride in evaluation may take years, depending on the property ownership or in control over complexity of the geology and whether the individual operations is another less tangible field is well-known or not. The committee's factor affecting the value an individual may recommendations must be brought before place on his interests in the reservoir. the full joint organization for approval. Clearly, assigning costs and benefits in a A legal committee .researches land and way that is considered fair by all parties is a interest titles and royalty agreements and very difficult process involving long-term tries to determine if there are any legal negotiations. Usually, the greater the restrictions or problems related to property number of parties, the more difficult it is to rights which could jeopardize the unit reach an acceptable agreement project. This committee is also responsible for working with the Division of Oil and Once a participation formula is arrived at, Gas, the State regulatory agency, to ensure unit agreements are drawn up for the that the proposed unit satisfies any operators and the royalty owners. statutory and administrative requirements related to multi-company oil operations. The time from initiation, through negotiations, to agreement can take up to A land committee identifies all the parties four or more years. The length of time and holding surface and mineral rights and concurrent expense of these negotiations, as informs them of the possible unit agreement. well as the risk that the negotiations may reach an impasse and the project may be An accounting committee records the precluded, contribute to the reluctance of expenses of the joint organization during many operators to try to initiate or this planning process. This committee will participate in such a program. work with the technical committee in determining the most profitable technique 3.4 Compulsory Unitization to be applied (considering tax and depreciation regulations, etc.). Many states, recognizing that unitization increases the efficiency of production as Probably the most difficult part of the well as the total amount of oil ultimately voluntary unit agreement is to determine recovered, have enacted compulsory the participation formula — the share of the unitization statutes. These laws require all costs each participant must pay and the interest-holding parties in an oil pool to join amount each will later receive from the in a unit, if a certain majority percentage of unit% profits. The input of the technical the parties agree to unitize. committee is very important in this determination. The value to the unit of California actually has two compulsory certain mineral rights, for example, will unitization laws. The first requires depend on how much of the oil reservoir is unitization in order to waterflood and thus included and where it is located in the to repressurize an oil field if subsidence is oil-laden formation. The same is true for injuring or imperiling buildings, harbors and the valuation of existing wells — the other improvements or may be interferring location, depth, age and condition of a well with commerce, navigation or fishery, or will affect how important it is to a unit. where subsidence-induced inundation could 14 endanger life, health, safety, public peace, There are numets related advantages that welfare or property. result from this. This law is inapplicable to Huntington Beach First, by all measures, this is a more at this time because there are presently no efficient production technique: the total serious threats from subsidence in the City. volume of oil recovered increases; the time it takes to produce that oil is reduced; the The second statute is sometimes referred to amount of capital invested (equipment, as the Townsite Law. If 75 percent of the well-bores) per volume of oil is reduced. working interest of an oil pool agree to a unit operation, this law enables the State to Second, consolidation of surface area require the remaining interests to join the usually accompanies unitization. By state unit as well. The Townsite law, however, law, a unit agreement can only be approved applies only to fields which were discovered if it provides: before 1934 and which are at least 75 percent within an incorporated city. It is "To the full extent practical, for the not clear that this law could be applied in organization and consolidation of surface Huntington Beach because large parts of facilities, including oil production, storage, this field extend offshore and into the Bolsa treatment and transportation facilities, in Chica which is unincorporated county land. such a manner as will eliminate wasteful and excessive use of land surface areas, The rationale behind the law is "that the freeing such areas for other productive use management, development and operation of and development ..."3 lands as a unit for the production of oil and gas aids in preventing waste, increases the For example, the many small tank systems ultimate recovery of oil and gas, and associated with small groups of wells can be facilitates increased concurrent use of eliminated and a larger, centralized surface lands for other beneficial separation and treatment plant utilized. purposes."2 New wells and redrills can often be • consolidated into walled and landscaped Under the law, non-joiners may sell their islands. Existing wells which are not interest in the pool at a fair-market value. important to the injection pattern may be This value is determined by an assessment plugged and abandoned. of the "primary tract value" based on the projected future primary production if no A workshop on urban oil development held in secondary were undertaken, plus the the Southern California area recognized "secondary tract value" based on estimates these kinds of advantages to unitization, of secondary recovery. The members of the concluding: unit must purchase these interests if they are offered for sale. If the buyer and seller ". . . unitization was a beneficial tool to be disagree on a fair selling price, an used in older fields for improving oil arbitration procedure has been established recovery, aesthetically improving oil field to determine a fair valuation. operations and eliminating deserted, idle or 6 unneeded wells."4 3.5 Advantages of Unitization The benefits of unitization extend to the It is clear that unitization is important for fiscal status of the City as well. in another the application of waterflooding and other study, the Huntington Beach Planning enhanced recovery techniques. Division has analyzed the fiscal impact of oil operations on the City. The findings indicate that consolidated facilities, employing waterflood and other enhanced 15 recovery technologies are significant plant may require the laying of new net-revenue generators.* For example, pipelines in public right-of-way, causing Aminoil and Chevron, with highly temporary disruption of the street system. consolidated operations, use about 60 Increased waterflooding may increase percent of the wells in the City to produce' demand on public sewerage and water about 85 percent of the oil and 85 percent disposal systems. Nonetheless, from a fiscal of the oil-related revenues. The reasons for perspective, the revenues generated by this are that costs tend to decrease as the unitization usually greatly outweigh the few facilities are consolidated and less acreage costly effects. is used and that revenues increase as production increases. The operations also tend to improve because the oil pool is now worked by a larger The cost of police patroling, for example, is company or unit with a wider financial base more sensitive to the number of oil sites than many of the individual operators. This than to the member of oil wells. Thus, in a tends to make financing of mitigations for unitization and consolidation project if the adverse aesthetic and environmental number of wells stay the same or even impacts associated with oil production increase, but less sites are used, police costs easier. The unit can typically provide attributable to oil can decline. For another better fencing and landscaping, example, the costs of the City for sound-proofing and odor emission controls recordkeeping, inspection, taxation and than individual operators. The higher billing all tend to decline when the City can production experienced with a unit and deal with a large, single entity rather than waterflood allows the larger companies or scores of individual oil companies. units to expend monies for better equipment and maintenance so that the newer Revenues to the City are tied especially to operations are usually quieter, cleaner and the property tax on the mineral rights and less polluting than older facilities. Larger to severance or "per barrel" tax on companies or units also experience production. Interestingly, mineral rights economies of scale -- it is less expensive to assessment is tied to past productivity; thus, landscape or soundproof a few intensively if productivity rises, mineral rights used islands than hundreds of individual well valuation rises, too. (Although there are and tank sites; the one larger unit can deal important limits to how quickly valuation with these problems more efficiently than can rise as a result of Proposition 13.) Also, dozens of individual operators. as productivity increases, revenues from the severance tax which is simply a production In summary, unitization and consolidation of tax must increase, too. urban oil operations can be desirable for the following reasons: Of course, there are some negative impacts. Use of a centralized treatment - Oil production increases. - Less land is used and unnecessary or inefficient tanks and wells are removed. * See Report #2 in this series, "The Fiscal - The appearance of the operations Impacts of Oil Operations in Huntington improves; better mitigation of other Beach," Huntington Beach Planning adverse impacts is usually achieved. Division, March, 1981. - Costs to the City tend to decline but revenues tend to increase. 16 I 4.0 Roles for City Governments in Protecting Access to Oil Pools The value of the increased domestic oil De-regulation and the rapidly escalating production that may be afforded by price of oil should help to improve the enhanced recovery technologies, as well as profitability of potential units in the the advantages of unitization and future. Another pricing problem is that the consolidation discussed above, argue that value of domestic oil to the society may not protecting surface access to underground oil be fully reflected in its (even de-regulated) pools and encouraging the formation of unit price because domestic production provides operations to work those pools may be other, less tangible, benefits to the country desirable policy objectives. This section telated to the reduction of our reliance on discusses the kinds of roles which might be foreign sources for oil. This situation might appropriate for local governments in argue for federal incentives for increased promoting these objectives. domestic production. First of all, it should be noted that two of All these considerations, however, are the principal problems which have inhibited national in scope and lie within the unitization and the subsequent application jurisdiction of the federal government, not of secondary and tertiary recovery methods the municipality. are clearly outside the purview of the local jurisdiction. Another important problem related to unitization is the cost of forming a unit, Many oil companies have cited low oil especially the cost of getting enough prices, compounded by price controls, as an operators to join. The existing State important reason why many potential units compulsory unitization laws are examples of would not have been profitable in the past. ways to reduce these costs. 17 Note that the State regulates mineral rights solutions to these problems lie outside the and the unitization of oil pools; thus, the City% purview. However, the City can help State, and not the City, is the appropriate to implement any future corrective jurisdiction for instigating policies and measures by the State or federal statutes aimed at reducing the costs governments by not excessively restricting currently associated with forming a unit. future oil operations from the surface of the field and by developing ordinances and In both of these cases, the appropriate role policies aimed at keeping enough surface of the local government could be to adopt area open in the face of encroaching ordinances and policies which would not urbanization to accomodate future preclude future ameliorative actions by the unitization and enhanced recovery programs. federal or State governments. The principal tools for achieving this are the Traditionally, control over land use has been City's General Plan and its zoning the domain of the local government ordinances. Options for Huntington Beach (although legally, States have pre-emptive regarding its land use policies are discussed control over land use.) The City should in Section 6.0. Before reviewing policy recognize the two problems noted above: options, however, it is important to discuss inappropriate pricing and the sometimes the particular situation in Huntington Beach excessive costs of forming a unit. The City where these issues are especially relevant. should also understand that the appropriate That is the topic of the next section. 18 1 5.0 Towriot/Downtown Analysis As mentioned in Section 2.09 the Over 35 oil companies operate only 98 "Townlot/Downtown" part of Huntington active wells. Chevron has the largest single Beach appears to be the most likely interest in this part of the field, but it candidate for a unitization and secondary accounts for less than 20 percent of the recovery project. It is also an area where total interest. Aminoil, the other major oil rapid redevelopment of oil parcels and company in the City, has virtually no vacant land is probable. Therefore, this holdings in this part of the oil field; area was analyzed specifically with regard (Aminoil does own some surface areas there to the importance of preserving access to from which wells have been directionally remaining oil reserves. drilled to offshore pools). The area studied is located between Pacific Thus, unitization has been difficult not only Coast Highway and Palm Avenue, from because there are so many operators, but Goldenwest to Lake Street. Also, a also because neither of the large companies relatively large oil lease near Lake Street which have the resources to instigate a and Atlanta Avenue was included. A large unitization program has a particularly large portion of this area lies within the coastal stake in this part of the field. zone. (See Figure 2.1). Of the approximately 350 acres, only about 14 are 5.1 A Brief History still being used for oil production. Oil was first discovered in Huntington Beach This part of the field has never been in 1920, at a site near the present waterflooded, largely because ownership of intersection of Goldenwest Street and Clay the field Is highly fragmented and Avenue. During the next several years, oil unitization has not been achieved. was discovered throughout Huntington 19 Beach'but the City prohibited oil drilling in Since that time, production has declined to the Townlot and Downtown areas. However, a relative trickle. In 1979-80, 138,983 the continued success of oil operations north barrels were recovered, an average of only of 23rd Street (Goldenwest Street) in a 380 barrels per day for the entire area and barley field (which is now the "Seacliff" golf only about four barrels per day per well.8 course and residential development) prompted the City to lift these restrictions In other parts of the City, notably the leases in 1926 and to allow drilling between 23rd north of Goldenwest, the two major and 17th Streets. Two very important oil companies, Chevron and Aminoil, run highly zone.% the "Jones" and the "Main," were consolidated operations which tap very large quickly discovered. The State Division of underground areas. These companies began Oil and Gas noted that: applying water injection in the late 1950's and now have extensive water and steam "Intensive drilling activity followed flood projects as well as several tertiary these two discoveries, resulting in the recovery pilot programs. These companies fastest development and closest spacing have employed these technologies to work experienced in California to that date. these areas much more completely and Some wells were drilled on 25-foot efficiently than other areas in the field lots.0 where fragmented ownership has precluded unitization. The Townlot is one of those Another important zone, the "Tar" or areas which has not yet been waterflooded "Bolsa," was found later in 1926. In because the large number of operators there November of that year, the City opened the have not formed a unit. rest of the Townlot and Downtown to drilling, except for a "fire zone" between In recent years, the increasing value of land 5th and 3rd Streets which was excluded in near the coast for new uses (especially for order to protect the City's principal housing) along with declining production commercial district - - a short strip along have prompted many oil operators in the Main Street. On December 24, 1926 Townlot to abandon their wells and to production peaked at 63,400 barrels from 78 redevelop their sites. Also, after the Local wells. Production dropped quickly from this Coastal Plan is completed, development early peak and then gradually declined until pressures on the many oil sites in the the late 19401s.6 coastal zone will likely intensify. In light of these effects, it appears very possible that During the early years of the field, so many of the oil sites in the Townlot area development of the Tar zone was inhibited will be redeveloped that there will not be because the oil in these pools is very thick. enough active well holes nor enough The viscous ooze carried large amounts of available surface area for a future sand in it which often clogged the wells and secondary recovery project. complicated later processing. The growth in automobile use after World War II spurred This possibility raises several questions. such a high demand for oil that even thick First, how much oil could be recovered if an crude became profitable to extract and enhanced recovery program were process. This prompted a second drilling undertaken? Second, even if there is a large campaign in the Townlot area as operators amount of remaining oil, how likely is began to exploit the previously neglected unitization and a future secondary recovery Tar zones. program? Third, should the City take steps to help preserve access to these oil reserves In 1954 oil pools were located farther south and, if so, what should those steps be? The in the field, near the Downtown. Intensive remainder of this report tries to give drilling in this "southeast extension" of the tentative answers to each of these questions. Townlot resulted in another production peak in the mid-1950'8.7 20 5.2 ' Remaining, Recoverable Oil Figure 5.1 The most important variable for decidingPCH Paltn Ave whether the City should take steps to protect surface areas for future access to oil pools is the amount of oil that would be lost if the surface is completely developed. Using. date from the State Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) and from the major oil -1000 companies in Huntington Beach, the City Planning Division estimated the remaining, recoverable oil in the Townlot area. The purpose of these studies is not to establish an exact numerical figure for the remaining id le bolsa oil, but to indicate whether there is enough 000 oil to make an enhanced recovery program possible and, thus, if protecting surface 1 ower bo sa areas and access for such a program is important. stray The first technique used to estimate the -3000 remaining reserves is the "volumetric method," which uses data about the physical parameters of the field to estimate the volume of the original oil in place (OOIP). Jones Then, certain "recovery factors" -- estimates of the percentage of the oil that -4000 can be recovered by different extraction technologies — are applied to the OOIP main estimate. In this way, one can determine how much oil could be recovered by an enchanced recovery program. This method requires much geologic information. First, one must know what oil zones underlie this part of the field. Example of Cross-Section Underlying Townlot. Figure 5.1 illustrates a typical cross-section under the Townlot area, and Figures 5.2 and Source: Division of Oil and Gas. 5.3 show their areal extent. The important oil-bearing strata include the Middle Bolsa, Lower Bolsa, Stray or AC, Upper Jones and Main zones. However, because of the lack of course, are not liquid pwls, but are rocks of reliable data, the Stray and Main zones which contain oil in small pores hetweun were not included in the volumetric grains of solid material. Thus, the total estimates. Thus, the results should be on volume in acre-feet must be multiplied by a the conservative side. "porosity factor" -- the percentage of the rock which is not solid, but is actually By multiplying the area of a zone in acres spaces or pores between the solid materials, by its net thickness in feet, the total volume and can hold the fluids. However, not all of of the zone can be determined. The zones, that space is filled with oil. Water is also 21 n � n � a ii n � nni E noel nni i found in the pares between the solid Table 5.2 summarizes the data and materials. Thus, the total volume must be calcuations for OOIP in the Townlot. The further reduced by a "water saturation" OOIP is estimated at 112.1 million barrels. factor. By multiplying area by: 1) thickness, 2) porosity percentage, and 3) a The next step is to determine how much of water saturation factor, the number of the OOIP can still be recovered by "acre-feet" of oil is determined. There are secondary and tertiary technologies. After 7,758 barrels of oil in an acre-foot and one discussing the performance of different can estimate barrels by using this factor. extraction techniques in Huntington Beach Finally, another variable called an "oil and other nearby fields with engineers from formation volume factor" must be the DOG, Aminoil and Chevron, the considered. This simply adjusts for any following recovery factors were established difference between the volume of the oil for the Townlot/Downtown area: primary, underground and its volume at the surface. .30; secondary, .12; and tertiary, .07 of 001P. Usually, the primary rate is lower and Table 51 summarizes these variables and secondary rate higher; however, the the formula used to determine OOIP. engineers suggested that the very long term and unusually intensive production has Table 5.1 probably accounted for a higher primary rate and thus a lower potential secondary one in the Townlot area. VOLUMETRIC METHOD These data and these recovery factors suggest that over 20 million barrels of oil A = area in acres may still be recovered in the Townlot area P porosity if secondary and tertiary technologies can H = net thickness in feet be applied. Sw = water saturation B = oil formation factor To help confirm the reasonableness of this 7,758 = bbls/acre-foot estimate, the Planning Division calculated OOIP = original oil in place recoverable reserves using another method, the "decline curve technique." This method uses the past performance of the field for A x h x P x (1-Sw) x 7 758 = OOIP estimating future production. Formula for Volumetric Method. The estimate would be most accurate if the annual production records of every well ever Source: "Valuation of Oil Producing drilled in the Townlot/Downtown since 1926 Properties", State Board of were located, reviewed and totaled. This Equalization, 1972. kind of research is very difficult and time-consuming. Instead, the Planning Reliable data for these variables were Division researched the production difficult to obtain. Net thicknesses of the summaries for this part of the field found in zones in the Townlot area were unavailable, several DOG Annual Summary of Operations and were estimated from cross-sections and and the recent production records of active from discussions in several DOG reports. wells. A reasonable decline curve was then Areal extent was estimated from contour interpolated between the few known data maps of the zones in DOG reports. The points. Cummulative production was then other variables were obtained from DOG estimated from this decline curve. See and industry estimates. As mentioned Figure 5.4. The total production for the above, the Stray and Main zones were Townlot/Downtown is approximately 43 excluded due to lack of data; thus the million barrels. estimates are probably low. 23 illlllA 1 11111111 11 ' i Average bbl/dar 90,000 $01000 Tp�rY Total for Towdott 40.50 dtba bM 70,000 F%@M•wMe onshore produetim 60,000 '/ 30,000 chics Disco b ay d 2 Tow*bt WaterAood 40,000 Daoonrr (Par) BeSLra 30,000 1 Known data point. 1 � 1 � 1 � 30,000 1 6 re6. 1 arera`e / ; Townlot Roduetioa • 10,000 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Adft Figure 5.4 Decline Curve for Townlot/Downtown. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division and DOG. N huntington beach planning division VI I Table 5.2 ZONE Al H2 P3 Sw4 B5 Middle Bolsa 350 8fl .28 .30 1.07 Lower Bolsa 350 100 .28 .30 1.07 Upper Jones 150 100 .32 .35 1.07 1 DOG "Summary of Operations", 1958, contour maps 2 Estimated from various DOG reports 3 DOG and industry estimates 4 DOG estimates 5 DOG estimates OOIP = A h P (1-Sw) 7,758 : 1.07 = Middle Bolsa 350 x 80 x .28 (1 - .30)(79758) t 1.07 = 39.8 million barrels Lower Bolsa 350 x 100 x .28 (1 - .30) (7,758)t 1.07 = 49.7 million barrels Upper Jones 150 x 100 x .32 (1 - .35)(7,758) t 1.07 = 22.6 million barrels TOTAL 112.1 million barrels Recovery factors Primary 30 percent 33.6 million Secondary 12 percent 13.5 million Tertiary 7 percent 7.8 million Remaining recoverable oil = Secondary and Tertiary = 21.3 million barrels Calculation of OOIP and Remaining Recoverable Oil Using Volumetric Method. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division. 26 The curve clearly indicates that production barrels could still be extracted if unitization in this area using current extraction and the application of enhanced methods is approaching its limit. Thus, technologies were successful. cumulative production should approximate all of primary production, which is (using These calculations were reviewed by the same recovery factor as in the engineers at the DOG, Aminoil and volumetric method) .30 of OOIP. If 43 Chevron. They concurred with City staff million barrels is .30 of OOIP, then OOIP that the methods used were sound, but that must be 143 million barrels. Using the same the available data may not be completely recovery factors as the volumetric method accurate. Thus, the value of the analysis is for secondary (.12) and tertiary (.07) not so much in the exact numbers as in recovery, the staff estimates that about 17 providing an indication that considerable oil million barrels could be extracted by reserves probably remain beneath this part secondary and an additional 10 million by of the City. tertiary. Remaining recoverable oil would be about 27 million barrels. See Table 5.3. 5.3 The Possibility of a Unitization and Enhanced Recovery Project. The decline curve method suggests somewhat larger reserves than the The analysis above suggests that there is volumetric, which is not surprising because probably enough oil remaining in the certain known producing zones were Townlot/Downtown area to make an excluded from the volumetric study due to enhanced recovery project profitable if lack of data. Thus, the two methods give unitization could be achieved. The next surprisingly similar estimates of recoverable step, then, is to try to determine what the reserves, Indicating that perhaps 25 million obstacles to unitization are and if they are likely to be overcome in the future. Table 5.3 Primary Production = .30 OOIP = 43 million OOIP = 43 million (1/.30) 143 million Secondary Production = .12 OOIP = .12 (143 million) = 17 million bbl Tertiary Production .07 OOIP = .07 (143 million) = 10 million bbl Total remaining, recoverable oil = 27 million bbls. Calculations of Remaining Recoverable Oil Using Decline Curve Method. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division. 27 In order to do this, the City Planning The operators were also asked to indicate Division sent a questionnaire to all the oil the reasons why unitization has never been operators in the Townlot/Downtown area. achieved here. Most felt that too many of The questionnaire and cover letter are the operators were unwilling to join a unit included in Appendix A. and that past price controls on oil rendered such an undertaking unprofitable. Several The results of the questionnaire are respondents felt that City zoning summarized in Table 5.4. Note that these restrictions related to drilling new wells had results can be measured in two ways: the contributed to the problem. Other reasons first is simply by the number of operators given included the difficulty in securing who gave different responses. A problem approval from land owners to encumber with this is that all companies are weighted their property for many years. Another equally, although a few own 10 or more respondent suggested that the lack of wells while many have only one. The second reliable engineering data would hinder any method is to calculate the percentage of the unitization attempts. total interest in the field held by the operators who gave a particular response. The City staff also noted this lack of readily This is a somewhat more meaningful available data. measure because the response of the relatively large operations will be more When asked if these difficulties could be important to a unitization project than the overcome in the future and unitization made very small companies. This method weighs possible, the companies were equivocal. each operator's response in proportion to the Seven operators, accounting for 21 percent percentage of the field he owns. Interest in of the interest in the field, answered "yes'; the field was considered to correspond to six operators, accounting for 41 percent of mineral rights valuations made for this area the field, said, "maybe"; and five companies, by the Orange County Assessor's office for accounting for 12 percent of the interest in property tax purposes. the field, responded "no." Questionnaires were sent to the 36 Finally, when asked if the company would be operators in the Townlot/Downtown area; 21 interested in joining a voluntary unit, seven responded. This response is indicative of said "yes"; five, "maybe" and nine, "no." one of the principal problems facing a Yet those responding "yes" and "maybe" unitization program: getting enough account for 61 percent of the total interest operators to consider even the possibility of in the field, while those answering "no" forming a unit. However, most of the larger account for 19 percent of the total operators did fill out the questionnaire; the interest. Interestingly, some operators who 21 respondents account for about 80 pecent felt there was likely to be enough oil to of the total interest in the Townlot field. make a unitization project profitable, and some who felt such a project might be The oil companies generally concur with the feasible in the future, were also definitely analysis in Section 5.2 that there may be not interested in joining a unit — at least at significant oil reserves remaininq in this this time. arrn. Only three respondents felt that it was "very unlikely" that there is enough oil The results of this survey indicate that a to make a waterflood economically voluntary unitization project in the Townlot profitable, and only one cited the lack of oil area is not imminent. Although a majority as a reason preventing a waterflood at this of the working interest in the field appears time. Thirteen of the respondents, to be interested in such a project, a accounting for about 62 percent of the significant minority is opposed to it. In working interest in the field, answered "very addition, many of the operators (who hold likely" or "perhaps" when asked if there was about 20 percent of the interest in the field) enouqh oil to make a waterflood profitable. did not respond to the questionnaire at all. 28 1. Do you think there is enough recoverable oil in the Townlot/ Downtown part of the Huntington Beach Field so that a water- flood would be economically profitable (if unitization could be achieved? % Working Interest No. of Respondents in Townlot Field very likely 9 36% perhaps 4 26% veryunlikely 3 5% $on I t kne-jrr 5 13% 2. If you think there is enough oil to make unitization and water- flooding in the Townlot area profitable, do you think other obstacles can be overcome so that such a project is possible in the future? % Working Interest No. of Respondents in Townlot Field aves 7 21% 6 41% no 6 12% cron I t know 3 6% 3. Which of the following reasons do you think have prevented a waterflood program from happening in the Townlot area? No. of Respondents not enough oil 1 pot enough operators 12 willing to join price controls on oil 11 zoning restrictions 6 other:er: answer included: lack of data, difficulty in getting approval of land owners to encumber surface properties. 4. Would your company be interested in joining a voluntary unit for the purpose of waterflooding? X Working Interest No. of Respondents of Townlot Field definitely inter- 7 24% R --d maybe interested 5 37% definitely not 9 19% interested Table 5.4 Questionnaire Results. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division. 29 This lack of response underlines the Figure 5.5 illustrates the areas in and near difficulty in achieving unitization at this the Townlot area where oil well drilling is time. The companies are also equivocal on currently allowed. These are limited to the whether unitization can be achieved in the leases operated by Chevron and Aminod future. The principal reason holding up northwest of Goldenwest (sites #1 and #2), unitization, now that price decontrols are an island operated by Chevron at 17th effected, will be the inability to get enough Street and Palm Avenue (site #3), a operators Interested. The many reasons why relatively large area operated by Chevron operators may not join a unit have been near Lake Street and Atlantas Avenue (site discussed above. #4) and a small island owned by Aminoil between 18th and 19th Streets along Pacific A unitization project in the future is still Coast Highway (site M This last site is possible, especially if either of the following intensively used for wells directionally ' "scenarios" develops. First, as the value of drilled under the ocean and it is unclear the land increases many of the operators whether this area would be available for will choose to sell their sites. The smaller wells tapping the Townlot area, at least in companies with few wells and low the near term. All of the other sites would productivity will tend to recycle their land very likely be able to accomodate wells and first. Increasingly, the working interests in other facilities in a Townlot unitization and the field will be held by companies secondary recovery project. Figure 5.5 interested in continued oil production. shows all the existing oil sites in the Townlot area. City ordinances currently Second, in the face of domestic oil allow existing wells and redrilling on most shortages, the State or federal government of these parcels, but prohibit new wells. may enact a strict compulsory unitization law so that secondary and tertiary The surface area needed for an enhanced extraction technologies can be applied to recovery project depends largely on the domestic oil fields. These laws would number of wells needed to produce the require agreement among a smaller majority pool. As discussed in Section 3.0 above, percentage of the operators before enacting injection and production wells are usually compulsory unitization. For example, some arranged in patterns to facilitate the States require as little as 60 percent of the efficient sweeping and subsequent collection interest of the field to agree to a unit of oil in the zone. Consequently, rough before forcing the remainder to join. estimates of the number of wells needed in Currently, companies holding more than 60 an enhanced recovery project can be made percent of the Townlot working interest by calculating the spacing of wells in a may be already, at least tentatively, pattern and dividing that factor into the interested in a unit project. total number of acres in the zone to be worked. For example, engineers at the 5.4 Surface Area Requirements Division of Oil and Gas estimated that the spacing for a waterflood project in the As the City considers the issue of helping to Jones zone would be approximately one well preserve surface areas for future oil per 10 acres; and that only about 25 wells operations in the Townlot, two key questions would be necessary for this kind of project arise: 1) how much area is needed to there. accomodate a waterflood or enhanced recovery project? and 2) where must these The characteristics of the zone will affect sites be located? Much of the information the kind of recovery method used, which used in answering these questions was could in turn affect the spacing and the supplied by the DOG and by Eastman number of wells needed. The Bolsa zone, Whipstock, Incorporated, a company for example, holds a very viscous oil; thus, involved in directional drilling projects. steam, rather than water, would likely be 30 i Drill Sites (zoned 01 or 02) _ Other Oil Sites--No New Wells Allowed (zoned O) JJQ ID [E [REM rl .3'. UU UUUIUUJ 111 JJJ ULJ � J 1 JccC� 4 MID O �O Li FLcc� � � aoaaao � �� �oac �Y ono IL * L-�; � � � E ���� �����C��E9�GB�C��E��[�100 � I mw 6�i. jL—, ii u�i �i1 ® c°i c� � ;]3 � P-0-1c��� w •nr i t Figure 5.5 Drill Sites and Other Oil Operation Sites in Townlot/Downtown. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division. huntington beach planning division injected into the formation because the hot Thus, the surface area currently afforded by steam helps the thick oil to flow more the drill sites (#1-5 in Figure 5.5) in and freely. Because the oil must be kept warm near the Townlot/Downtown could probably for this technique to work, and because the accomodate the wells needed in a secondary steam and oil tends to cool as it moves or tertiary recovery project, even in a through a formation, the spacing of the closely spaced steamflood. wells must usually be much closer in a steam program than in a waterflood. Another important consideration, though, is Engineers at the DOG estimated that one the location of these surface areas relative well per 5 acres or even one well per 2.5 to the underground oil pools. As mentioned acres might be needed to effect this kind of in Section 1.0, wells can be directionally program. Thus, from 64 to as many as 128 drilled so that a few centralized surface wells might be needed in a steamflood of areas can accomodate wells that produce a the Townlot Bolsa zones. much larger subsurface area. The most important constraint on how far a well can Considering the usual setbacks from public extend from a surface site is the ,depth of right-of-way and from nearby uses, the the zone the well is tapping. The shallower surface area needed for well drilling and zones are more difficult to reach because maintenance, 25 wells or more could be the angle of the well must be more acute. easily accomodated on an oil operation site Eastman Whipstock calculated the distance roughly the size of a square block in the that a well could be drilled in the Townlot Townlot area. area under usual economic and geologic conditions. Wells tapping the Bolsa zone could reach only about 1,500 feet from the Figure 5.6 surface bore hole; wells into the much deeper Jones zone could extend about 2,400 feet from the bore hole; (see Figures 5.6 and Depth 5.7� Using these estimates, Figures 5.8 and 1? 5.9 illustrate how much of the subsurface Townlot/Downtown field can be reached from the existing drill sites. If part of site _1000 #5 is considered available for this kind of project, then virtually all of the Jones zone can be reached from the presently available drilling sites. Likewise, a very substantial part of the Bolsa zone is also accessible — 2000 from the existing sites, although a considerable area in the middle of the Townlot may be inaccessible. Engineers from Chevron and Aminoil — 3000 indicated that wells could be extended even farther than these estimated limits if necessary, although such wells would be 1000 2000 more difficult to drill and more expensive. Lateral Extent- A steam project adds a further factor into the analysis. As discussed above, steam tends to lose its heat after it moves away Directional Drilling Pattern for Wells from its source (a boiler). The bottom of the steam injection well cannot be more Reaching the Bolsa Zone. than 1,000 - 1,500 feet from the boiler, otherwise the steam loses so much heat as Source: Eastman Whipstock. it travels through the well that it is Ineffective when it reaches the oil pool. Portion of the zone not within 2400 feet . nf an existing dr0 l site Drill site '/--�--T r- r--� , O r! ! II •t < �" L� `� C� j i � !� r DO 0 Ir I F1 r +? r► C iiC� L� CJC � �C Jl :� . f?1 , M 10 [a I �:Gt! � �3� � �,i� rl i r� I — r (�. f'� � r r?r �•lri: Jt: ?7i? fJi:� , , 11 , r t r ri+.' ?=1 fr '•:ii=r:j� rr � (JIL__� r if. . r ��C��C��I �CC ► ' II I �j t —.! - _;'.! ..1 fJ •i r !r ! .+1= � �� .r I— .I_ ».. •?_(•::"?r:•:!?:r=1i':irrille::•=:?:c=:fri":=. .. «... r =t'i 1+^`r��°li!'•t''!r''1`+:"+p'�:!^i;jiii?i�r h U MI Figure 5.8 Approximate Coverage of Jones Zone from Exist Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division and W huntington beach planning division w 1 h 1y s. It N 11 N EN Hilpt ff fEMA U" ::Z: wl�. • • • • • • Another way of looking at the situation is Figure 5.7 that in order to undertake a comprehensive enhanced recovery program for the Town lot/Downtown, new wells or the Depth redrilling of existing wells may be needed in the area roughly between 6th and 13th Streets. Furthermore, because of the problem of heat loss in a steam project, a — 1000 steam generator (boiler) may also need to be located in this area. The current zoning laws affecting the existing oil sites in this area allow the boiler equipment and redrilling, but do not permit new wells. 2000 In summary, a waterflood or other enhanced recovery project for the Jones zone, and presumably for the deeper Main zone, could probably be accomodated from the existing — 3000 drilling sites .in the Town lot/Downtown area. A comprehensive program for the shallower Bolsa zone would probably involve steaming, and might require some new -04000 wells, the redrilling of existing wells and the location of steam producing equipment outside the existing drill sites in an area 1000 2000 between 6th and 13th Streets. Lateral Extent There are currently several oil operation sites in this area which could be utilized in such a project. The zoning on these sites Directional Drilling Patteln for Welis allows the redrilling of wells and the Reaching the Jones Zone. installation of oil recovery equipment, but Source: Eastman Whipstock. does not allow for the drilling of new wells. This fact suggests that a secondary recovery program (steamflood� which utilized only the existing drill sites, might not be able to include a significant part of the Bolas zone, (roughly between 6th and 13th Streets). 35 6.0 Policy Options for the City The discussion in Section 5.0 suggests that a urbanization for the facilities necessary for considerable amount of oil can probably be an enhanced recovery project if unitization recovered from the Town Iot/Downtown area is realized in the future, and 2) ensuring if unitization occured and enhanced that any adverse impacts on nearby uses recovery methods were applied. Although a such as housing and coastal recreation are majority of the oil operators there have mitigated to acceptable levels.* indicated a tentative interest in such a project, unitization does not appear likely in the short-term. * Analysis by the City Planning staff Section 4.0 argued that the kinds of indicates that potentially adverse government policies which would directly impacts resulting from an enhanced encourage unitization and enhanced recovery project can usually be recovery do not lie within the jurisdiction of mitigated; and, in fact, such projects the local government. Still, there are tend to- reduce undesirable effects and important roles for a City government; increase beneficial ones in areas like namely, 1) helping to preserve enough the Town lot/Downtown. A discussion surface area in the face of rapid of potential impacts and their mitigations is included in another report in this series, #4: "Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology". 36 his section discusses the policy options greater than three acres. Drill site VI in available to the City for preserving surface Figure 5.� is designated 0-2. For purposes areas until a future unitization project is of this discussion, there is no practical Instigated or until it is apparent that such a difference between 0-1 and 0-2. The project is so unlikely that restrictive important point is that both permit new land-use policies are unreasonable or unwise. wells, while the O suffix does not. 6.1 Existing Land-use Re lations The discussion in Section 5.4 indicated that Affecting Oil erations in the the five existing drill sites could probably ownlot Downtown accommodate an enhanced recovery program, except perhaps for a Considering the long history of oil comprehensive steamflood in the Bolsa operations in Huntington Beach, as well as zone. The steamflood might require the benefits that oil production contributes additional surface area outside the drill to the community such as employment and sites, somewhere between 13th and 6th revenues, the City's land-use regulations Streets. There are several existing oil have traditionally accommodated oil operation sites in this area which are zoned activities. O; thus steam equipment and redrilling are permitted, but no new wells. The City currently uses three zoning districts, called "O," 'KO-l" and "O-2," to This Indicates that current regulations allow oil operations. More specifically, would allow unitization and enhanced each of these is a zone suffix which is recovery. The relevant question, however, attached to a base zoning designation such is how long will these sites be available for as residential, commercial or industrial. such a project? Both the uses permitted in the base zone, as well as the oil-related activities permitted Because the O, 0-1 and 0-2 districts are by the suffix zone, can be legally conducted only suffixes, other uses are already on the site. permitted on these sites. At any time, the operator may abandon his oil operations, and The "CY' is the most restrictive of the oil new development can be constructed on the suffixes. It permits wells and other site. The loss of any of the remaining drill oil-related equipment, including those which sites and the loss of the other oil operation might be used in an enhanced recovery sites, particularly in some parts of the project. It allows the redrilling of existing Townlot, could potentially preclude a future wells, but does not allow any new wells to enhanced recovery project. be drilled. The principal purpose of this suffix is to allow existing wells and the Through its land use regulations the City kinds of activities which could be reasonably can go beyond simply accomodating expected in association with these wells. enhanced recovery projects now, and help to This is the designation on most of the oil keep sites available for such use in the operation sites remaining in the future. Strategies for achieving this are Townlot/Downtown area. They are shown in discussed in the following sections. black in Figure 5.5. 6.2 Strategies to Help Preserve Existing The 110-1" designation allows all the uses Drill Sites permitted under the O suffix, but also allows new wells to be drilled. Drill sites 2 Any enhanced recovery project will require through 5 in Figure 5.5 are designated 0-1. a significant number of new wells. The "0-2" suffix allows the some uses as The existing drill sites are large enough 0-1, but applies to oil operation sites 37 to accommodate the anticipated number of Permit only new uses which do not wells and are distributed over the oil zones cover the drill site (or parts of the drill in such a way that most of the strata can be site) extensively with permanent reached by directionally drilled wells. Thus, structures. These uses might include protection of these existing drill sites is commercial recreation facilities such probably highest priority for keeping open as "miniature golf," or other the option of a future enhanced recovery commercial establishments like garden project. The following strategies might help supply outlets, or self-serve gas to protect these sites: stations. Such uses would have to be reasonably feasible considering their Change 0-1 to base designation rather than location and appropriate considering a suffix: If the existing base zone were other nearby uses. removed, and the 0-1 suffix were to become the base zone for the site, then a developer The City might also establish regular review would need to come to the City for a zone periods after which the owner or developer change before new uses could be could request a re-evaluation of the site for constructed on the drill site. Before the an enhanced recovery project. If the City zone change would be permitted, the determined that an enhanced recovery Planning Commission and City Council project was no longer practical or that the would have to approve the zone change and site was no longer important for the success the new use. The City might require one or of such a project, the restrictions on the use all of the following before allowing new uses of the surface could be removed. on the drill site: Change General Plan designation on all drill An analysis by a petroleum engineer sites to "Resource Production": Another showing whether an enhanced recovery important "tool" for regulating land uses project in the Townlot area is besides zoning is the City's General Plan. impractical or not. If such a project is still possible, the analysis should The General Plan indicates, in general indicate whether the drill site in terms, the kinds of uses which are question is necessary for such a appropriate in different parts of the City. project. The analysis should also For example, drill site #1 in Figure 5.5 is indicate if only part of the surface area currently designated "resource production." in the drill site is essential to such a This means that activities related to oil project. extraction are the most appropriate ones in this area during the "planning period" (which Retention of part of the drill site is usually 20 years). Before other uses surface as open space, available for would be permitted there, the developer future oil operations. This open surface would have to obtain a General Plan area should be large enough to not only amendment from the City. Drill site #2 is accommodate the equipment necessary designated "planned development" and drill for the enhanced recovery project, but sites #3-5 are in residential designations. If also any buffers, walls, screens and these sites were also changed to "resource sound-proofing barriers used to protect production" then oil extraction would be the the nearby uses from any adverse principal permitted use, and a General Plan impacts related to the future oil amendment would be necessary before new operations. These open spaces could be uses would be allowed. incorporated into the design of the new development and used for such things as The advantage of requiring a General Plan recreation facilities or gardens, so long amendment rather than a zone change is as there were a clear understanding that the former usually entails a much more that such areas might also be used for extensive review by the City's staff and oil operations at a future date. policy-makers. 38 This 'night ensure that considerations like A disadvantage to this approach is that it 'future recovery projects will be more adds, (almost literally), a new layer of City completely analyzed before changes are land use restrictions, in addition to the permitted. The kinds of restrictions that existing General Plan and zoning might be placed on the site by the City ordinances. New review procedures would before allowing new uses would be the same need to be developed in order to implement as in the zone change case discussed above. this approach. The advantage of the overlay However, the mechanisms for the detailed is that it emphasizes the importance of review which would be required in that case protecting areas for enhanced recovery are already established for General Plan projects and it helps to focus the analysis of amendments, but are not normally exercised new uses on the enhanced recovery issue and currently for zone changes. not other peripheral ones. A disadvantage is that the General Plan 6.3 Preserving Other Oil Operation Sites currently does not usually differentiate land Uoned O in the Townlot Downtown use categories on areas smaller than 20 acres. The intent of the General Plan is to The City may want to consider applying the indicate general uses for relatively large strategies discussed above to the other oil areas in the City, leaving more detailed operation sites in the Townlot/Downtown restrictions on a site-by-site basis to zoning area which are currently zoned O. Some of ordinances. A significant exception to this these sites could be important to a is the coastal zone, where land use comprehensive enhanced recovery project. designations have been applied to sites much Many of these sites, however, are very small smaller than 20 acres because of the special and very close to other uses. The minimum resources associated with the coast which surface area necessary to accommodate a require more detailed planning, even at the drilling rig recommended by numerous oil General Plan level. Drill sites 01, 2, 4, and companies and well drilling companies is 5 are in the coastal zone, so this kind of approximately 100 by 200 feet.* Sites specificity in the land use designation would which are smaller than this minimum may not be unprecedented. not be appropriate for future re-drilling and, thus, might be excluded from consideration Overlays and conditional-usepermits: in a future enhanced recovery project. Another method by which the City could help protect surface areas for future oil 6A Permitting New Wells in the Townlot operations would be through an 'overlay" and a conditional-use permit. The City Besides protecting the existing drill sites could indicate that the Townlot/Downtown and some of the larger O-zoned sites, the area is a special resource production district City might also consider allowing new wells by a general 'overlay" designation. Before in the Townlot, if the new wells were part certain sites in the overlay district could be of a unitization and consolidation program. used for activities ether than oil operations, New wells outside an existing drill site may the developer would be required to apply for be important to an enhanced recovery and receive a conditional use permit — that is, a permit allowing new uses, but only after a City review and analysis, and only if any conditions placed on the new uses by the City are accepted by the developer. These * Planning staff contacted the following conditions could include the enhanced companies: Chevron, Aminoil and recovery analysis and reservation of open California Production Services, as well space which were discussed in the zone as the DOG. change option above. 39 project if existing wells cannot be redrilled The aim of this policy is to protect and or if there are simply insufficient existing enhance the visual and recreational wells to complete the injection patterns. amenities afforded by the beach while New wells should only be permitted if they permitting oil activities which must be meet the following criteria: 1) the site is located there. In view of this approach, larger than a minimum size; 2) mitigations reservation of Bolsa Chica Beach for future of any potential adverse impacts are oil facilities appears inappropriate. incorporated into the project; and 3) the However, if new facilities essential to the new well is part of an overall unitization or recovery of the oil deposits underneath the consolidation program. Implementing Townlot could not be sited any where else, strategies include developing a new zoning then the City may still permit those ordinance or utilizing an overlay district facilities to be located on the beach if all of with a conditional-use permit requirement, the conditions listed above are met. similar to the strategies discussed in Section However, because this is a State beach, the 6.2. California Department of Parks and Recreation would also have to give its 6.5 Other Possibilities for New Drill Sites permission before new wells could be drilled. Besides the drill sites discussed above, there Offshore Locations: Another possible are other possiblities which should be location for oil facilities needed in an discussed. enhanced recovery project is offshore. Bolsa Chica State Beach: Part of Bolsa In this case, preserving surface locations in Chica State Beach lies across Pacific Coast the Townlot itself would not be important, Highway along a large section of the although some onshore sites might be Townlot/Downtown area. Several wells and necessary to tap the more inland related equipment are active in this area extremities of the oil pools. Wells and which is currently zoned O. Wells related equipment can be located on directionally drilled inland from this strip offshore platforms, man-made islands or could cover a large part of the Townlot and piers extending from the shore. Because could be very useful in a comprehensive these wells would be reaching inland, they enhanced recovery project. A serious would be located as close as possible to the problem with using this area for more shore. Thus, a pier would be the most likely intensive oil operations is the conflict facility used if an offshore location were between those activities and the area's use chosen. as a heavily-visited, public recreation facility. In light of the high priority in the The disadvantages of using a pier for oil Coastal Act given to public recreation along facilities include the following: 1) risk of the shoreline, the City's LCP includes spills which could adversely affect the policies which encourage the "phase-out" of recreation beaches, 2) degradation of visual wells on Bolsa Chica Beach. New wells are resources associated with the shoreline, 3) not prohibited from locating on the beach, conflict between industrial and recreational but can only be sited there if all the uses of the shoreline and 4) conflicts following condition are met: between mobile, portable oil equipment and other traffic. 1) The resources are not recoverable from any other onshore location or existing Advantages of using a pier include the platform, 2) the site is improved to become following: 1) valuable surface areas onshore compatible with recreation uses of the could be freed for other uses, and 2) the pier beach, 3) public health, safety and welfare could be designed to accommodate public are not jeopardized, 4) adverse recreation facilities such as fishing areas environmental impacts are mitigated to the and look-outs, and the private sector would maximum extent feasible, 5) the net overall probably be willing to finance the entire impact of oil production facilities an visual proposal. The pier would have to be resources is improved, and 6) safe access to designed to reduce any conflicts between the beach is provided. the oil activities and the public recreation facilities. 40 Park J oid Fire Rouse U I o _ . _ =C�=C�.J Lj.CJ= ]=�JG�J CflCC�•C�.C�.0 •o 0 ace CflPbnr'alryULJ Senior ftec� t�e J . C� L'� C� C U� C� CJ Liu uu uu u�J . O Mobile Home Par t �� [1101 4 Ml_.�J CJM 7a r" L�U U� TMMotel � C�� CC� CL GIDO C� � Lse, Commercial C� r- ntPEE BEEIBE9HPF Vacant Lease, Commercial Public Beach,- Pier Figure 6.1 City-owned Properties Y p es in Town lot/Downtown. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division. huntington beach planning division The City's planning and zoning jurisdiction 6.6 Other Possible Actions does not extend beyond the mean high tide line. The State Land Commission regulates There are other kinds of actions related to development in this area. Thus, the City protecting surface areas which the City can only discourage or encourage offshore should consider. First, the City may want development, but cannot regulate such to hire a professional petroleum engineer to development directly. analyze the possibility of unitization and enhanced recovery in the City-owned Property: Another option for Townlot/Downtown more completely before preserving surface areas for future oil enacting zoning ordinances or other land use facilities is for the City to retain properties restrictions. Such a study may establish it owns itself and to restrict uses on the more exactly the likelihood of such a surface or-parts of the surface. Figure 6.1 project, as well as its surface area shows the City-owned properties in and near requirements. This in turn could allow for the Town lot/Downtown and indicates the the development of more precise regulations. uses currently located on each. The implementation approach would be to limit Secondly, an analysis of the remainder of structures so that sections of these the City may be helpful to locate other properties are preserved until such time parts of the field where unitization and that an enhanced recovery project is enhanced recovery projects are possible and proposed. The City would then sell or lease where protection strategies similar to those the surface areas to the unit proposing the discussed for the Townlot might be project. The City could still use these appropriate. properties until that time for facilities like parks or parking lots which leave large parts of the surface free of permanent structures. The City would periodically review the properties reserved for potential enhanced recovery projects to determine if such projects are still possible and if particular properties would be important for the projects. 42 7.0 Conclusion For the forseeable future, energy sources — The City% principal role in this issue is to and especially oil -- will continue to be control land uses so that enough surface increasingly more expensive. New area is preserved until these technologies technologies will also continue to be can be applied or until it is clear that developed to help increase energy supplies. application of those technologies is In light of this situation, oil remaining in the impractical. More direct actions which ground after primary production which may would encourage unitization and the use of be recovered by new technology is a very enhanced recovery methods are more valuable natural resource. appropriately within the jurisdictions of State and federal governments. The City This report shows that the should monitor policy and legislative Townlot/Downtown area of Huntington developments at these levels of government Beach may overlie such oil resources. It related to unitization and enhanced also discussed strategies for protecting recovery, as well as to developments in the surface areas necessary for access to those oil industry itself, to better determine if resources in the face of encroaching such programs are likely in Huntington development, so that new technologies may Beach. By watching these developments, as someday be applied to recover the well as by periodically evaluating the remaining oil. The City should consider potential for new projects in Huntington evaluating other areas in the Huntington Beach, the City can continue to promote Beach oil field where conditions are similar policies which help to protect and carefully to those in the Townlot; namely, where 1) utilize its important oil resources. significant quantities of oil may still exist in the ground because secondary and other enhanced recovery methods have not been applied, and where 2) new development is rapidly encroaching on the oil field, threatening to cover the surface to such an extent that the necessary extraction equipment can not be accomodated. 43 r NOTES 1. California Coastal Act of 1976. 2. California Public Resources Code, Division 3; Chapter 3.5. 3. Ibid. 4. Hill, F. L., Proceedings: Workshop on Urban Oil and Gas Development, 1978. 5. Hagenbush, G. C., and Allen D. R., "Huntington Beach Oil Field," Summary of Operations, Vol. 44, 1958. 6. Ibid. 7. Hunter, A. L., Bradford, W. C., and Allen, D. R., "Southeast Extension of the Townlot Area," Summary of Operations, Vol. 41, 1955. 8. Huntington Beach Planning Division, "Fiscal Impacts of Oil Operations in Huntington Beach," 1981. 44 t APPENDIX A Questionnaire and Cover Letter 45 : COMPANY NAME: • DEFINITIONS: Waterflood: A method for increasing oil production by injecting water into oil zones. Unitization: An agreement among several oil operators to treat a shared oil pool as a ni and to produce the pool together in a coordinated way, as if they were a single company. Unitization is usually required before a waterflood project can be undertaken in all areas where many operators work the some reservoir. I. Do you think there is enough recoverable oil in the Townlot-Downtown part of ;he Huntington Beach Field so that a waterf load would be economically profitable (if unitization could be achieved). Very likely Perhaps Very unlikely Don't know 2. If you think there is enough oil to make unitization and waterf loading in the Townlot area profitable, do you think other obstacles can be overcome so that such a project Is possible in the future? Yes Maybe No Don't know 3. Which of the following reasons do you think have prevented a waterf load program from happening in the Townlot area? Not enough of I Not enough operators willing to join Price controls on oil ' Zoning restrictions Other 4. Would your company be interested in joining a voluntary unit for the purpose of waterf loading? Definitely interested Maybe interested Definitely not interested 46 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 926Q BUILDING DIVISION(714)63M41 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 Dear Sir: A problem facing oil producers in urban areas is the pressure for new development on the surface of oil fields. Houses and commercial structures are built near active oil operations; surface areas, from which new wells could be drilled and new technology could be tried, are covered over. This pressure for new development on oil fields is certainly evident in the City of Huntington Beach, and the City is concerned that potentially valuable oil reserves may be lost in the future if oil fields are completely covered by development. The City Planning Division is studying this potential problem. As part of this study, we are trying to determine if a unitization and waterflood project is possible in the Townlot and Downtown parts of the City. (This is the area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Palm Avenue, Goldenwest Street and Lake Street.) Our records show that your company operates a well or wells in this part of the City, and we would very much appreciate your answering the questions on the enclosed sheet. You can just check off your answers on the sheet, put it in the enclosed envelope and drop it in a mailbox. If you have other comments or ideas about the possibility of a waterflood program in the Townlot, or if you have any questions about the City's study, please feel free to write the Planning Division or simply call Mike Multari of our staff at 536-5279. Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, ames W. Palin, Director Department of Development Services J WP/MM:cw 47 l � APPENDIX B Bibliography "Coastal Energy Impact Program for the City of Huntington Beach," Huntington Bech Planning Division, 1980. Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment, GPO, 1976. "Estimate of Natural Gas Reserves -- Huntington Beach," California Railroad Commission, 1946. "Huntington Beach Oil Field," DOG, Summary of Operations, Vol. 44, 1958. "Huntington Beach Oil Field -- Old Field Portion," DOG, Summary of Operations, Vol. 28, 1942. "Huntington Beach Oil Field -- Southeast Extension of Townlot Area," DOG, Summary of Operations, Vol. 41, 1955. Oil Property Valuation, Paul Paine, 1942. Procedi s: Workshop on Urban Oil and Gas Development F. L. Hill (Editor), DOG and Federal Energy Administration, 1978. "Recent Developments in Huntington Beach Oil Field," DOG, Summary of Operations, Vol. 12, 1927. "Recent Developments in the Tar Sands in the Townlot Area, Huntington Beach," Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, Vol. 35, 1949. "Tar Sands in the Townlot Area of Huntington Beach Oil Field," DOG, Summary of Operations, Vol. 13, 1928. Valuation of Oil Producing Properties, California Board of Equalization, 1972. 48 r DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division June W. Catalano,Deputy Director Project Director and Principal Author Michael Multari,Planner Special Assistance Atninoil, USA Chevron, USA California Division of Oil and Gas Eastman Whipstock, Inc. Word Processing Patti Schwartz,Word Processing Coordinator Sharon Hojo,Word Processing Specialist Deborah Pledger,Word Processing Senior Caren Winant,Word Processing Senior Deborah Espinoza,Word Processor Graphics Robert Sigmon,Planning Draftsman Michael Multari,Planner Huntington Beach Energy Series Report #2 Fiscal- Impact of Oil Operations A in Huntington Beach dEi _ � P City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division March, 1981 C+.:.....�_..�• ..�--3- --x:�,•.�-��.� -k=.,.:= ...ter•.•_ -Ji]..ti.1Gti.J..�S.�f� ..._..�.,r:.is-:•-�—— ...r__.._r:.��..�.... _ ....— --�..c.__.... - -- A , • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL • Ruth S. Bailey,Mayor Ruth Finley, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Bob Mandic Ron Pattinson John Thomas PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Porter,Chairman Grace H.Winchell, Vice-Chairman Wesley Bannister Ralph Bauer Beverly J.Kenefick Jean Schumacher Charles W.Thompson City Administrator iia=Z....:.L:_.��.�� ..-� -__� r`- '-_r�.ozioa.Lr ..tY:rr'!1:-�.� .ti' ..r. •�r t.....+_.i Y...:r__:�:....��.�._.._. _...- -.. . _ _ .._. HUNTINGTON BEACH ENERGY SERIES REPORT #2 FISCAL IMPACTS OF OIL OPERATIONS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAMES W. PALIN, DIRECTOR MARCH, 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE FORWARD 1 DEFINITIONS 2 1.0 94TRODUCTION 3 2.0 CURRENT CITY REVENUES AN EXPENDITURES RELATED TO OIL OPERATIONS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 5 2.1 Expenditures 6 2.2 Revenues 8 2.3 Conclusion 12 3.0 FISCAL IMPACTS OF CONTINUING OIL OPERATIONS 13 3.1 Predicting Future Oil Operations 13 3.2 Assumptions about Variables Affecting Future Revenues and Expenditures 14 3.3 Analysis of Scenarios 15 3.4 Summary 19 3.5 Garfield/Goldenwest and Townlot/Downtown Areas 20 4.0 BEYOND FISCAL IMPACTS 25 4.1 Non-fiscal Costs 25 4.2 Non-fiscal Benefits 26 4.3 Federal and Local Perspectives on Non-fiscal Costs and Benefits 26 5.0 CONCLUSION 27 APPENDICES Appendix A: City Expenditure Models 29 Appendix B: Revenues from Other Energy Facilities 35 NOTES 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY 40 Foreword This is another in a series of discussion papers an energy-related issues prepared by the Planning Division of the City. of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach is a center for many energy-related activities including onshore and offshore oil production, an electricity-generating power plant, and increasingly, solar and conservation technologies. The purpose of these reports is to help the City to accommodate the continued production of so vital a resource as energy while at the some time mitigating as much as possible any adverse impacts an the community that such activities might incur. Other reports in this series include the following: #1 Preserving Surface Access to Underground Oil Reserves in Developed Areas #3 Oil Spill Contingency Planning in Huntington Beach #4 Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology #5 Solar and Conservation Policies at the Local Level This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and from the California Coastal Commission under the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. 1 Definitions This report necessarily discusses some technical aspects of the oil industry and of fiscal impact analysis. Consequently, some terms are used which may not be familiar to the reader. The following definitions section was prepared to help clarify the meaning of some of these terms. To ease reference, all words defined in this section are italicized the first time they appear in the report's text. Enhanced Recovery: Any production method which is used to recover more oil from a petroleum reservoir than could be obtained by natural reservoir energy or simple pumping. Includes water flood, steam flood and other techniques involving infection of fluids into the reservoir to recover additional oil. Expenditures: Monies spent by the City to provide goods and services to the landowners, residents, workers and visitors of the City. Fiscal Impacts: bn this report refers to revenues received and expenditures incurred by the City as a result of particular land uses or activities occurring in Huntington Beach. Net Revenues: The revenues remaining and available to the City after total expenditures are subtracted from total revenues. Opportunity Cost: Costs associated with choosing one option over other ones when that choice precludes the alternatives. By making that choice, benefits that might have resulted from the - precluded alternatives are lost. Primary Production: Oil driven up through wells by natural pressure in the formation or by - pumping units, without infecting water or other fluids to help force the oil to the surface. Recycling: In this context, refers to the redevelopment of the surface area of an oil field for uses such as housing or commerce. Revenues: The monies or income the City receives; sources include taxes, fees, rents and ranchises. Scenarios: In this report, refers to a set of events or conditions possible in the future; a future possibility. Unitization: The process of forming a "unit"; a unit is an entity composed of several oil operators which work a common oil pool in order to share equipment and mineral interests to produce the reservoir as a single party. When the interests in the pool are fragmented, units are essential for the use of most enhanced recovery methods which can best be applied on a coordinated, non-competitive basis. Water flood: An enhanced recovery program through which water is infected into a reservoir in order to force more oil from the pores in the rock. Water Infection: Another term for "waterflood". - 2 1.0 Introduction Numerous energy-related facilities occupy in Huntington Beach. In addition, the City significant land area in the City of faces important decisions regarding land Huntington Beach, especially in and near use as the oil in the field continues to be the coastal zone. These facilities Include depleted and pressure increases to abandon onshore and offshore oil production parts of the field and to redevelop the operations, a tanker unloading terminal, a surface. Fiscal impacts are important power plant, pipelines, and electricity and factors in determining the best use of the natural gas distribution systems. All of land and the City's policy toward continued these have fiscal impacts on the City. oil operations. In this report, fiscal impacts refer to the The City's other major energy revenues the City receives and the facilities—the power plant and marine expenditures it incurs as a result of terminal—are, practically speaking, particular land uses. Revenues are the permanent facilities which will continue to funds generated for the City through serve regional and state interests. City various taxes and fees (for example, actions are not likely to significantly property taxes, production taxes and encourage or discourage continued license fees) paid by the owners and users operations of these facilities. Thus, they of land in the City. Expenditures are the do not present significant land use options monies spent by the City to provide to the City at this time. services for these land uses (for example, fire and police protection). This study has been carried out in conjunction with the development of a The principal purpose of this study is to City-wide computer model which assesses estimate the fiscal impacts of the fiscal impacts of various land uses. energy-related facilities and especially of While the City-wide model may be useful oil production operations. The report for analyzing most activities, it does not focuses on oil operations because they take into account certain peculiarities of occupy a great deal of very valuable land oil operations. 3 'Far example, oil revenues are more closely Section 3.0 projects the fiscal impacts of related to -the amount of oil produced by continuing oil operations through 1990 the wells than the acreage they occupy. under four different scerwios. Special The City-wide model, however, is largely attention is given to the Townlot/ based on developed acres, and generally Downtown and Garfield/ Goldenwest areas does not relate changing revenues to where the status of oil operations is likely changing production levels. Thus, a better to change. way of computing the impacts of oil operations has been developed as part of Finally, Section 4.0 discusses issues besides this study. (See Appendix A). fiscal impacts which are also important for making decisions about land uses in the The following section discusses the City. revenues and expenditures related to oil operations in Huntington Beach for fiscal year 1979-80. 4 1 � • 1 • 1 2.0 Current City Revenues and Expenditures Related to Oil Operations in Huntington Beach Table 2.1 summarizes the revenues and 1979-80. Oil activities generated net expenditures attributable to oil production revenues (revenues exceeded costs) of In Huntington Beach for fiscal year approximately $800,000 for the year. TABLE 2.1 City Revenues and E enditures Related to Oil Operations or Fiscal Year1979-80 Revenues Expenditures Property Taxes $ 382,068 General Government and Oil Production and Administration $203,340 Business License Fees 19076,996 Public Works 135,465 Royalties and Easements 120,000 Police Department Inspection Fees 739000 Directly Assignable 14,360 Wastewater Permits 91660 Not Directly Assignable 1509903 Drilling/Redrilling Fire Department Permits 6,500 Directly Assignable 28,309 Pipeline Franchises 4,253 Oil Inspector 45,800 Special Equipment TOTAL REVENUES $11,6729477 and Personnel 210,000 Not Directly Assignable 82,816 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 8709993 $1,672,477 (Total Revenues)- $870,933 (Total Expenditures) = +$801,484 (Net Revenue). Refer to Section 2.2 and 2.3 for discussion and calculation of these figures. 5 'The following sections explain how these expenditures and revenues were estimated. TABLE 2.2 2.1 Expenditures Distribution of Fire Department Calls by Type of Land Calendar Year 1978). Local governments provide a wide range of vital public goods and services. In 1979-80, Type of for example, the City of Huntington Beach Land Use # of Calls (1) % of Total spent over $30 million to provide businesses, industry, residents and visitors Residential 2,937 34.5 of Huntington Beach with fire and police protection, streets, sewers, garbage Streets & Highways 537 6.3 disposal, animal control, building inspections, consumer protection, and Industrial 269 3.2 many other important services. This section discusses the City's expenditures City Beach & Pier 257 3.0 related to oil operations. Commercial 240 2.8 Directly Assignable Expenditures: A key problem in this kind of fiscal analysis is Oil 51 .6 determining what portion of the total City budget should be attributed to different City Parks 126 1.5 land uses. In only a few cases Is it relatively easy to measure the amount of Miscellaneous 520 6.1 public services provided directly to certain kinds of land uses. The principal examples Other of these directly assignable costs are those Unassigned (2) 3,588 42.0 related to police and fire calls. The City keeps records of the number of such calls TOTALS 8,525 100.0 and also notes, among other data, the land uses located on the site of each call. We then assume that the proportion of calls generated by each land use category Is a reasonable estimate of the proportion of the City's costs in responding to all calls (1) Includes all fire, emergency/ medics that should be attributed to each land use assistance, and non-fire an type. non-emergency/medical incidents. Table 2.2 shows the distribution of Fire (2) These are emergency/medical Department calls by land use type. It incidents that could not be assigned to Indicates that only .6 percent of all calls a particular land use. were related to oil operations. The total City expenditures on the budget items Source: City of Huntington Beach Fire related to Fire Department emergency Department and Planning Staff. calls were $4,718,248 In 1979. Those items are Fire Control (account number 302)* and Medical Aid Paramedic (304). Considering the discussion above, oil uses then should be assigned .6 percent of the * Paranthesis indicates the account total, or $28,309. numbers in the City budget for these Items. 6 t 0 Table 2.3 shows the distribution of Police The following budget items were Department calls among land uses In the considered related to the costs of City. Note that oil operations are not responding to criminal activity: Crime broken out Into a separate category; they Analysis 330), Vice and Organized Crime are Included in the "industrial" group. All (328), Investigative (329), Scientific industries accounted for only .2 percent of Investigation (331), Patrol (332), Traffic police calls. Because there are other (335) and Aero (337). The City expended industries in Huntington Beach besides oil, $7,190,105 to provide these services in the share of the expense of these services 1979-80. Oil's share, .2 percent of the attributed to oil facilities must be some total, is $14,360. fraction of .2 percent. For the purposes of this analysis, however, the full .2 percent A very large proportion of fire and police Is assigned to oil activities to ensure that calls are included under "streets and their share Is not underestimated. highways," "miscellaneous" or "unassigned" categories. Expenditures in these TABLE 2.3 categories cannot be assigned to specific land uses directly. This Is true for most Distribution of Police Department other City expenditures as well. These will Calls of LandUse (Calen3ar be discussed again below. Year . Another group of City expenditures which # of Calls % of Total can be reasonably assumed to be directly related to oil operations are the costs of Streets & Highways 29,386 40.2 the City's oil inspection and regulation activities. The City Oil Inspector, who Residential 23,917 32.7 works in the Fire Department, enforces the City Oil Code, Inspects every well Commercial 139457 18.4 annually, responds to oil-related emergencies and performs other duties City Beach & Pier 908 1.2 related to oil operations. The Fire Department estimates that oil inspection City Parks 446 .5 costs (including inspector's salary and overtime, benefits, car, uniforms and State Beach 129 .3 office support) were approximately $45,800 In 1979-80. Industrial 125 .2 (including oil) Finally, because there is a potential petroleum fire hazard associated with the Miscellaneous 4,717 6.5 oil production facilities, pipelines and tank farms in Huntington Beach, the Fire TOTALS 73,085 100.0 Department has an engine company that Is specially trained and equipped to handle oil fires. If not for its oil field responsibility, the Fire Department would not maintain this company. Therefore, the cost of this Source: City of Huntington Beach Police protection, estimated at $210,000 for Department and Planning Staff. 1979-80, is added to City expenditures on oil activities., 7 Not DirectIX Assignable Expenditures: TABLE 2.4 Most expenditures cannot be irect y `J/ assigned to particular land uses. Many of Distribution of Costs these represent the City's "overhead" or Using Weighted Average Model the cost of having services available, should they be needed. Economist George % of Total Patterson helps clarify this point: Expenditures % of Acreage Assigned by .the basic purpose of a fire in City Model department is protection, which is available to all whether or not they Residential 65% 87.3�6 actually have a fire. It is not logical to assume that a fire department is Commercial 9% 5.2% paid only when it is fighting a fire:'2 Industrial 6% 2.3% Thus, while expenditures on fighting fires can be reasonably attributed to different Oil 3% 2.3% users, the costs of having the equipment and personnel ready to fight any fire are Vacant 17% 2.9% not, but are borne by all members of the community. Total 100% 100.0% The City has developed an expenditure model as part of the preparation of this report for estimating the "fair share" of these costs that can be reasonably In 1979-80, expenditures an budget items attributed to different kinds of land uses. which cannot be directly traced to specific A detailed discussion of this model and of land uses totaled $24,982,308.► Oil's share alternatives that were examined by the of this, 2.3 percent, equals $572,523. City for this study is included in Appendix Table 2.5 lists all the budget items A. A brief summary of the model and its included in this analysis. assumptions follows: •, 2.2 Revenues The model takes into account several ` factors in assigning the appropriate share Oil operations generate significant of City expenditures to different land uses, revenues for the City from a number of including the amount of acreage In the sources, including the following: City each land use type occupies and the intensity of use on that acreage (that is, the number of residences, businesses or oil facilities per acre). The assumption * Library, Parks & Recreation, and utilized in the model is that more Harbors and Beaches are not included intensively developed areas tend to require in the analysis because these three more services (and, thus, more groups of services are attributed expenditures) per acre then less densely primarily to residential uses and are developed areas. This approach, called the not considered in the calculations of "Weighted Average Model" tirnates thal expenditures attributable to oil oil operations can occounl Tor about 2.33 operations. Water Department percent of the City's budget (for items expenditures and revenues from water which cannot be directly traced to specific sales are also excluded, because oil land uses). See Table 2.4. activities consume relatively small quantities of water and the estimated revenues are not important to this analysis. 8 BUDGET ITEMS FOR •UNASSIGNED• EXPENDURES General Government and Adm n stration Police Department • (100) City Council (230) Development Services Adm. (320) Administration (101) Hon-departmental (231) Current Planning (321) General Support (102) Civic Promotions (232) Advance Planning (322) Personnel (109) City Administrator (233) Land Use (323) Public Affairs (110) Internal Auditor (234) Plan Reveiw (324) Records (111) Budget and Research (325) Training (112) Council Support (326) Research (113) Public Information Publlc Works (333) Communication (114 Economic Development (115) Civil Defense (410) Administration Fire Department (116) Data Processing (412) Surveying (117) Purchasing (415) Traffic Engineering (300) Administration (118) Central Services (420) Maintenance Administration (301) Fire Prevention (119) Word Processing (430) Mechanical Maintenance (304) Joint Powers (120) Chashier (462) Vehicle Repair (485) Fire Station (121) Risk Management (560) Sewer Maintenance (122) Animal License (561) (591) Sewer Pump Station • (130) City Attorney (431) Mechanical Fabrication ;ate inablees mw at of assigrmble' items attri- (140) City Clerk (433) Pool Car Maintenance buted to 'street grid high- (141) Elections (453) Special Repairs(160) Personnel (450, � •loallanea�e• and (170) Finance 460, •1Ys., U,s gnedo. Asfer to ifbles 2.2 and 2.3. (171) Accounting 470, (172) Business License 480, Building Maintenance 482, 487, 489, 490) Summar for 1979-80 Unass gne xpen itures General Government $8,840,880 Public Works 5.899,762 Police 6,560,"0 Fire 3,600,968 Total I TABLE 2.5 huntington beach planning division 1) property taxes (including tax on surface of an oil field or oil parcel is considered in areas, mineral rights and improvements), 2) use for oil production, and how much could business license and oil production license reasonably be considered vacant and fees, 3) inspection fees, 4) pipeline available for other uses. In many cases, a franchises, 5) wastewater permit fees, 6) parcel is so densely populated with wells drilling/redrilling permit fees and 7) and tanks that the entire area can be royalties and easements. considered oil production land. In other instances, however, open spaces between Property Tax: The City's property tax wells are large enough to permit revenues are primarily dependent on three development of other uses. For example, key variables, 1) the assessment or it would be unreasonable to think of a valuation of property in the City, 2) the ten-acre parcel with three oil wells on it as tax rate applied to those valuations or devoted entirely to oil. Vacant portions of assessments, and 3) the percentage of the such a parcel could be developed for other total property taxes collected in uses. This has happened in areas Huntington Beach which actually go to the throughout the City. City. In order to accurately estimate the surface Proposition 13 "rolled-back" property area of the City used for oil activities, the valuations to 1975 levels and limits characteristics of the oil fields and parcels re-assessment to two percent per year. in the City were analyzed to determine if However, if a property is sold, it is the land around the wells and tanks could re-assessed at that time at its selling be developed for other uses. Those areas price. Generally, because of the two which could be considered available for percent annual limit, valuations do not other uses were counted as vacant land. keep pace with inflation. The frequency at The remaining portions of oil fields and which properties "turn-over" (are sold), and parcels were counted as oil areas. Through thus are re-assessed, greatly affects how this process, staff estimated that about closely the overall valuation for properties 472 acres are actually used for oil can keep pace with inflation 4 production in Huntington Beach. The estimated assessed value of this surface Proposition 13 generally limits property area for 1979-80 is $4,901,666 (See Table tax rates to one percent of market value. 2.6). Voters in any tax rate area can approve additional taxes beyond this base rate. Besides the surface land, property taxes Table 2.6 below shows the distribution of are also assessed on mineral rights, secured oil holdings among tax rate areas, the rates improvements, and unsecured for each area and the tax collected by the improvements. The assessments on each of county. these in 1979-80 were the following: $23,788,080 for mineral rights; $9 227,480 Many jurisdictions other than the City for secured improvements; and J701,160 (such as the school districts) are also for unsecured improvements. funded by property taxes. Thus, only a fraction of the total property taxes The City receives a 20.7 percent share of collected in Huntington Beach actually go the total property taxes on oil operations to the City. The share of the property in Huntington Beach collected by the taxes which went to the City was 20.7 County, which amounted to $382,068 for percent in 1979-80. 1979-80.5 The most difficult problem in estimating Business License and Oil Production the City's property tax revenues related to License ees: The oil product io—n ee is a oil is determining how much surface area fee charge for each barrel of oil produced. It is linked to the 10 r Assessed Value of Oil Properties in Huntington Beach, 1979-80 Tax Rate Mineral Secured Unsecured Tax Tax Area Land +► Rights Improvements Improvements Total Rate Collected i 001 40255,667 20,653,010 8,9749280 457,970 34,3409927 4.7767% 1,640,363 007 13,742 66,690 1,940 207,360 289,732 4.8309% 13,997 O10 479053 228,350 13,270 90450 2989123 4.8426% 14,437 013 & 014 585,204 2,8409030 2-379990 26,380 396899604 4.7884% 176,673 Totals 49901,666 239788,080 9,2279480 701,160 38,618,386 1,845,740 * Land surface was distributed among tax rate areas in the same proportions as mineral rights. Source: Orange County Assessor's Office. TABLE 2.6 huntington beach planning division consumer price index, and, thus, increases (Some pipelines are not related to oil as the cost of living rises. The oil production here - that is, even if there production license fee rates for 1979-80 were no oil production in Huntington Beach were 11.05�/barrel for "non-stripper" wells these pipelines would continue to be used. (wells that produce more than ten barrels They ore used for transporting crude oil per day) and 8.840/barrel for "stripper" delivered by tanker or for carrying gas or wells (wells that produce less than 10 refined products.) barrels per day). Each oil operator also pays an annual $100 business license fee Ro alties and Easements: As a result of per well. legislation in the T97ffs—, the City receives royalty payments from the sale of oil The oil production fee is paid quarterly, produced on offshore lease Public and the operator may deduct up to $25 per Resources Code 392. The royalty is quarter as reimbursement for the license approximately .25 percent of those sales, fee. In other words, the first $25 of the and therefore, contingent on oil prices and quarterly oil production fee is paid in the amount produced - two variables that advance, in the form of a business license are very difficult to edict. In 1979-80, fee. The total revenue collected from this the Cif y received $120,000 from this source was $1,076,996 for 1979-80.6 source. U Oil Well Inspection Fee: Each oil well is 2.3 Conclusion rn—spected annually for compliance with the Huntington Beach Oil Code. The oil The analysis for 1979-80 indicates that oil inspector must approve each well before a production contributes significant revenues business license is issued. There is a $50 to the City, totaling approximately $1.67 inspection fee per well. Total revenue million. Approximately two-thirds of these from oil well inspections was $73,000 for revenues come from the oil production fee 1979-80. (per barrel) which is tied directly to production. This fee also increases Wastewater Permits: Every well that uses annually with an index of the inflation t ity's wastewater system must pay an rate; thus, this revenue source can keep annual $30 wastewater fee. There are 322 pace to a significant degree with rising wells using the systerr4 Total revenues expenditure levels. were $9,660 for 1979-80. The estimated City expenditures related to Drillin /Redril ling Permits: In order to oil production for 1979-80 were drillor re drill an oil well, an operator must approximately $.87 million. Three secure a permit from the oil inspector. departments—fire, police and public There is a $500 fee for each permit works-.account for about two-thirds of approved. In 1979-80, 13 dril ling/redril ling these; expenditures by all other permits were issued, generating a revenue departments combined for the remaining of $6,500 8 one third of the total. Pipeline Franchises: Oil companies that Clearly, oil production activities currently ve pipelines in Huntington Beach pay generate net revenues to the City. The franchise taxes whose rates are established next section analyzes how this fiscal by contracts with the City. The term of situation might change in the future, the contracts vary from franchise to considering variables such as changing franchise. Revenues from this source were production levels, inflation, and pressures $4,253 for 1979-80 for pipelines directly to redevelop the oil fields to new uses. related to oil production in Huntington Beach.9 12 3.0 Fiscal Impacts of Continuing Oil Operations Estimates of the fiscal impacts of In light of these changing variables and continued oil activities in Huntington different possibilities, several "scenarios" Beach depend largely on the predicted of oil operations over the next decade have future of those activities. This can be a been analyzed. The first assumes, overall, problem because many variables important that the number of wells, acreage and to a fiscal analysis, such as the number of production levels remain relatively barrels produced, the number of wells, the unchanged. This could come about if the actual acreage devoted to oil facilities and decline of production in some parts of the the inflation rate, are difficult to foresee. field are balanced by new waterflood projects and other enhanced recovery 3.1 Predicting Future Oil Operations programs. Production among small independents Is assumed to continue The lack of available open space in this dropping, but the "recycling" of their area and the growing housing shortage parcels to new uses would proceed very create pressure to abandon oil fields and to slowly, largely due to the increasing price redevelop them for busing. At the same of oil. Thus, the number of wells, acreage, time, rising oil prices and the relaxation of and overall oil production would remain price controls an domestic oil make relatively constant for the next ten years. continued oil production, even at low levels, increasingly attractive. Higher prices may also make more expensive production techniques (such as water * Two other reports in this series are injection) profitable in parts of the field highly relevant to the discussion of where • they have not yet been applied. new technologies: Report #1 Further, while production in the "Preserving Surface Access to Huntington Beach field has been declining, Underground OR Reserves in new technologies are being tested here Developed Areas", and Report #4, which might rejuvenate the field.* "Enhanced Oil Recovery Technologies". 13 The second scenario envisions a gradual Underground Oil Reserves in Developed phase-out of oil operations in the Townlot Areas," analyzes this possibility in detail. and Downtown during the 1980's, but operations elsewhere in the City continue Before discussing each of these scenarios, relatively unchanged. This was analyzed some assumptions about how revenues and because the Townlot and Downtown areas expenditures will change over time should are especially valuable parts of the City, be reviewed. and pressures for redevelopment there will be stronger than elsewhere. Also, with the 3.2 Assumptions about Variables Affecting completion of the Local Coastal Plan Future Revenues an xpen itures during the early part of the decade, now dormant efforts to develop and redevelop Several assumptions about some key that area should intensify. variables affecting future revenues and expenditures have been made in this The third scenario sees a phase-out of the analysis. small-scale independent operations during the next decade, while the major oil First of all, Proposition 13's limits an the companies continue operating near their property tax rate and property value present levels. In many ways, this scenario assessment are assumed to remain in may best approximate what will actually effect. We also assume that most oil happen. Discussions with the major oil properties that remain productive will not companies in Huntington Beach indicate change owners, thus limiting re-assessment that they expect to continue operating at of the surface areas to annual increases of least another 20 years, and that the two percent per year. (See Section 2.3 application of enhanced recovery above.) The City's share of overall technologies may not dramatically increase property tax revenues collected in production, but will offset recent declines Huntington Beach was assumed to remain and keep production levels up for several approximately 20.7 percent. years. At the some time, the production of the independents has continued to decline. Changes in the amounts charged for Generally speaking, they cannot apply the drilling, inspection and waste water enhanced recovery technologies available permits were not incorporated into the to the larger companies. As their analysis because these fees account for production drops and the value of the only a small percentage of total annual surface for housing continues to rise, these revenues. parcels would gradually recycle. On the expenditure side, the costs to the The last scenario considers the possibility City for providing services to future oil that, rather than abandoning their operations will be a function of how much operations, the small independent oil of the land remains in oil production, the companies in the Townlot, along with one number of wells and related facilities to be or more of the majors, join together and served, the level of service to be provided, form a "unit." By combining the resources and the inflation rate. In the following of all the participants, the unit has the analysis, the level of service is assumed to capital and the surface acreage to apply remain constant; consequently, total City waterflood and other enhanced recovery expenditures are assumed to increase techniques. Thus, production increases and according to the inflation rate and the the operations continue throughout the City's overall growth pattern. In the 1980's. Report #I in this series, following analysis, total City expenditures "Preserving Surface Access to over the next ten years were projected 14 using the City-wide Fiscal Impact Model Weighted Average Model's expenditure line and the City's General Plan, which helps as our best estimate of what City define the future growth pattern and mix expenditures will actually be, and the of uses in the City. These total annual City-wide Model's expenditure line as an expenditure estimates were used to estimate of the probable maximum or calculate oil's share of City expenditures upper limit of actual expenditures. which are not directly assignable. Scenario I - Oil Revenues and A ten percent inflation rate is alsoExpenditures, i rations assumed. Remain Relatively Unchanged. In summary, the following assumptions In this scenario, the current number of have been made for the analysis in Sections wells (1460) remains through 1990. The 3.2 - 3.5: area devoted to oil stays at 472 acres and overall production is constant. - Proposition 13 controls on tax rates and property assessments will apply. Revenues derived from the oil production fees and royalties rise 10 percent per year - The City's share of the property tax which Is the assumed inflation rate. will remain 20.7 percent. Property tax revenues rise at only two percent per year due to Proposition 13 - Rates on drilling permits and other fees limitations. All other revenues remain the will not change. some, assuming that the some number of permits is issued each year, and that fee - Total City expenditures are estimated rates do not change. Overall, revenues using the City-wide Fiscal Model and increase, but not as fast as expenditures. the General Plan. Figure 3.1a shows oil revenues and - Level of City services stays constant. expenditures for 1980-90. Under Scenario I, oil operations are a net revenue - Inflation will average ten percent per generator for the City under the assumed year. conditions primarily because the oil production fee, which makes up two-thirds 3.3 Analysis of Scenarios of the revenue, is tied to the Consumer Price Index; therefore, this portion of the In all of the following scenarios, revenues keeps pace with inflation. expenditures are calculated two ways. The first method uses the "Weighted Average Figure 3.Ib shows the same scenario in Model" developed in Appendix A because it "constant (1979) dollars," that is, the is probably the most accurate and revenues and expenditures are adjusted for reasonable of the available models for inflation. This figure shows more clearly calculating oil-related expenditures. that net revenues (reflected In the distance Expenditures are also predicted based an between the revenue line and the the City-wide Model because it is the expenditure lines) decrease over time. technique used in many previous analyses This is because one-third of the revenues and it gives the highest cost estimates of generated by oil ore not indexed to the all the models analyzed in Appendix A. inflation rate. In other words, total Both models were used to plot expenditure revenues simply do not keep up with curves in all of the figures in this section; inflation. Despite this decline, oil thus, each figure shows two expenditure operations would continue to contribute lines. Perhaps the best way to interpret net revenues throughout the decade. these graphs is to view the 15 t,o 000 Figure 3.1(s) Scenario 2 - Phase Out Oil Operations from "° t own ot. 300 The Townlot and Downtown areas include some of the most valuable real estate in Huntington Beach. Currently, they are "° also among the poorest sections of the oil field in terms of production. A feasible scenario, then, is one where the value of the surface for other uses (e.g. housing) �� �,.•• outweighs the value of the oil being �,,,,'• recovered. In such a situation, it is reasonable to assume that the oil producers 10 will gradually abandon their wells in this area and sell the land for development. '° There are 13.8 acres of oil land in the Townlot. Aminoil owns approximately .8 acres for wells that are directionally woo 81 a a .. a N 87 .. so .° drilled under the ocean. Since these wells do not derive their oil from the field under Uty-.ne.uil rAvemm w egard tW s, 1"0-1 o: cbn.r.,c f-rdaticM. the Townlot, they are assumed to remain. The other 13 acres are presumed to phase out as follows: one acre per year, the first 10 years, and three acres in the last year. Fiore 3.1(b) The 95 wells are assumed to phase out as follows: Nine wells per year the first 10 years, and five wells in the last year. Conditions in the rest of the City remain M0 unchanged. no As the wells and acreage decrease, oil revenues from oil production fees, property taxes, and permit fees decrease accordingly. It is assumed that every well in this area is paying wastewater fees, but ,o that no drilling or redr i I I i ng is done here. The overall City revenues from oil decline only slightly. Very little revenue is '0 currently derived from this part of the field due to its law productivity (see Figure .° 3.2a). Expenditures also decrease slightly as the number of oil acres and oil wells in the MW W n u N as N .y so so b Townlot decrease. Figure 3.2b shows revenues and ""' acywsem all ,.e..,e naatua.., iv,o-"9°: �,79 o,. expenditures for this scenario in 1979 Milan).17alan)f. dollars (adjusted for inflation). key ess supansitures, weighted Avers" Mosel saw Ropeneitures. City-Ills. Mosel 16 f 10.000'. ' Figure 3.2(a) Note that although both revenues and 310 expenditures decline, net revenues (total revenue minus total costs) are slightly less than under Scenario I. f0 From a fiscal standpoint, although net f„ revenues are slightly less in this scenario than in Scenario I, the City continues to net a high level of revenue from oil. At >oo0400 the some time, valuable land is mode available for other uses. ISO Scenario 3 - All Independents Phase Out; Only aJors Remain. Sao There are 95 acres containing 268 wells „ that belong to oil producers other than the three major companies. Scenario 3 could be realized if the value of all real estate in Huntington Beach increases such that oil m" 61 0: 63 N a a •7 a 00 production by the independents is less profitable than other land uses. Figure CL"'A .Oil FAWMAS Wd ppoltWW, 1"0-1 t lamtoc "mm-c - Ma shows what happens to oil revenues and expenditures if the independents phase fa.000 Figure 3.2(b) out as follows: nine acres phase out per year for the first 10 years, then five in the last year; 24 wells phase out per year for the first 10 years, then 28 in the last year. • N0 Oil revenues from the oil production fees, property tax, and permit fees decline as no wells and acreage decrease. All Independents are assumed to need wastewater permits, and revenues derived q0 from them are reduced along with the wells. The number of drilling and redrilling permits is not affected. The amount of revenue lost related to total revenue is small because these wells do not, on the average, produce large quantities of oil. Costs, however, are borne according to number of wells and/or acreage. A well that produces large quantities of oil requires approximately the some City services as a well that produces very w.o n n u .4 a fw 87 as at +0 little. However, the better producing well generates greater revenues to the City. on-wift all ftvv�are f>weraioa... iffo-l"O.?"olM wr w-,cA Thus, the ratio of revenues to costs Is (19"0c1l.W. greater for highly productive wells. key .. w.�►•ffff.. w tftpwAltur••, Weight•a Aven"p No"I .� s:�•ffditur•.. City-Mi0• Ib0.1 17 s to.000 • Figure 3.3(s) Because the independent wells generally 35. 0 produce less oil per well than those of the majors, phasing them out removes most of 300 the wells with the worst revenue to cost ratios. This means that although total revenues overall are lower because there "° are fewer active wells, total costs are reduced even more, thus improving the overall revenue-cost ratio. Therefore, net revenues in real dollars decline less in Scenario 3 than in either previous scenario. "° � ,•�..• (See Figure 3.3b). 100 � .. Scenario 4 - Unitization of the Townlot Area; Other Oil Areas Do Not Change. so unitization is a method by which several independents can legally join together to act as if they were a single company. This allows them to apply enhanced recovery technologies and increase their City-vfb oil .rmum No b"n-mu". l"o-1m; > "max..- production.* Enhanced recovery often Involves pumping water into an oil pool in $10.000. which primary production is nearly Figure 33(b) completed. By injecting water at certain points in the field, oil production in all wells can be dramatically improved. To do this in an area with several owners, all NO operators must cooperate and help finance the venture. Unitization is often the only too way additional oil can be recovered in significant quantities. �. In this scenario, unitization takes place in the Townlot area. The number of wells remains the some because while some new wells are drilled, some existing, inefficient wells are abandoned. In the first two .. ""' »�•..... years, drilling and redrilling activity increases. Overall acreage drops by five acres because of the abandonment of some 40 old facilities and the consolidation of most new ones. Production levels are unchanged. so IMo •1 87 N N OS N 07 0. Caty-wu*Oil A....a.w Dp.W.tu... 1M0-1990: ln*Wwdentl"1w-att * See Report #I in the series, "Preserving 11979 oolLnl. Surface Access to Underground O i l Reserves in Developed Areas:' key END ftwellues ees BXPMAitureo. wioAceA wtiraa Model .r 8»a"Altures. City-Wide Model 18 Begimning in the third year, acreage is stable at 8.8, and all other factors are the "° Figure 3.Q(e) some except annual production, which increases by one million barrels. Figure 3.4a shows the jump in revenues caused by the increase in oil production fee 250 revenue from a million extra taxable barrels of oil. Because the number of wells no is the some, and total acreage stabilizes at an only slightly lower level than before, costs over the 10 year period are nearly 10 the some as in Scenario I. too Figure 14b shows that in real dollars, net revenue is greater in Scenario 4 than in any of the previous scenarios, while costs 'o actually decline. Clearly, unitization could increase revenues while reducing costs by increasing productivity without Increasing {{to 01 rl a H a N O1 0{ 09 �o the overall number of wells or acreage.12 3.4 Summary city-dft ou ft%WWr.m1 bVWdiha.s, 1{00-l"Ot 7ot.tlot unttretlm. These scenarios represent four possible Figure 3.4(b) futures for oil operations in Huntington Beach. it is not known which, if any, of them will take place. Most likely, none of them will occur exactly as portrayed in this analysis. However, some conclusions can be drawn from these scenarios. First, in any of these cases or combination of them, it is clear that continued oil operations will generate significant net revenues for the City. Second, if unitization and enhanced .o recovery projects do occur and are successful, they can help increase the revenues to the City without significantly Increasing service costs. In some cases, City expenditures associated with oil operations could even decline slightly, while revenues would dramatically increase. Third, the independent operators do not "W " n " .. a a " " " contribute a large portion of the revenues generated by oil operations, and unless City-rle.Oil FA%W%Lm and EmWd,oa,.. I"O-I vo: 7t..,lot In1tt,.t t.n unitization takes place, they will not in the (1919 mll--). future. The three major oil companies in key fteremes sus Rapen tares, M Aebted AVW 140"1 0{11110 lxpSOftures, clt.-Mid, Ibdal 19 Huntington Beach -- Aminoil USA, Chevron USA and Union Oil — are chiefly 3.5 Garfield/Goldenwest and responsible for the significant net revenues Town of owntown real afforded the City by current and continued oil operations. (See Figure 3.5 .) The Gar field/Goldenwest and the Townlot/Downtown parts of the City were analyzed specifically because they are examples of areas where the existing oil operations may be changing (See Figure Figure 3.5 3.5a). Both of these areas are of great Interest for future development other than oil. Union 9% .;t' ' r Chevron 12% Downtown/Townlot: As mentioned above, ..,•�y"!;,;,,;; �iyG/'���9 'r,/, the Townlot/Downtown area is especially y; :::,,R.;�/,,.;,.�/�• .;,./ „�;;%,;,%/%�' interesting in light of the possiblity of it ;4<!•%iii %y ::%:. ,r!'�' %-(h recycling to new uses and its potential for ..RI%iii/•'•i:fir..'!�N�!'i.q'i• :i/(i���" /�7/r %,b;;;!,/��/-::.�:,::i�. •':;.; i,%! H/ unitization and enhanced recovery. These possibilities were analyzed in Scenarios 3 0.4 ,�r.,,r�,s /:,•;,,;,�•%:::,;,� ,::• ! ;!�y' and 4. This section simply separates out !•'/ % �,��%i. :• Inde endent the Townlot/Downtown from the rest of ,�/,�; �,: ;i%%:i:,:;':r!:�{•:> the City to helphighlight the fiscal 'I•�y4,� . :i�i:(i/�Y/:i�:,{::!iii,r(/'1'•/..!..!if �!•�:%/;�,r%�:����`,,j��%•Y / /,:� /�/�'- ;� !,i:;l•;,�••:�.�i•./�',q %,% %�i�:•� ,s,�s/.. impacts specific to that area yy,��/, ^^:;i%•q/:�•...: (/!i!i:: ,%,/•i%i7i�i,:• %�L•i F��%'./r%l,•:i/ `J/�%/•!; • •iy%/!rf/iJ.i:::i!/�q/r//,•!/���!•:7!%%�b/rj/•::+iy.!'i%r�'//,•.9%7ii�/'ri'ii rT;jri 1i ;i:��,�H�rriy;%%i% :iii i�F�/•fin:/��!%'•�h,ii•!���/,/'/(,ir���U/,•:��•3+y.r,/yr ! ''"'?fir' % Figures 3 6a to 3 6c illustrate the following ;,y .yi possibilities. 1) the existing oil operations .r./,!..:%•//J/�!�r rr rr/i i•�'ir:Rnr / remain active during the next decade, 2) the oil operations gradually phase out during the 1980's and 3) a unitization and enhanced recovery program is undertaken. Aminoil 68% The analysis indicates that oil operations In this part of the City currently generate net revenues. However, rising service costs, and the fact that total revenues Oil Revenues, 1979-80; cannot keep up with inflation, will make these smaller operations net "losers" Majors vs. Independents. sometime during the 19801s, even if production remains at today's level. However, if a unitization program is undertaken and is successful, the oil operations would become significant net "winners" throughout the decade. Garfield/Goldenwest: The future use of the Garfield/GoRgiwest area has been the subject of considerable debate in the City. One factor which could be considered in any decision about the best use of this land Is the fiscal impact of continued use as 20 Townl ot/Down town Garfield/Goldenwest mom s r� �• i r J / rr�ra mom t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH O WrA C"TY MIFOM" HUNTINGTON BEACH, COILFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Figure 3.5(a) 21 ' flood. MEW f1,0O0". Figure 3.6(a) Figure 3.6(c) 10 NO •0 no •....• f0 100 wwwnww..wwwwwww.nwoy,�_ �•..nww. wwww t0 so 10 p �0 Mat 01 82 N N as N •7 •f •y fO N�0 81 a as N a7 N 89 !o 7laNat-Attr oil ftVA s rd f9¢aditutllr. 19110-1!!0s CarstAnt Caditiar 1b1N0t AtN 011 Itr�ras Wd O¢adio¢m, 19YD-1990: Ihltuatum lll79 O01Ln). 11979 ool Lrsl. f tow. Figure 3.6(b) key OW UPO"ItWOO. *819bted AVerar M"81 .�. SAWOOdatwee. City-wad. MWe p )b an oil production area. Figures 3.7a and 3.7b indicate the probable impacts of 1) oil operations continuing unchanged in this 70 area for the next 10 years and 2) the operations gradually phasing out. At this to ••-• time, the oil pool under this area does not appear to be a likely candidate for . unitization, so such a project was not f analyzed. 11l0 �1 a? u N a K •7 �! 09 !o The figures Indicate that current fiscal Impacts are quite insignificant -- the operations demand few costs but contribute little revenue. During the decade, even if production could be TOW110t Ar�Oil F.%..,e..1d f,�.lit,�... maintained at current levels, the 19110-1990: 011 gjmrari�..,,,,,rc operations tend to become net losers; but !1979 Dollan), again, the impacts are so small that they are essentially inconsequential. 22 Figure 3.7(a) Figure 3.7(b) so �° 40 a0 30 3D 20 20 10 .„. ...........•... "so V 02 87 N 83 ro 87 so 19 ro 1140 at 82 82 N as 87 119 89 ro GarfielWcbltlnrest AM&Oil Re•enrs and t]arnditures, Garfield/Goldenrest Area Oil Re•mues and DQnditures, 1980-1990: OTstant Mrslitions 1980-1990: Oil Operations Phe e-OA (1979 Dollars). (1979 Dollars). - s(,000'. Revenues key Figure 3.8 see tlpsaditures, Weighted Averse Model see sxyessditures. City-Wide Model so Alternative Development in the Townlot/ Downtown Area: Another aspect of the .o question of whether oil production should be encouraged to continue centers around the development that should replace oil 20 operations. This section compares the fiscal impacts of oil operations in the Townlot/ Downtown to those of likely alternate uses there.* to The Townlot/Downtown area is predominantly medium-density residential, and oil lands are zoned to recycle into the "go M 62 p 41 as 96 67 as 99 ro same kind of use. This, combined with an acute housing shortage, make it very probable that any oil land in this area that recycles will become medium density residential. Tovnlot Medium-density Residential Revenues and Expenditures, 1980-1990: Phase-in Thirteen Acres (1979 Dollars). * The Garfield/Goldenwest area Is a special case. A study is now being conducted to determine the best future use of the land in that area. 23 Using the City-wide Fiscal Impact Model, in the Townlot (Figure 3.5a) follow a revenues and expenditures resulting from similar trend at a similar magnitude (after recycling of the 13 oil acres In the Townlot 1988) as the revenues and expenditures area to medium density residential can be from medium density residential In that approximated. This is illustrated in Figure area (Figure 3.8). Further, it should be 3.8, with half of the acreage recycling in noted that neither of these development 1980, and the other half in 1982. types has a very large negative fiscal Impact — in the range of five to 10 The numbers shown are rough estimates, thousand dollars per year. but the trends and general magnitudes are clear. As time goes on, revenues decrease The conclusion is that fiscal impacts, while and expenditures increase slightly. It Is important, do not provide a criterion for apparent that this type of development choosing one of these development types generates net revenues in the year It is over the other. This underscores the built, but because of rising costs, Inflation limitations of fiscal analysis — it is a very and limits on property tax rates and Important input into the decision-making assessments, It tends to become a net loser process — but there are other shortly afterward. (See Section 2.3) considerations of great importance that are involved. Section 4.0 discusses these The most revealing aspect of this issues more fully. projection is that the revenues and expenditures from oil operations remaining 24 4.0 Beyond Fiscal Impacts Previous sections have discussed the 4.1 Non-Fiscal Costs importance of fiscal impact analysis in land use decisions. Although knowledge of Aesthetics: Oil wells impose adverse fiscal impacts is important, that visual, noise and odor impacts. Pumping information alone is not sufficient for the units and tanks impose the negative visual decision-maker. The effects of a land use impacts associated with onshore oil on the City's budget must be balanced with production. They are large, unattractive other possible impacts brought about by facilities that give an "industrial" look to choosing one land use over another. This any area in which they are located. section, while not intended to discount the value of fiscal analysis, underlines its Occasionally, oil wells emit gases that limitations by briefly presenting some have a sulphurous odor. Although the odors major "non-f iscal" costs and benefits. may not occur daily (and depend, of course, an the direction of the wind), when they Certain aspects of oil production are are present, the smell can be offensive. known to have impacts an the quality of life that are difficult to express in terms Finally, the pumping units, injectors, of dollars. Market forces alone do not compressors and drilling rigs can be noisy. usually recognize these effects and fiscal The severity of noise impact varies with analysis is not intended to account for one's proximity to the equipment and the them. They must be recognized and type of equipment. Introduced into the discussion through some other mechanism (e.g. the political The costs associated with these kinds of process). adverse impacts include the diminished enjoyment of recreation areas, lowered Some of these "unpriced" costs and property values and reseed visitors to benefits associated with oil production are nearby conmercial areas. discussed brief ly below. 25 Some extreme odor and noise impacts can Ian roved Balance Of Payments: When the also impose adverse health effects on United States spWnW more money on persons near the offending site. imports than other countries spend on American exports, there is a net flow of Opportunitr Costs: An opportunity cost is dollars out of the country. This is called inevitably imposed in any situation where a on unfavorable balance of payments. The choice is made between two or more undesirable ramifications of this situation alternatives. By choosing any of the are well known — it aggravates inflation alternatives, the opportunity to have one and weakens the dollar. Because imported of the others is necessarily foregone. In oil is our single largest import, substituting the case of oil production in Huntington domestic oil for imported oil is a Beach, an opportunity cost is incurred by significant step to help reduce inflation using land for oil production rather than and strengthen the dollar. some other kind of development. Employment A third benefit the City All land in Southern California is becoming derives roan oil operations is the increasingly valuable. Housing Is in employment the industry brings to the particularly short supply. In light of this area. About 600 persons are directly situation, the opportunity cost of oil employed in oil operations in Huntington production may be too high in some parts Beach.14 In addition, oil operators of the City. On the other hand, developing support local businesses by purchasing the surface precludes the opportunity for goods and services in the City. (This is oil production. Unless it is clear that oil sometimes called a "multiplier effect".) production is less valuable than another use of the land, preserving access to the oil 4.3 Federal and Local Perspectives on from the surface is quite important. For Non-fiscal osts and Berietits example, if all oil surface in the Townlot were recycled to other uses, unitization Interestingly, two of the major benefits of (and recovery of millions of barrels of oil) oil production (reduced dependence on would no longer be possible. (See Report imported oil and improved balance - of - #I, entitled "Preserving Surface Access to payments) are greater - than - local in Underground Oil Reserves in Developed scope. This means that the City's oil Areas", for a detailed discussion of this production protects the national interest problem.) by helping to improve the economy and contributing to national security. 4.2 Non-fiscal Benefits However, many of the costs, such as offensive odors, visual impacts and reduced Reduced Dependence On Forei n Oil: A property values, are local in nature. widely acknowledged problem tacing the notion is the uncertainty of our energy The fact that the positive and negative supply in an emergency. Every barrel of impacts of oil operations are primarily felt oil produced in the United States is at different levels of government, potentially a substitute for an imported increases the difficulty in assessing them. one, and the importance of small fields in Coastal Energy Impact grants, such as the contributing to the domestic oil supply one funding this study, provide funding should not be understated. For example, from the federal government, which the Huntington Beach field is the seventh benefits from increasing energy largest oil producer in California and production, to local governments to help produces three percent of the state's oil. them analyze and mitigate the adverse Thirty-five percent of Colifomia's oil effects of increased energy production production comes from fields even smaller which tend to impact the local community. than Huntington Beach. 26 5.0 Conclusion Before concluding this report, two This trend should continue through the Important qualifications to the analysis 1980's — oil activities will generate must be stressed. The first is to reiterate revenues of similar magnitude for the next • the simplifying assumptions made decade. However, even if production throughout the report. The second is to levels stay the same, these revenues tend emphasize the limitations of fiscal analysis to decline slightly over the next ten years, — it is only one important input to the because property tax revenues fall behind decision-making process. the inflation rate. This report set out to answer the general An important finding in this analysis is that question, what are the fiscal impacts most of the oil-related revenues are tied to resulting from oil operations on the City of production levels. Thus, the three major Huntington Beach? This question was oil companies with operations in the City addressed for 1979-80, as well as for the (Aminoil, Chevron, Union), which account next decade under four different for over 90 percent of total field-wide scenarios. Further, specific attention was production, contribute most of these given to the Townlot/Downtown and revenues to the City. Even if all the Garfield/ Goldenwest areas, including how independent oil operators were to oil operations might compare to other land phase-out of production by 1990, net uses, revenues would remain about the some through the 1980's (see Section 3.3). As emphasized by the first qua I i f i caton above, the exact numerical figures may be Other noteworthy findings are the subject to discussion, but the general consequences of unitization in the trends and magnitudes are clear. Oil Townlot. Such a project would activities are a net revenue generator for dramatically increase the production of the City. In 1979-80, the City received many of the less efficient wells and, about $800,000 in net revenues from oil although net revenues would be declining operations (see Section 2.0). by the late 1910s, total net revenues 27 r , generated for the decade are greatest in in those areas are likely to involve revenue this scenario (see Section 3.3). losses as well. On the basis of fiscal Impact, neither land use option is The study of oil revenues and expenditures necessarily preferred. Although the fiscal in the Garfield/ Goldenwest and Townlot/ impacts of both uses are important, a Downtown areas are quite revealing. With decision to encourage one over the other the exception of a future where unitization will depend on other considerations beyond of the Townlot takes place, oil operations fiscal analysis (See Section 4.0). in these two areas will be net revenue losers for the City. However, the oil This is not true, however, if the Townlot is activities in these areas cannot be unitized and enhanced recovery is considered a major financial burden to the successful. In that case, the City may gain City. The magnitude of funds gained or significant revenues from oil activities in lost by the City in these two cases is in the the area (See Figure 3.5c). range of $5,000-$10,000 (see Figures 3.5a, b, c, and Figures 3.6a, b). Further, based As a result of Proposition 13, property tax on the City-wide model's estimate of revenues, which have been the traditional expenditures and revenues generated by financial base of local governments, will medium-density residential development, not easily keep pace with inflation. it, too, is a net revenue loser of similar Consequently, for some land uses, the costs magnitude (See Figure 3.7). to the City in providing services will tend to exceed the revenues generated by those Here again, the limitations of fiscal uses. This study indicates, however, that analysis are confronted. Oil activities in at least for the next decade, City-wide oil the Garfield/ Goldenwest and Townlot/ operations will not fall into this category Downtown areas will probably result in and will continue to generate significant revenue losses for the City. net revenues to the City of Huntington Medium-density residential developments Beach. 28 r , APPENDIX A Models for Distributing City Expenditures to Different Land Use Types An important part of fiscal impact analysis is trying to determine what proportion of City expenditures can reasonably be attributed to the different land uses and related activities in the City. As discussed in the text (Section 2.2), a few types of expenditures can be traced more or less directly to different land uses. Examples were expenditures on police and fire calls where the City keeps records of the locations of the calls. We assumed that the percentage of total calls generated by each land use category was a reasonable measure of the percentage of total expenditures on those calls that each land use category generated. Another example was the expenditures for the salary and benefits of the City oil inspector. We assumed that his duties were tied directly to oil production activities In the City and that those expenditures could be "assigned" to oil production uses. The great majority of expenditures, however, cannot be traced to particular uses. Consequently, a model for estimating the proportions of expenditures, among different land uses, which are not otherwise directly assignable to those land uses, was developed. EXPENDITURE MODEL A Word on Models Models are approximations of reality. They are tools for making complex problems comprehensible. This necessarily means that simplifying assumptions must be made obout the problem to be modeled. It is very important, therefore, to make reasonable, defensible assumptions. The key to building a good model is to maximize its accuracy without making it too complex. A good model is accurate enough to be useful, and simple enough to be clearly understood. The expenditure model used in the analysis was designed with this as a goal. Some important issues were considered in constructing the model. The first is the information required by the model, because the available data limit the range of models passible. The model sought is the most sensitive possible with information that is readily available. Secondly, the expenditure model must distribute costs among the various types of land uses in a way consistent with expectations formed by reasonable assumptions and informed.opinion. Although the purpose of this model Is to estimate unassignable expenditures attributable to oil activities, it cannot be used for that purpose unless It distributes costs among all land use types In a way that is reasonable. Finally, the model and analysis should be reproducible.(5 Any reader should be able to understand "where the numbers came from;' and another analyst should be able to accumulate the data and use the model at some time in the future. If this is not possible, the usefulness of the study is questionable. 29 The E diture Model for Distributi Unassi noble Costs Two major assumptions were made in designing a model to distribute unassignable costs. First, unassignable costs should be borne by all members of the City, according to some determination of each member's "fair share." Services whose costs are unassignable are treated as "public goods".16 A public good makes the community as a whole better off, no matter how much of the good each member of the community actually "consumes". Benefits from these goods accrue to all as members of the community, and not solely on the basis of consumption. Therefore, all who live, do business, or own property in the City should contribute their share to the community. To determine each segment's "fair share", we next assumed that two key factors can be used to estimate the share of City expenditures for each land use type. These are 1) the area of the City a particular land use type occupies, and 2) the number of units of that land use type located in the City. Area is simply the acreage a particular land use type occupies. It can be argued that as more area in the City develops, expenditures increase, and that the acreage devoted to different uses reflects their share of community expenses. "Units" are measures of the degree of development of a particular land use. For residential uses, a "unit" is a dwelling unit. For commercial and industrial uses, the number of "units" is assumed to equal the number of business permits issued to that particular use; for oil, it is the number of wells; (obviously, vacant land has no "units"). The logic for this is that each "unit" Is an entity that does business with the City, and each unit generates casts to the City. As units increase (i.e., as development increases), costs increase. The relationship between acreage and units is called "density" and refers to the ratio of units to acreage (e.g: dwelling units per acre, oil wells per acre, etc.). We assume that as density increases, total City expenditures increased (although the average expenditure per unit may decline). The models analyzed use acreage or units or both (density) as measures of the share of total unassigned costs that can be attributed to different land uses. Analyzing Historic Data The first approach for estimating unassigned costs for different land uses was to use a computer to analyze historic data. By using a statistical technique called "stepwise regression", we tried to see how the City's total budget has changed over time and to relate those changes to changes in the units and/or developed acreage of different land use types. Unfortunately, accurate information is available for only the last few years, and despite adjustments for time and inflation, the variables were so similar to one another (highly correlated), that no inference could be made from the results with any degree of confidence.* Therefore, efforts to design a model based strictly on past data trends and regression analysis were abandoned. * Residuals and Pearson correlation coefficients were analyzed. The consumer price index was used to adjust for inflation and an attempt to "detrend" the data by using "dummy" variables was made. The variables were too highly correlated to give meaningful results. 30 ' Four other models were tried. The first uses only the proportions in total developed acreage to estimate the share of unassignable costs for different land use. The second uses only units. The last two use both acreage and units (density) to estimate the proportion of expenditures for different land uses, one simply averaging acreage and units, and the other relating the two factors by a "weighted average" technique. These are discussed below. I. Developed Acreage or City-wide Model Model I determines the fair share of unassigned expenditures by the acreage of each land use type; each land use receives a share of unassigned costs equal to the portion of total developed acreage occupied. This the approach used in the Ultrasystems or "City-wide" Fiscal Impact Model. For example, since residential use occupy 78 percent of developed acreage in Huntington Beach, 78 percent of unassigned expenditures are attributed to residences. By the same method, 10 percent of unassigned costs are attributed to commercial uses, 8 percent to Industrial uses, and 4 percent to oil. Note that vacant land receives no share of costs. This model Is considered one extreme, taking only area into account. Advantages: This model is simple, easy to understand, and reproducible. The data requirements can be readily fulfilled. Disadvantages: It accounts for only one of the key determinants; it assumes that degree of development Is not an important factor in distributing unassigned costs. It also Implies that every acre generates costs equally. Further, since it Is only concerned with developed acreage, it does not account for vacant land. II. Units Model Model 11 relies solely on degree of development to apportion unassigned costs among different land uses. Recall that "units" are a measure of degree of development, and that residential "units" refer to dwelling units, commercial, and industrial "units" are equated with business licenses, and an oil "unit" is an oil well.12 Note, again, vacant land is assumed to be costless. This model Is considered the other extreme, taking only degree of development into account. Advantages: This model Is also simple, easy to understand, reproducible, and has minimal data requirements. Disadvantages: It completely discounts area as a cost factor, and assumes each unit generates costs equally, regardless of density. Since there are no units on vacant land (by definition), it is left out of the analysis. Most importantly, the distribution of costs among the uses seems skewed - residential is assigned nearly all costs, while industrial gets almost none. The next two models try to account for both area and units. 31 ill. Simple Averaging Model Model III simply averages the first two. For example, residential uses are allocated 78 percent and 92 percent shares by the first and second models, respectively. This averages to 85 percent. By the same process, commercial receives 73 percent, industrial 4.7 percent and oil 3.0 percent. Advantages: This model does not severely increase complexity, data requirements, or effect reproducibility. It is still comprehensible, and more sensitive to factors that actually affect costs. Disadvantages: Area and degree of development are given equal importance in determining the share of unassigned costs attributable to each use. This means that costs do not vary according to the density of use and assumes the some average density for all uses. Further, vacant land is unaccounted for. IV. Weighted Average Model Model IV accounts for area and degree of development in a different way. It weighs the two factors so that it is more sensitive to density. This is done by adding the number of units assigned to a particular use to the number of acres assigned to that use. This sum is divided by the total of all units plus all acres in the City. This "weighted average" gives slightly more importance to degree of development as a factor than acreage. This means that more densely developed acres are more costly than those less densely developed. (This is true even if average cost per unit is less in more densely developed areas; overall costs tend to be higher in higher density areas.) This model attributes 87.3 percent of unassignable costs to residential, 5.2 percent to commercial, 2.3 percent to industrial, 2.3 percent to oil, and 2.9 to vacant land. See Table A.1 below. Advantages: This model has the some data requirements and reproducibility as the previous models. It is slightly more complex, but Its increased complexity can be justified by gains in sensitivity and accuracy. It is superior to the third model for two reasons. First, it can account for vacant land in a reasonable way. Second, by giving slightly more weight to the degree of development factor, the model is more sensitive to density of use - i.e., higher densities are considered more costly. This is a more realistic treatment of how the type of land use is likely to effect costs. 32 • t • 1 Distribution of Unassignable Costs Using Weighted Average Model Acres Units Sum % of Total Residential 65 99207 62,251 71,458 87.3% Commercial 9 19197 39027 4,224 5.2 Industrial 6 925 965 19890 2.3 Oil 3 472 1,460 1,932 2.3 Vacant 17 2,410 0 2,410 2.9 TOTALS 14,211 67,703 819914 100.0% Source: City of Huntington Beach Planning Division. TABLE A.1 huntington beach planning division 33 Disadvantages: Model IV is the least burdened by the disadvantages discussed above. Arguments of a more general nature about the assumptions and level of sophistication of all these models are discussed elsewhere in this section. For the purposes of this analysis, the last model meets the criteria for a good model laid out at the beginning of this section better than the others considered. Among the models developed, this "Weighted Average Model" is the most accurate, with least confusion and with minimal data requirements. It generates reasonable results. This is the model used to carry an the analysis (although cost calculations using the "City-wide Model" are also presented for comparison). 34 APPENDIX B Revenues From Other Energy Facilities Although this report focuses on oil operations, there are other energy facilities in the City and coastal zone. These include a Gulf Oil Company tank farm and affiliated pipeline franchises; a Chevron USA tank farm; a Southern California Edison Company power plant, tank farm and pipeline and utility franchises; and other pipeline and utility franchises. These facilities are likely to remain in Huntington Beach for some time. Because of their permanent nature, a fiscal analysis of these operations is much less relevant than a similar analysis of the "less permanent" oil operations. It is important to note, however, that the City derives significant revenues from these facilities. These revenues figures are presented below. The revenues for 1979-80 are as follows. Gulf Tank Farm: Property Tax $ 6,690 Pipeline Franchise 6 047 TOTAL $T2;737 Chevron Tank Farm: Property Tax 4,281 TOTAL , Edison Plant and Tank Farm: Property Tax $364,263 Pipeline Franchise 49362 Utility Franchise 198 131 TOTAL $twlm- Southern Calif omio Gas: Utility Franchise $52299 642 TOTAL 55 , Other Pipeline Franchises: Pacific Lighting $ 12,540 Standard Gas $ 108 TOTAL $T70 Total revenues to the City from these facilities Is $1,126,064 for 1979-80. Pipeline and utility franchise tax rates are set by contracts between the City and the various companies. The major factors that affect pipeline rates are size and length of pipe, and the yearly flow through the pipe. Utility rates are based on gross sales of the product carried by the franchise (e.g. gas, electricity). 35 'Many of the contracts are old, and -set rates that are quite low. One strategy for increasing revenues from these sources is renegotiation of the contracts when they expire. A City ordinance passed in 1978 established pipeline franchise rates to be applied in future contracts. The base rates are higher than those set in the past, but more importantly, they are adjusted annually according to the "Wholesale 'Producer' Price" index - a measure of the inflation rate. As the old franchise agreements are renegotiated in accordance with this ordinance, the City can expect increased revenues that will keep pace with inflation. Finally, some of the contracts are "indeterminate", i.e. they have no termination date. It may be possible for the City to renegotiate these by mutual agreement. Table B.1 shows more explicitly the terms of each franchise. 36 KNTNGTON BEACH PIPELINE AND UTILITY FRANr-IISrS Length of Manias to City Classification Franchise Term FY 79-80 Commentary Regarding Franchise/Terms Utility So Cal Gas 40 yes ending S 529,642 Agreement contains provision that requires a 2007 rate of return no lea then the highest percentile received by any other city being served by So Cal Gas. Utility So Cal Edison Indeterminate 196,131 The aggregate affect of the fixed minimal rate (adopted in of return, indeterminate length of term,and the 1949) geometrically increasing costs to the City for street lighting has resulted in perhaps the poorest ratio of franchise revenue to energy costs of any city dealing with So Cal Edison. Pipeline Union OII• 25 yn ending 422 Virtual fixed return to City—unchanged since 1969 1964—based on 1/2 cent per Inch of pipeline diameter/pr lineal foot, or 2% of the gross annual receipts arising per use of franchise,whichever Is greater. Pipeline Atlantic 25 yes ending 1,249 Same terra se above. Richfield* 1988 Pipeline Texaco* 25 yre ending 2,862 Some terms as above. 1968 Pipeline Gulf 50 yrs ending Present rate of return--fixed since 1933—hes 1983 3,647 been S.04 per barrel X 2%. (Combined) Pipeline Gulf 50 yre aiding Present rate of retum—fixed since 1956—hes 2006 been s.04 per barrel X 2%. Pipeline Gulf 25 yre ending 2,400 Present rate of return is fixed at $2,400 per (tank farm) 1990 annum. Pipeline Standard Gas SO yre ending 106 Present rate of return—fixed since 1956--has 2006 been 2%of the revenue derived from Lae of Franchise. Pipeline So Cal Edison Indeterminate 14362 Current rats of return Is derived from 2%of (1958) the gross annual receipts arising from use of franchise. Pipeline Pacific 40 yes ending 12,540 Current rate of return Is derived from 2%of Lighting 2010 the gross annual receipts,and/or 1% of the Service Co. revenues from the sale of gas within limits of City under Franchise. • These franchises we related to oil production In the City,and were Included In all revenues. Sources Memorandum from Internal Auditor to City Administrator, July 8, 1977,updated with figures from the City Finance Department, Aupwt, 1980. TABLE B.1 huntington beach planning division 37 NOTES 1) Although this engine company has a special petroleum fire capability, it is frequently used to fight structural fires, thereby providing extra service to the City as a whole. Further, the tank farms and pipelines that are not directly related to oil production in the City (see Appendix B) require the protection provided by the company. The expenditure figure shown above is a staff estimate of the oil production share of total costs for this company. 2) Patterson, George M., "Allocating Expenditures to Land Use Categories", p. 137, Municipal Finance 36, May 1964, p.p. 136-9. Also see Patterson, George M., "Where Does the City Spend its Money?" Western City, September, 1963, p.p. 46-47. 3) The City receives additional annual revenue from the State of California Lands Commission equal to one percent of state royalties on tideland oil leases. This fund is revenue budget (604) "State Oil and Gas Lease", and was equal to approximately $100,000 in 1979-80. However, these monies are not general fund revenues - i.e. they are to be used for purposes specified by the State. Therefore, they were not included in calculations of oil revenues. 4. The State Board of Equalization rule 468 allows County assessors to reassess mineral rights valuations as oil prices rise. Since Proposition 13 permits assessments of new construction, the rule argues that an increase in the price of oil changes the value of an oil deposit such that it is treated as "new construction". This ruling is currently under litigation and, for the purpose of this report, it is assumed that the two percent limit on reassessment applies to mineral rights. Should the courts rule in favor of the Board of Equalization, City Revenues from property taxes on mineral rights would be higher than those shown. 5) This figure was obtained from Mr. Chuck Kruger at the Orange County Assessor's office. 6) This figure was obtained from Mr.Dan Brennan in the City Finance Department. 7) The number of wells connected to the wastewater system was provided by Mr. Rick Grunbaum, the City Oil Inspector. 8) This figure was obtained from the oil inspector, Mr. Rick Grunbaum. 9) The specific franchises responsible for these revenues are shown in Table S.1, of this report. The figures were obtained from Mr. Dan Brennan at the City Finance Department. 10) In 1933, Southwest Exploration Company began to produce oil from wells in the townlot directionally drilled to deposits under the ocean. When the State discovered (later that year) that Southwest was depleting an oil pool in State tidelands, it obtained a court order restraining Southwest from operating these wells. The 1938 State Lands Commission Act specified terms under which production of tidelands deposits could resume. However, to reach the oil field from the townlot, the wells were drilled under land owned by the City. The City granted Southwest Exploration rights of way under City land in an "Agreement and Easement for Right of Ways" In late 1938. This agreement provides the City a monthly royalty "equal to two percent of total royalties paid to the State of Califomid' for oil production on Public Resources Code 392. The State's royalty is approximately 13 percent of total sales; two percent of this (the City's royalty) is .2642 percent. Aminoil, USA now 38 operates the wells and pays the royalty as specified In the agreement. r 1 I) It should be noted that other analysts may use different inflation figures. However, it is unlikely that a different inflation rate would significantly affect the general conclusions drawn from the analysis. 12) The City owns mineral rights to 125 parcels in the Townlot/Downtown area. If an enhanced recovery project is undertaken there (and is successful), the City will receive additional revenue from royalties earned by its mineral rights interest. The amount of the royalty will depend on the quantity of oil produced, the profit on that production, the portion of the total interest in the project owned by the City and the terms of the unitization agreement. Because these factors are not yet known, the estimate of City revenues shown in this scenario do not include receipts from royalties paid by the unit. 13) Edwin S. Mills, In The Economics of Environmental Quality, W. W. Norton Co., N.Y., 1973, p.p. 141-14 , describes a method at estimating the health and property damages from air pollution by using property values. The theory is that rents and sale value of homes will be lower in heavily polluted areas, and that this reflects the value people place on cleaner air. This theory could be applied to the aesthetic Impacts of oil operations in Huntington Beach. If it were, one would expect rents and property values of dwellings adjacent to oil wells to be lower than similar dwellings elsewhere. This is a reasonable expectation for which we have some preliminary evidence, and a study of actual property values in Huntington Beach would be most interesting. 14) See "Coastal Energy Impact Program" Report, February, 1980, City of Huntington Beach, Section B.4.0. 15) See Burchell, Robert W., and David Listokin, The Fiscal Im oct Handbook, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswich, NJ, 19789 p.p. 1-1 U. 16) In this particular case, the term "public good" is defined by Charles M. Tiebout in "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures", Journal of Political Eco�nnom4� 64, 1956, 416-24, as follows. ". . . a public good is one--wUEF-s'Fould be produced, but for which there Is no feasible method of charging the consumers." (p. 417). This definition makes sense in terms of the previous discussion on "assignable" vs. "unassignable" costs, if one reads it as "...a public good is one which should be produced, but for which there is no feasible method of measuri!!2 each user's demand." Since "assignable" costs are those which can be measured according to eachuser's demand, then those which cannot be measured are "unassignable". Hence, by the above definition, unassignoble casts can be thought of as expenditures for "public goods". 17) See "Final Report on the Development and Application of a Land Use Fiscal Impact Methodology for the City of Huntington Beach" Vol. I, November, 1979, prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. Irvine, CA. 18) The wells that are located on the platforms offshore are included in the total counted as oil "units". This is done, because offshore oil operations require onshore support facilities that should be accounted for in the analysis. One example is a separation facility onshore that is used for Union's offshore production. Another example is the helipad located onshore that the oil companies use to carry on their offshore operations. The extent of these onshore support activities Is assumed to be reflected in the number of wells offshore. For this reason, the offshore wells are counted as expenditure generating oil "units". 39 r . n BIBLIOGRAPHY "Allocating Expenditures to Land Use Categories", George M. Patterson, Municipal Finance 36, May 1964, p.p. 136-9. "Coastal Energy Impact Program" Report, City of Huntington Beach, February, 1980. The Economics of Environmental Quality, Edwin S. Mills, W.W. Norton Co., NY, 1973. "Final Report on the Development and Application of a Land Use Fiscal Impact Methodology for the City of Huntington Beach", Vol. I, Ultrosystems, Inc., November, 1979. The Fiscal Im act Handbook, Robert W. Burchell and David Listokin, Center for Urban Policy Research, New runswiai,RJ, 1978. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures", Charles M. Tiebout, Journal of Political Economy 64, p.p. 416-24, 1956. "Where Does the City Spend Its Money?" George M. Patterson, Western City, September, 1963, p.p. 46-47. 40 � 1 Other Sources "Annual Budget, Fisal Year 1979-80", City of Huntington Beach. "Garfield-Goldenwest Study", Huntington Beach Planning Department, March, 1978. "Growth Policy Study, General Plan Background Report", Huntington Beach Planning Department, October, 1973. "Draft Housing Element, Huntington Beach General Plan", Department of Development Services, September, 1979. "Housing Element Background Report", Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976. "Land Use Element Amendment 80-111, Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, January, 1980. "Revenue/Expenditures Analysis of Land Uses", Huntington Beach Planning Department, October, 1973. "1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses", Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976. "Urban Land Institute Panel Advance Kit 211, City of Huntington Beach, November, 1965. i I 41 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division June W. Catalano,Deputy Director Project Director Michael Multari,Planner • Principal Author Paul Multari,Planning Intern Other Contributors Jeanine Frank,Planner Michael Multari,Planner Special Assistance Dan Brennan, license Supervisor Charles Clark,Associate Planner Rick Grunhaum,Fire Prevention Specialist Word Processing Patti Schwartz,Word Processing Coordinator Sharon Hojo,Word Processing Specialist Deborah Pledger,Word Processing Senior Caren Winant,Word Processing Senior Deborah Fepinoza,Word Processing Graphics Paul Multari,Planning Intern Robert Simon,Planning Draftsman -.: 't.�:-►aw..:..ra:'X:-:.w•t:+.rar"��s-.e�+-:�H^''�.�+r+�•..�f.:✓�.J�S-._.�.�!'.�'s..r�_ ,a.•..i.a..• ..._. ....:'a_ .. _ _... .._.. - %.- 71 CERNE� CITIZENS FOR HUNT�INGTON BEACH CITY OF November 4 , 198 HU1;T!pI,T;:'; ;, `.;'1.�'•IIF.' P�Jti 110 Uil Cita of Ilulitiny Lorl L(:�ZiCh Council Aember 2000 Main StrceL Huntington Beacli, CP1 91648 Re: ANGUS PETR0LLUivI C ORPORAI'ION Spriiiyfield Oil Recovery Project 'Lone Change No. 88-1.1/Use Permit No. 88-25 Enclosures : ( 1 ) A letter submitted by Mary Parrish, Treasurer for C.C.H .B. ( 2 ) Chamber Group, Inc. - Review and comments on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for Draft SL1R for Proposed Springfield Area Oil. Recovery Project. Julie 1988 . ( 3) ) Notice of Preparation of Draft Supplemental I . :C .R. No. 86-1 from Department- of Community Development. ( 4 ) 'Environmental Checklist Form Dated-: April. 4 , 1.986 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ( 5 ) A letter submitted by Mary Parrish, 'Treasurer for C.C.-H .B. ( G ) Review of Draft Supplemental L. I .R. for the Angus Oil Recovery Project SCII No. 8604U917 . Prepared by: Chambers Group, Inc . September 1988 . Honorable Cou.icii Member: The enclosurc•!i contained herein are respectfully submit--Led to the City Council by Concerned Citizens for IIunt.inyton Beacl► (CC11B ) for the Council ' s information and review relative to it ' s consideration of the referenced project. The information is intended to assist the- Council_ in it' s deliberations and to fUrthC-r SI-IbStanLiate the residents ' contention of the lnadvls- abili-Ly of allowing Angus Petroleum Corporation to conduct oil drillil-ig operations in the Middle of a residential neighborhood as described by Zone Change No. 08-11 . y� a POST OFFICE BOX 5000, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92615 City of Huntington Beach Council Member November 4 , 1988 Page Two At considerable expense to it' s membership, C.C.H.B. has retained the services of an eminently qualified environmental consulting firm, The Chambers Group, Inc. , to provide technical expertise and to contest Angus Petroleums Proposed Project. The Chambers Group, Inc. , which specializes in the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports for the gas and oil industry, has prepared an independent evaluation of the Angus Petroleum Corporation Environmental Impact Report in Enclosure ( 2 ) and ( 6 ) . This report identifies serious deficiencies in the E.I .R. submitted to the City by Angus . As indicated, the E.I .R. does not adhere to the minimum requirements as established by the California Environmental quality Act, and therefore, should be rejected by the Council. Concerned Citizens for Huntington Beach hope that you will study this issue before you with great concern and reject Supplement E.I .R. , deny Zone Change 88-11 and use Permit 88-25 . If you should require any further clarification, or have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at ( 714 ) 960-8796 . Most- -ReSpectf ully, 'r1"IZJ- CONCERNED CITIZEU!5 FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH PAMELA A. STEELE President PS: jrr Enclosures ENCLOSURE (1) LETTER SUBMITTED BY MARY PARRISH, TREASURER FOR C.C.H.B. F June 27, 1988 1919 Alsuna bane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATT: Catharine O'Hara Dear Ms OHara: RE: Draft Supplemental Impact Report No. 88-1 In reply to your letter received June 3, 1988, we would like to bring to your attention the experiences we have had in our neighborhood from the activities of Angus Petroleum Corporation in their proposed Springfield Area Oil Recovery project. The following events took place and are on record at the City of Huntington Beach: (1 ) During operations, the citizens were subjected to noise hazards; levels at 85 Decibels one day and at 72 Decibels another day. (2) There has been no signs of any form of dust control. The citizens have been subjected to hazards of dust during the frenzy of work in the area after October 1 , 1987 and since our injunction to stop the project, dated February 18, 1988. Contrary to Angus press releases, CONCERNED CITIZENS never refused to allow Angus to put in streets and sidewalks in the area. We only denied their proposed 8 - foot wall which is not allowed by the Covenants and Restrictions on Angus lots and adjoining lots in Tract VISTA DEL MAR, lots 1 through 20, Block 1803, et al. (3) At California and Springfield Streets, the citizens experienced a fire and smoke inhalation. This block is for all oil storage in the proposed project. (4) The heavy truck traffic during the period of time quoted in (2) is far more than a residential area can abide. Did you know that these heavy- duty trucks use the entrance on Delaware Street where the school bus picks up our children to go to school? (5) On California and Rochester Streets, there was a major disruptment of electrical services for six hours, damages were paid by Angus. The above events are merely the "tip of the iceberg" for our neighborhood. 'ale are enclosing a formal environmental report prepared for us by Mr. John F. Westermeier, CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. Santa Ana, California. Very truly your , Mary . Parrish, Treasurer ENC CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH CC: John Westermeier John B. Murdock, Attorney ENCLOSURE (2) CHAMBER GROUP, INC. - REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR DRAFT SEIR FOR PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD AREA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT. JUNE 1988 . REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD AREA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT Submitted by: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JUNE 1988 SPRINGFIELD AREA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT NOTICE OF PREPARATION SCOPING COMMENTS INTRODUCTION This document provides review and comment on the? Notice of Preparation and Initial Study issued by the City of Huntington Beach for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Springfield Area Oil Recovery Project . While we agree with the City' s position that a Supplemental EIR is required, we have concerns that the attached Initial Study does not identify all potential significant impacts . Additionally, we have provided direction as to the scope of issues that are required to be addressed in detail . It should be noted that this review should be considered preliminary in nature , and that additional concerns could surface during review of the Draft Supplemental EIR. This review is divided into three sections . The first section identifies additional items on the environmental checklist that may be significant and should be addressed in the EIR. The second section provides a discussion of the general topics that should be addressed in the EIR and Section 3 addresses some of the specific issues that were not adequately addressed in the previous EIR prepared for the proposed project. 1 i SECTION 1 - INITIAL STUDY COMMENTS we have the following comments on the environmental checklist issued as a portion of the Initial Study. Reference is made to the specific items on that checklist . Item l .a. relates to potential changes in geologic substructures . Waterf o ding operations for oil recovery projects may impact such substructures and should be addressed. Item l .c. refers to changes to the ground surface . Clearing and leveling— of the drilling and production sites will change the ground surface . Additionally there is a potential for subsidence from drilling activities . Therefore this item should be changed to the "maybe" column. Item l .e. This should be checked in the "maybe" column because there is a potential that oil spills or other releases of toxic materials could reach the ocean or other drainages via storm drains , street gutters or sanitary sewers . Item 3 .h. If city water is used for a portion of the water flooding—project , there may be an impact on the amount of available water for the City, especially in light of the current drought. Item 4 .a. and Item 5.a. Oil spills and release of other toxic materia s may impact 751ant and animal species in the coastal areas of the City. Item 10.a. There will be a potential for fire and explosion; this s ou d be placed in the "yes" column rather than the "maybe" column. Item 14 .c. refers to the potential for increased governmental services in the area of schools . As discussed more fully in Section 2 ( cumulative impacts ) below, the "freeing up" for future development of land currently encumbered by oil and gas facilities could potentially impact school facilities flue to future population increases . Item 21. We believe that all four mandatory findings of significance should be checked "yes" since both the project specific and cumulative effects of the proposed project would be significant . 2 SECTION 2 - REQUIRED TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED The Draft EIR that was previously prepared for this project did not adequately address several important CEQA required topics . One of the primary shortcomings of the previous document was its cursory discussion of Alternatives . At a minimum, the SEIR should include in the Alternatives Analysis : o Alternative methods of recovery of the oil and gas resources , including use and/or expansion of existing facilities . o Use of alternative drillsites and production sites, including a larger number of smaller size sites, and the relocation of the production site to an area already dedicated to oil production purposes , e .g. , Shell ' s facility or Chevron' s facility. o The potential of reworking existing wells for use as injectors/new producers , with production and gathering lines routed to an existing production area. o Alternative uses of the proposed project sites . The previous EIR was lacking in its discussion of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. An analysis of cumulative impacts should include : i o Existing oil and gas operations in Huntington Beach, and the operators' future plans for a time period equal to the life of this project . This should include independent operators and major producers. o Possible development scenarios for the lands "freed-up" from the encumberance of surface oil and gas facilities . Such an analysis should address the entire scope of impacts resulting from ultimate development of all such lands , based not only on current zoning but also on the worst-case ( i .e . , most intensive ) , future development scenarios . Issues of primary concern would be traffic , public services and utilities , air quality, population and socioeconomics. The previous EIR was also lacking in the details of the proposed project. In particular , information regarding oil transportation, waste disposal and water requirements were not provided in sufficient detail . 3 SECTION 3 — PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS Project specific impacts that should be fully addressed include but are not limited to the following: o Geological impacts, including potential subsidence or uplift due to waterflooding operations; induced seismicity; and systems safety concerns vis-a-vis repressurization of the oil bearing formation resulting in migration of gas from abandoned wells . o Hydrological impacts, both for normal site runoff and potential oil spill impact areas due to pipeline/tank/berm failure . This analysis should include a description of where oil would flow if a tank were ruptured and the retaining dikes did not hold as well as providing an oil spill contingency plan. o Air quality impacts for the construction, drilling and opera- tional phases of the project should be calculated. Addition- ally, the impacts of toxic emissions such as benzene from the crude oil should be calculated according to ARB guidelines . o Land Use impacts, specifically in regard to compatibility with City-approved land uses and compatibility with existing CC&Rs, should be addressed in detail . o Transportation impacts , for surface impacts phase-by-phase and cumulative, and for transportation of produced oil , whether by truck or pipeline need to be addressed in detail . If by pipeline, include such factors as size, age ( if existing) , route , current use , potential rupture impact area, and destination. o A detailed systems safety analysis should be provided for all phases of the proposed project. This analysis should include , as a minimum, hazard footprints from storage tanks and well sites for fire ( radiant heat) , explosion, and release of toxic gas . An oil spill contingency plan, safety plan and a security plan should also be provided for review in the Draft EIR. o A full visual impact analysis should be provided for the proposed project including artist' s renderings and site profiles. 4 o In addition to a full noise analysis , a detailed vibration analysis associated with the drilling phase should be provided. This study should include the range and degree of impact to area residences as well as the potential to damage structures ( e .g. cracked plaster and cement, etc . ) . o Public services impacts, including fire, police , storm drain system and sanitary sewer system. A full analysis of the public service impacts associated with the proposed project should be provided with special emphasis on the capabilities of the fire department to control & fire in close proximity to residences . o Water supply system impacts . A full impact analysis of water use for each phase of the proposed project should be provided. In particular , the use of domestic water for water flooding should be addressed. o Impacts to wastewater treatment systems, including the disposal of brines . A full analysis of the wastes produced, proposed disposal methods and treatment requirements should be provided in the EIR. 5 ENCLOSURE (3) NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL E.I.R. NO. 86-1 FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •i � VI3I b6 City of Huntington Beach �. 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Housing/Redevelopment Division 636-5542 Planning Division 536.5271 June 1, 1988 Concerned Citizens for Huntington Beach 225 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 402 Santa Monica, CA 90401 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 The City of Huntington Beach will be the lead agency in preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Angus Petroleum Corporation's proposed Springfield Area Oil Recovery project. We need to know the views of responsible agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to the agencies' statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. These agencies will need to use the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and previously prepared EIR when considering permits or other approvals for the project. In addition to • the views of responsible agencies, the City is soliciting the views of concerned citizens, organizations and interested agencies as to information which should be included in the supplement to the previously prepared EIR. The project description, location and potential environmental impacts are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated*by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the attention of Catherine O'Hara at the address noted above, along with the name of a contact person in your agency or organization. Sincerely, atherine O'Hara Assistant Planner (714) 536-5271 CMO:gbm Attachment (OG99d) ENCLOSURE (4) ENiIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM DATED: APRIL 4 1986 DISCUSSION GF ENVIROMMENTAL EVALUATION APPEN I X I ENVIRONMENTAL CI-IECXLIST FORM (To °e Completed By Lecd Agency) I. 13ockgrournd 1 . Ncme of Proponent Angus Pet rot eum Cormany 2. Address cnd Phone 1',lumber of Proponent 14062 Denver west Parkway , Golden , Colorado 80401 3. Ccte of Checklist SLbmitted April 4 , 1986 4. Agercy P.equiring Chec'Alist City of Huntington Beach S. tl,lcme of P.-cposcl, if applicable Springf i efd Area Oi I Recovery Proj ect 11. Environn-yental Impocts (Explcnaticns of oil "yes" cnd "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes May NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in; a. Unstcble earth cznditiens or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Cisri_oticns, disalccsments, cor-poction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Chcnge in topogrcohy or ground sur`ccs relief features.? X d. The destruction, covering or modification x of any unique geologic or physical features.? e. ,any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Chcn9 es in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or Iake? X '71 1 s 309 Yes M 2►be No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: s• a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X ; of onbient-air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Chances in currents, or the -course of di- re--ticn of water movements, in either X marine or fresh .voters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pct- tern:U or the rate and amount of surface runo ff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood -Ywe rs? X d. Charge in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface weters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? �_• 9. Change in the quantity of ground waters, = either through direct additions or with- : drawcls, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of -S water otherwise available for public water supp lies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ X Y wry• YV�' 310 Yes Maybe NO 4. Plant Life. 'Hill the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of cny species of plants (including trees, si.r,,jbs, grcu, crops, rrd aquatic x plants)'. b. Reduction of the cumbers of any unique, rare -or endcrgered species of plants? x c. Introduction of new species of plants into cn area, or in a barrier to the normal x replenishment of existing species'. d. Reduction in acreage of cny agricultural x crop'. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, cr numbers of any species of cnimals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish cnd x shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of cry unique, rare or endangered species of cnimals? x V c. Introduction of new species of animals into c n area, or result in a barrier to the X migration or movement of animals? d. Oeterioration to existing fish or wildlife X habitat? o, Noise. 'Hill the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels'. X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X. 7. ,Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce x new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of on area? x 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of cny natural resources? x 311 - s s--saw Yes M be rb b. Substantial depletion of cny nonrene-"able natural resource? X 10. ' Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of on explosion or the release of hazardous substances Onc!uding, but not limited to. oil, pesticides, chemicals or rodiation) in the event of on accident or upset condil ions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter tt-e location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the X human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hour- X irg, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circu lot ion. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of subs'cntial additional X c 4*• vehicular movement' b. Effects on existing oarking facilities, or X demand for new per',c ir.g? c. Substantial irrooct upon existing transpor- X Cation systems? d. Alterations to present pctterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to water�orne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Public Services. 'hill the proposal have cn effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmentcl ser.,ices in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X 312 1 Yes McYbe rb d. Pcrks or other recreational fccilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roods? X f. Other governmental ser.,ices? X 15. Energy. 'Hill the proposal result in: a. Use of -kibstcntial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substant:cl increese in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the , deveiopment of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. 'Hill the pr000sal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: c. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X C. 'Hater? X " d. Sewer or septic tonics? X e. Storm water draincge? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. H.uman Health. Will .the proposal result in: a. Crection of cny health hczcrd or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health haz crds'. X 13. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of eny scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. !' C. Will .the proposal result in the alteration 1 of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X .313 Yes . �.• No b. Will the prcposal result in adverse physical - - or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? x c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural wiues? x d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or soared uses within the potential hr;xict ` area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. , a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish cr wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict '`e range of a rare or endangered plant or csnimal or eliminate important examples of the major periods x of California history or prehistory'. b. Does the project hove the potential to achieve short-term, 'o the disadvantage of long-term, environme itcl goals? (A short- term impact en the environment is one which occurs in a re!etively brief, definitive period of time whiie !cng-term impocts X Will endure well into t: a future.) c. Does the project hcr.,e irrpects which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable.' (A project may irrpact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those X irrpocts on the environment is significant.) �+ d. Does the project have environmental effects } which will cause substantial adverse effects X •r on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ,z 314 • s ) • r III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1. Earth b,g. Approximately 2, 570 cubic yards of earth vill be excavated t • from well cellars, wall footings and valve boxes. If suitable, ' approximately 570 cubic yards of that mscarial will be used to form landscape berms, if the material is determined to be suitable for that ,purpose. It is therefore estimated that a total of 2,000 cubic yards of excess material will need to be transported off the project sites. There should be no change in the present overall height and grade of. the sites . The area falls within the extension of the Alquist-Priolo special study zone. The effects t*,is Fould have on the proposed project should be studied. 3. Water b,f, The complete beaming of both sites could affect drainage g. patterns in the surrounding area. , As many as 36,000 barrels a day of filtered brine water would be infected into oil bearing formations. The brine water would come froin one or two new water source wells to be located outside the project area. As an alternative, the project may acquire and use surplus produced waters from ocher oil operations in the City. The effects from this should be determined. 6. Noise '� 4 a. Unmitigated noise from well drilling operations would fa: exceed the City's noise standards for residential areas. Noise levels of 85 to 90 dB(A) can t;!pically result from standard diesel powered electric drilling rig operations. The approximately 4S employees who will visit the site during a 24 ho.ur period • could be exposed to severe noise levels should they go unmitigated. 7. Light and Glare The 24 hour drilling operation will require some lighting at night. Potential Lmpaccs from light and glare should oe addressed. 8. ,Land Use The site is currently zoned Oldtown Specific Plan (District two) - 0 which permits single and multi-unit dwellings. Development of the site as an oil recovery project would eliminate potential residences. 9. Natural Resources a,b. The project will recover about five million barrels of icy unrefined crude oil that would not be recovered under current operating methods. The project will be a net energy producer, , about 4.89 million barrels of oil after deducting equivalent h barrels for energy consumed in operations. .It y 1 � Risk of Upset +•' y' a. The potential risk of fire, oil Leaks, and abandoned well problems should be evaluated. tI • population . The proposal will eliminate two blocks of potential residential dwellings reducing the population in the area. 12. Housing The project will eliminate potential residences and create a small ribmber of jobs requiring a relatively small amount of additional housing. 13. Transportation/Circulation a,b,c, d, f. Approximately 40 vehicular trips per day will be generated during the drilling phase and approximately 1.0 trips per da;.' during the production phase. It will be necessary co tear f up the intersection of Springfield avenue and California Sreec to make a connection between the two sites. The temporary impact of this should be analysed. Public Services a,c. ?, major `oil operation such as this ma•v require increased fire pro— tection. Ccmoletion of the roads, curbs and gutters surrounding the project will add to mainclenance requirements. R r iyb. Utilities f. Si3nificant solid waste in the form of drill cuttings and spent drilling mud will be generated during the drilling phase of the project which may require special disposal. 17 . Human Health - a,b.• Oil ;ell drilling and producing operations involve heavy equirrnenc. Volatile materials are used by and produced by project operations . The safety of employees and near by residents should be considered IS. aesthetics The potential alteration of views due to the proposed drilling and recovery equipment on the project site from roadways and existing land uses should be analysed. the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —� I find. that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case teccuse the mitigation mecsures described on cn attached sheet have — been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL EE PREPARED. I find the proposed-project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and on alVIRCN�ME`1TAL I\MPACT REPORT is required. fxXI r t 00�421J" cite SigMture For {Mote: This is only a suggested form. Public ogencies are free to devise their own fcrmat for initial studies.) 8 313 1 ENCLOSURE (5) A LETTER SUBMITTED BY MARY PARRISH, TREASURER FOR C.C.H.B. CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH September 13 , 1988 1 c i 9 Alsuna Lane Hurtin�r_ton Beach, CA 92648 CITY Or HU TINGTON BEACH DEPARTL'IEN m OP COMIUNITY DEVELOPMUT ATT: CATHMINE O'HARA Dear Ms O'Hara: RE: DRAFT SUPPLIMIT ILIPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 AUGUST, 1988 In response to the ANGUS SEIR just received, Sete would like :.to .bring your attention to the following CONCERNED CITIZENS comments: A6-1 (2) CV31ENTS AND RESPONSE DUST CONTROL: At CONCERNED CITIZENS request, the COUNTY AIR QUALITY BOARD came to measure the dust at project site. They reported by telephone, that the wind factor was only 8 miles per hour on that particular day. The dust blowing was coming from the unfinished streets surrounding the tvo project sites and as we went into the dryer month of July the dust factor would get worse. A warning was sent to ANGUS, but no fine could be made on that date. We were advised to call again when the wind factor was over 15 miles per hour and another measurement will be made. CONCERIED CITIZENS never observed any rviater being put on the quite high mounds of dirt to control the dust. me were subjected to unhealthy layers of dust in our atmosphere and homes between OCTOBER 11 1987 and JUNE 19 1988 due to the Santa Ana wind conditions, which will be soon upon us again. A6-1(4) HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC According to SEIR, A5-10, a 58 foot turning radius is needed for a semi tractor-trailer . Delaware Street is 60 feet wide with one-half only paved. Turning south on Delaware off Springfield Avenue at oil drilling site will be risky for school children and their bus to be so near to any truck taming path to the entrance of the drill site. on Delaware Street. The opposite entrance is on California Street. California Street is 40-feet wide and only half paved on residential side. CONCERNED CITIZENS are having difficulties in believing that the project will have only two trucks (what size? per day coming to the project site during drilling phase and no additional truck traffic during the production phase. Very truly yours, )�s 71L e COP:C:.MED CITIZEN'S FOR H B MM I:. PkHRISH cc: John Westermeier TREASURER C!.P-IBERS GROUP John B. 1.1urdock ` 4,4 f)Nd r y' ENCLOSURE (6) REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL E.I.R. FOR THE ANGUS OIL RECOVERY PROJECT SCH NO. 86040917. PREPARED BY: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. SEPTEMBER 1988 REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS OIL RECOVERY PROJECT SCH NO. 86040917 Prepared for: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH c/o Ms. Mary M Parrish, Treasurer 1919 Alsuna Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 2933-8 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 261-5414 SEPTEMBER 1988 REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS OIL RECOVERY PROJECT SCH NO. 86040917 INTRODUCTION This document was prepared under contract to the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach and summarizes Chambers Group, Inc. ' s review of the Draft Supplemental EIR (Draft SEIR) for the proposed Angus Oil Recovery Project. The Draft SEIR was reviewed by members of Chambers Group' s technical staff under the direction of Mr. John Westermeier. Chambers Group specializes in the preparation of environmental documents for on- and offshore oil and gas projects. We have prepared over 30 major environ- mental documents for local and state agencies for oil and gas projects in the State of California. This review is divided into two major sections. The first section provides our general comments on the document and the second section provides our specific comments on various subject areas. We have also included a brief conclusion to our review following our specific comments. 1 GENERAL COMMENTS We have identified several irregularities in the Draft SEIR which, in our opinion, makes the Draft inadequate in its present form. These are described below: 1. The summary of findings fails to conform to Section 15123 of CEQA in that the summary should include all significant impacts and mitigation measures as well as identification of i alternatives that could reduce these impacts to significant levels. The summary fails to list all significant impacts identified in the main text of the document. The summary does not discuss alternatives, areas of controversy or issues to be resolved. 2. The Draft SEIR fails to address the environmental issues associated with the construction of a water pipeline from the Chevron facility to the proposed project site. Construction of such a pipeline would have the potential to create traffic, air quality, noise and public safety impacts that are not addressed in the document. Furthermore, the water quality impacts are not addressed should the pipeline rupture during operation. _ 3. The SEIR does not address the impacts associated with the construction of a gas pipeline to the Chevron facility. As described. under No. 2 above, there could be significant impacts associated with construction of the pipeline as well as the public safety impacts associated with a potential pipeline rupture . 4 . The project site is rather unique in that the proposed drilling and processing site is located directly adjacent to 2 residential units. The SEIR does not address the impacts in enough detail necessary to determine the actual impact, nor does it identify specific mitigation measures to reduce any identified impacts. Of particular concern is the release of toxic materials during accidents and spills, as well as the migration of gas due to the repressurization of the formation. 5. The SEIR fails to identify the criteria that were used for the determination of significance of impacts. Additionally, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the significance of the residual impacts have not been clearly defined. 6 . Although the SEIR does identify various projects for cumula— tive analysis, it fails to provide an analysis of the overall cumulative impact, determination of the significance of this impact and formulation of mitigation measures as required in Section 15130 of CEQA. The analysis fails to reflect the full range of cumulative impacts particularly for systems safety, seismicity, hazardous materials, noise and water quality. 7. The SEIR fails to address a full range of alternatives. In particular, it does not address the alternative of processing oil at a site remote from the proposed project area. This alternative would substantially reduce the systems safety impact associated with a fire in the storage tanks. It also does not address the No Oil Storage Alternative nor does it address alternative designs of the proposed facilities an the proposed sites. Additionally, the document does not consider an alternative where the unprocessed oil is transferred via a new pipeline to the Chevron facility, eliminating the need for . separate processing facilities. 3 8. The SEIR fails to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative as required by section 15130 of the CEQA guidelines. 9 . The SEIR fails to provide a full list of preparers as required by CEQA. 4 SPECIFIC COMMENTS A. Topography, Soils, and Geology 1. The SEIR fails to address the consequences of the 8.0+ earthquake on the operation of facilities including such effects as rupturing and overturning of tanks, rupturing of containment dikes and other accidents that would have a potential for release of product. This damage would have the potential to affect the neighboring residences and would exacerbate any public safety impacts associated with damage to residential units. No mitigation measures are provided in terms of emergency procedures, mobile containment facilities or the like to mitigate any potential impacts associated with release of products during a seismic event. B. Hydrology _ 1. The SEIR fails to identify the water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed gas pipeline and brine pipeline. 2. The SEIR fails to identify the water quality impacts associated with the potential rupture of the crude oil pipeline carrying the oil produced by the proposed project to the Chevron facility. While we understand that the use of an existing pipeline controlled by Chevron is proposed, the proposed project will nevertheless create additional quantities of oil shipped in the pipeline and the release of this additional oil should be addressed. 5 3. The hydrology section does not address the water quality impacts to the groundwater aquifer due to the release of crude oil , solvents or other toxic material . 4 . The SEIR fails to identify the impact of disposal of filtrate material associated with the processing of injection water. C. Land Use 1 . The SEIR fails to address the impact of the proposed project on the existing CC&R's for the proposed project. D. Aesthetics, Light and Glare 1. The SEIR does not address the flood lighting required during the drilling process. 2. The SEIR only contains one rendering of the proposed project. it does not show scale nor does it have a description of perspective. Several scaled renderings from several viewpoints would be necessary to assess the visual impact. E. Air Quality 1 . The SEIR does not describe the air quality impacts associated with construction of the gas and water pipelines. 2 . The SEIR also does not address the dust-related impacts noted by area homeowners during the initial construction 6 phase. Additional measures for dust control such as use of dust control chemicals should be discussed. 3 . Although the SEIR does analyze emissions associated with normal facility operation, it fails to calculate emissions associated with oil spills in the facility. Because the facility is in . close proximity to residential units, the emissions, including public exposure to benzene, should be calculated for an episode where oil is spilled and contained in the containment area and then cleaned up by vacuum truck. 4. The SEIR fails to mention the expected concentration of H 2 S within the gas extracted from the well. Since sour gas occurs within the the Huntington Beach Fields, the air quality• analysis should include modeling of the exposure of H2S to area residents in the event of release of toxic gas. F. Noise 1. The SEIR, as well as the previous LIR, did not quantify the magnitude of impact of the noise associated with the drilling operation. The extent of mitigation afforded by the control measures have not been been quantified- in order to determine whether impacts have been reduced to insignificance. G. Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety The construction of a major oil and gas facility -in close proximity to residential areas presents special systems safety problems. The analysis in the SEIR generally takes the approach that if an event is unlikely to occur, there is 7 no impact. The general state-of-the-art analysis for oil and gas projects projects base the project impacts on conse- quences of an accident, not upon the probability of occurrence. It is likely that even an event of low probabil- ity of occurrence could occur during the life of the project. The analysis of this section is fully inadequate, lacking quantitative analysis assuming reasonable worst-case analysis and fails to provide detailed mitigation measures to mitigate or reduce the consequences of an upset or accident. Additionally, a preliminary risk management plan and ,spill contingency plan should be provided during review of the SEIR in order to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the programs proposed for mitigation. Deficiencies noted in this section include: 1. The SEIR states that there will not be any impact caused by leakage of gas due to repressurization of the formation. This conclusion is based on studies indicating few current problems with existing wells. The proposed waterflood project would initially substantially increase pressure within the formation and may cause gas leaks at wells that currently do not leak. Additional studies are required to determine the extent of this impact and realistic mitigation measures such as resealing of wells, use of gas detectors in homes and the use of evacuation plans must be provided. 2. The SEIR should discuss the impact of fire and/or explosion at the drill rigs in addition to those impacts associated with oil storage. 3. The SEIR should discuss the potential for release of gas containing H 2 S from both the facility and from the pipeline. Hazard footprints should be calculated based 8 'r on the concentration of H2S as well as the volume in the pipeline or well head. 4 . The SEIR should discuss the potential for fire and explosion from natural gas at the well head or in the proposed pipeline. S. The SEIR should discuss the incremental impact of oil spills or fires in the Chevron crude oil pipeline. 6. Quantities of each hazardous chemical projected for use should be estimated. An analysis should be made of the impact of spills of the quantities of each chemical as well as combination of chemicals on the surrounding area. - H. Traffic . 1. The SEIR does not address the traffic impacts associated with the construction of the gas and water pipelines. 9 I CONCLUSION Our review of the SEIR has pointed out several major deficiencies in the document including the omission of analysis of two major pipelines directly associated with the project as well as not providing a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, the systems safety aspects of the proposed project and several other issues have not been adequately addressed. Substantial revision of the current Draft SEIR is therefore required. Since the revised document will undoubtedly identify additional significant impacts, we believe that the revised document should be recirculated as a Draft SEIR to allow further review by both Responsible Agencies and the Public before consideration by the decision makers of the City. i 10 huntington beach department of community development SYAff REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 18, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-11/USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1) APPLICANT: Angus Petroleum Corp. DATE ACCEPTED: 5772 Bolsa Ave. , Ste. 210 August 23, 1988 Huntington Bch. , CAA 92649 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan- August 23, 1989 District 2-0 GENERAL Medium Density EXISTING USE: Vacant with PLAN: Residential oil production ACREAGE: 3 . 1 acres (both blocks combined) REOUEST: Zone Change: Rezone Block A (Tract 12747) from "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities (OT-2-0) " to "Oldtown Specific Plan-District Two-Oil Facilities with Oil Drilling(OT-2-01) " to allow the drilling of new oil wells. Use Permit: To develop an oil consolidation drillsite on Block A and associated oil facility on Block B. Also requested is a reduction of exterior sideyard setbacks from ten (10) feet to a minimum seven (7) feet for the north and south elevations of both Blocks . LOCATION: The project site consists of two blocks located on opposite corners as follows : Block A (Tract 12747) : bounded by Springfield Avenue, Delaware Street, Rochester Avenue and California Street; and Block B (Tract 12746) : bounded by Toronto Avenue, California Street, Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . C - Lb A-F M-23C 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: • (a) Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt Zone Change No . 88-11; and (b) Approve Use Permit No. 88-25 based on findings and conditions of approval . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Zone Change No. 88-11 is a request to rezone Block A (Tract 12747) and add the "01" suffix to allow the drilling of new oil wells . At present, both Blocks A and B are currently zoned to allow existing oil operations . Block A requires the "01" suffix to permit new oil wells . Use Permit No. 88-25 is a request to establish a consolidated drill site and oil operation of both blocks. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North. East. South and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan LAND USE: Residential 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 was prepared as a • supplement to the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 which were prepared to assess the environmental impacts relative to Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 represent a detailed analysis of the project, project-related impacts, alternatives and measures intended to adverse environmental impacts. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 88-11 and Use Permit No. 88-25, it is necessary that the Planning Commission review and act on Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1. All suggested mitigation measures recommended in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 have been incorporated into conditions of approval . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: The project is located within the boundaries of the Oldtown Specific Plan-District 2 which is a medium density residential district . Both Block A and B currently have the "O" suffix which permits existing oil wells, oil facilities and oil storage operations . This project complies with the requirements of the Oldtown Specific Plan- District 2 except for the exterior side yard setbacks. The applicant is requesting a reduction of exterior sideyards from ten (10) feet to a minimum of seven (7) feet . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -2- (1453d) • 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not Applicable 9 .0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The proposed waterflood oil recovery project is an attempt to consolidate isolated oil leases into a single project area. According to the applicant, oil recovery will be approximately nine million barrels from the Springfield Oil Field by directional drilling and a consolidated recovery system. Pumping and tank facilities are to be located on Block B (Tract 12746) . All oil will be transported by pipeline and not by surface vehicles. Block A (Tract 12747) will contain a maximum of 45 wells which include both injectors and producers . Development of the project will be in two phases . Phase One will be the construction of off-site and on-site improvements and facilities . Prior to the drilling of any new well, the applicant will construct street improvements, sidewalks, the perimeter walls, landscaping, tank facilities and pipeline connections. Phase Two will be the drilling of a maximum 45 new wells. Drilling will be continuous for approximately 24 months utilizing one drilling rig operating 24 hours a day. The applicant estimates that the drilling of the new wells can be better accomplished by using one rig over a time span of 24 months. The project will be screened on each side of both blocks by an eight (8) foot high masonry wall and landscape buffer which will enhance the project and screen the operations from the surrounding neighborhood. The masonry walls will be softened by multiple planter areas in addition to intensified tree plantings. During the 24 month drilling phase, a 30 foot high acoustical blanket will be installed around the perimeter inside the block walls and a sound blanket will be installed around the drilling rig which will mitigate noise as suggested by Supplemental EIR 88-1 and required by the City' s Ordinance Code. After the site development and drilling phases, the operation will be somewhat passive. Periodic maintenance rigs will be required to use acoustical blankets on power source and will be limited to daytime hours . The entire operation will be monitored on an ongoing basis for compliance with Title 8 (Noise) and Title 15 (Oil Code) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the conditions herein. Prior to drilling each new well, a separate drilling permit must be obtained from the City with approval from the Fire Chief . This will enable the City to strictly monitor the success of the mitigation measures and protect the surrounding existing neighborhood from disturbances . The applicant has requested a reduction of the exterior side yard setback from ten (10) feet to seven (7) feet. Section 9130. 7(b) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code allows for a reduction of exterior side yard setbacks based on four (4) findings based on improved design, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and enhanced architectural variation. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -3- (1453d) • � 3 ' ` The perimeter wall that is proposed to surround both blocks does comply with the findings for a reduction of the ten (10) foot setback. The variation in setback ranges from seven (7) feet to twenty-five (25) feet . The material will be split face which provides architectural variation. The perimeter fencing combined with the landscape materials will not be detrimental to property values, the general health or welfare nor privacy of people residing in the existing surrounding neighborhood. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: (a) Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt Zone Change No. 88-11; and (b) Approve Use Permit No. 88-25 based on findings and conditions of approval . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 88-11: 1. A change of zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-O" (Oil Operations excluding Oil Drilling) to "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-01" (Oil Operations including Oil Drilling) will be compatible with surrounding residential uses based on the mitigation measures described in the environmental impact report and conditions of approval outlined in the use permit. 2 . The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations is encouraged because it reduces the land area used for oil facilities . Approximately 5 .3 acres of developable land will become available after the consolidation on the two blocks (3 . 1 acres) . a. Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Code provides for the establishment of "01" Districts . The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet) , as required by Section 9682. 1. The proposed drill site for the project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by Section 9682 . 1. Therefore, it is consistent with this provision. b. Section 9682 . 2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements . All City-required dedications will be implemented through the terms of recorded tract maps for the project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -4- (1453d) C. The project will remove oil producing facilities from six sites, thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites scattered over 160 acres. Although oil producing facilities will remain on the project site, the appearance of the project site will be improved over its present condition. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. d. With respect to the Land Use Element, policies have been translated into a Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix. The matrix shows that as a miscellaneous district -01 may be combined (i .e. is consistent) with any land use category. It is specifically consistent with low, medium and medium-high density residential categories . 3 . Compliance with Title 8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the use permit conditions of approval will ensure that the proposed use allowed by the zone change will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety of the community. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the oil operation will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building based on the conditions of approval and compliance with Title 8 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 2 . The proposed oil operation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Oil activities are a consistent use in any land use category of the General Plan. 3 . The project will consolidate oil operations in one location reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Springfield Oil Field area. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes . The project will result in the abandonment and reclamation of 31 existing wells and 16 oil storage tanks in the Springfield Oil Field area and will not significantly increase traffic in that area. 4 . Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 have determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations . 5 . Conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 88-18 have eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible. 6 . The project will result in increased tax revenues for the City of Huntington Beach and other governmental agencies . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -5- (1453d) 7. The conditions of approval are desirable and necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the official General Plan Land Use Plan and the best interests of the City. Further, they include mitigation measures set forth in the final Environmental Impact Report that will assure the location is suitable for the type of use proposed and the following will not result or be reasonably anticipated from the project : a. Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration; hazards from explosion, contamination or fire. b. Hazards occasioned by unusual volumes or character of traffic; incompatibility with surrounding development . c. The project complies with all requirements of Division 9 except for the identified reduction of exterior sideyard setback and other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 8 . The conditions imposed include requirements of plans for the disposition of oil wells and for oil operations on the property involved, and for berms, walls and landscaping to provide maximum feasible screening of equipment and facilities . 9 . Changes have been required and incorporated in the project to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the project: a. The Division of Oil and Gas enforces rules and regulations for the conduct of secondary recovery operations . b. The mitigation measures incorporated, proposed and adopted, together with application of the rules and regulations of the Division of Oil and Gas, will effectively mitigate all of the adverse impacts identified. C. Public agencies other than the City, including the Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District, will be reviewing aspects of this project for mitigation measures as to matters within their responsibility and jurisdiction, including subsurface operation, water and air quality; the critical need for oil renders infeasible the alternatives of no project or delayed project implementation, and alternative surface locations are infeasible because of their limited availability, or the greater disruption to the community at large which would result therefrom. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -6- (1453d) • 10 . The subject location is centrally located within the Springfield Oil Field area; relocating the proposed project to another site is infeasible. 11. No substantial public purpose would be served by denial of Use Permit No. 88-25 but rather: a . It is important that the United States develop its existing oil reserves in order to meet its energy needs without increasing dependence on foreign oil, and this project will result in incremental recovery of approximately nine (9) million barrels of oil; and b. The project will consolidate oil operations in one location, reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Oldtown portion of the City; and C. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes; and d. The project will be only an interim use of the surface site involved, and at the termination of the project the site will be available for recycling into other uses; and e. The project will benefit and accrue to the general welfare of the City and the public for each of the reasons set • forth above. f . Approval of this project will reduce the immediate demand for more off-shore drilling facilities . 12 . The proposed oil consolidation project will have 24 hour on-site personnel, and will be safer than the existing non-continuous monitoring of the 31 scattered wells to be abandoned throughout the area . This will reduce the possible attraction of younger persons . 13 . The most modern, efficient energy-saving equipment available will be integrated into the design of the project which will mitigate environmental impacts such as fire, noise and air pollutants . 14 . The applicant has submitted a property value protection plan which will be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 15 . The reduction of the exterior sideyard setbacks from ten (10) to seven (7) feet is based on the following: a . The reduction of exterior sideyard setback for perimeter wall from ten (10) to seven (7) feet will result in improved design and utility of the project. • b. The design of the perimeter wall will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -7- (1453d) C. The proposed perimeter wall with reduced exterior sideyard . setbacks will not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare or setback privacy of surrounding residents . d. Variation in the wall setback is provided through the use of offset landscape pockets, architectural features and building materials . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 88-25: 1. The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout . a. This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect. 2 . All structures and procedures shall conform to Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the Division of Oil and Gas Standards . 3 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical and building permits. 4 . Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effect . The monitoring shall include the following: a . Pre-drilling phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance shall be identified. b. Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7: 00 AM) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to those specified in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance by the Department of Community Development. Where an exceedance of the ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of • monitoring shall be required. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -8- (1453d) • c. During the Drilling Phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10:00 PM to 7: 00 AM at least once each month during the drilling phase of the project. The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards by the Department of Community Development. Where an exceedance of the standards is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. 5 . Measures to reduce erosion should be used during grading and site preparation. Grading and construction activity shall take place only during daylight hours after the issuance of a grading permit by the Department of Public Works . 6 . During grading and excavation, earthmoving crews should observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined. 7. A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8 . All street improvements for both tracts shall be constructed after the heavy grading operations have been completed (approximately 4 weeks) : a. Final grading, or any other on-site construction shall be prohibited until street improvement construction has commenced. b. Prior to any on-site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed subject to the approval of Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works. 9 . Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval . a. All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 15 .22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and all trees shall be minimum 24 inch box type and spaced no greater than 20 feet on center. 10 . Prior to the installation of the office structure, elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. a . The office shall be on a permanent foundation. b. A mansard or pitched roof shall be provided. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -9- (1453d) 11. The applicant sha'.l enter into a franchise agreement with the City for the installation of the underground connection between the two blocks, if required. 12 . The proper sealing and abandonment of the existing scattered wells which will be replaced by this project shall take place following approval of this project and must be completed within eighteen (18) months. 13 . The surface of the site shall be completely covered with an appropriate material (such as gravel and/or asphalt) subject to review and approval of Public Works Department, Fire Department and Department of Community Development . 14 . A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to commencing drilling. Said report shall describe noise levels at the Angus Oil Site property line and at the nearest residential property line both with and without an acoustical blanket on the drilling rig and service rigs . The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Code. This shall include the provisions of the Ordinance Code regarding maximum hourly average noise level at nearest residential property line of 50 dB(A) during nighttime hours between 10: 00 PM and 7: 00 AM. a . A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances. 15 . Noise attenuation for the drilling operation, oil operation and service operation shall be provided pursuant to the Oil Code and noise report specified in Condition 14 . a . If a noise violation occurs, the entire drilling structure shall be wrapped with an acoustical blanket for greater noise attenuation. 16 . The project shall fully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. At the applicant ' s expense, a continuous calibrated meter shall be on site to monitor the decibel (dBA) level with a printed copy to be made available to City staff and Ad Hoc Ascon Project Review Committee on a weekly basis . 17. No speakers, loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. 18 . Excessive vibration, as determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be reduced to acceptable levels . 19 . Light and glare shall be directed and/or screened to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent residential properties and shall be energy efficient subject to the requirements of the Building Division. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -10- (1453d) 20 . All heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 freeway and the subject site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street . For entrance to the site only Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used. 21. Heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7: 00 AM and 5 :00 PM. a. No trucks may park on the street. b. Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no stacking shall occur on public streets . 22 . All employees must park on either one of the two sites . Street parking for employees is prohibited. 23 . Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the applicant. 24 . All driveways shall be radius type and constructed to Public Works standards. 25 . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the drilling site between the hours of 10 :00 PM and 7:00 AM except • for emergency purposes. 26 . An overload permit should be obtained from City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets . 27. Pipe string cementing through fresh water bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent salt water intrusion into the aquifers . 28 . A system for collecting, treating, and releasing storm drainage shall be provided by the applicant and approved by Public Works . 29 . Brine water shall not be released into the sewer system. 30 . A recycling plan of produced zone water back to the oil reservoir shall be certified by the Department of Oil and Gas and the Fire Department and all its conditions and restrictions shall be adhered to. 31. Well service rigs shall be operated no more than a total of 48 days per year between 7:00 AM and 7: 00 PM or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -11- (1453d) 32. No more than four well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double muffled and utilize acoustical blankets as deemed necessary. 33 . All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. 34 . The 24-hour phase drilling rigs shall not operate for any longer than 2 years from the issuance of the first drilling permit. 35. Drilling rigs for remaining wells after the two year period shall comply with the conditions . Subsequent drilling shall be limited to 7: 00 AM to 10: 00 PM only. 36 . Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in overall height . 37. Upon completion of 24 hours phase of injection and producer wells, all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 38 . Service rigs shall be erected only during maintenance operations. 39 . Applicant shall install blowout prevention equipment. 40 . A full vapor recovery system shall be installed as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 41 . Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and shall never be completely full at once. 42 . Prepare and submit a Preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP) prior to issuance of building permits. A completed Emergency Action Plan based on as-built plans shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The Emergency Action Plan shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto street from site(s) would be handled (stockpile of sand, etc. ) , the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment . A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis . In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc. , not otherwise covered in the Emergency Action Plan shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . 43 . All oil must be transported by pipeline. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -12- (1453d) 44 . An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection pursuant to Fire Department requirements . 45 . Celler requirements for oil wells : a . A hydrogen sulfide detection system for the well cellers shall be installed subject to Fire Department requirements . b. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel on-site. c. Provide metal open grate covers over top of well cellers. 46 . Storage tank requirements: a. Must have pre-plumbed foam injection system installed on all product storage tanks. b. Must have exterior deluge water spray system on all storage tanks . 47. Site requirements : a . All diked areas must have an engineered drainage system. • b. Foam storage area and foam quantity to be approved by Fire Department . C. Fire hydrants to be located in areas approved by Fire Department. d. Hydrogen sulfide detection system approved by Fire Department to be installed on project perimeter. e. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed throughout the site. f . All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installation must comply with Fire Department Specification 403 . 48 . Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent waste accumulation. 49 . Twenty-one (21) abandoned wells have been identified within the project area which do not meet present day abandonment requirements . A contingency plan shall be outlined and submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any of these abandoned wells finds its way to the surface. • Staff Report - 10/18/88 -13- (1453d) • • 50 . Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be • submitted subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Corununity Development Department, showing how the site shall be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. 51 . There shall be no pipeline construction activity outside the site except between the hours of 7: 00 AM and 8 : 00 PM, Monday through Saturday only. 52 . The methodology of oil recovery for this project shall be limited to water injection only. Steam injection shall be prohibited. 53 . The operator shall at all times during the term of this use permit and any renewal or extension thereof, maintain in force an insurance policy or policies insuring the operator, and as additional insureds the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the City acting in the due course of his employment or in his official capacity, against liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person or per- sons, and from all costs and expenses of litigation brought against the insureds, in the amount of not less than $5, 000, 000 combined single limit for any injury to persons or damage to property, including (but • not limited to) injury or damage from subsidence and rebound, resulting from the operator ' s oil drilling and production activities and operations incidental thereto. Said policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced by the insurance carrier without the City having been given at least ten days prior written notice thereof by such carrier. The operator shall not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. At all times during the term of this use permit, and any renewal or extension thereof, the operator shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate or certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or carriers showing that said insurance is in effect in the amount required above, and a copy of each insurance policy. If the operator does not keep said insurance in full force and effect, the City may obtain said insurance and pay the premium thereon, which shall then be deemed a debt owned by the operator to the City. Any insurance policies procured by the operator hereunder shall provide that the insurance carrier waives all rights of subrogation against the City. If the City obtains any policy of insurance hereunder, such policy shall include a waiver by the insurance carrier of all rights of subrogation against the operator . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -14- (1453d) jC4,,- �II..�iiII ML_ v w �'i 2 sc j_ VMKTWN AVE R2-0-CD W R2-0 CF-C 0 lK CF-E-CD R2-0-CD M=� c A- E!A R2 C 2 1 9 0 — CF-E I CR ICF-E-CD -CD-o R2-0 R2 R2 A. 0 o -CD-0 Ec D__o EEO� • 11111A R R4 RZ-O c -0 R?-011Q00. a� � CD-0 CF-R RI RI RI RI RI R2 -CD-0 f 3i,vITO 0 0 ? -CD-0] 06 C."0 0 ir 0* m y 0 FEM R2 C41 SPRINGFIELD L (D CY 0 -0 0 cr CY C4 (at 0 0 0 D. z RI RI RI RI RI R2 -0 ROCHIEST R3 3 m 1�0 19 RI-0 -0 Hol FE01., 0 0 0 •143-0 RI-0 2 R. *� RI-0 4 RI RI R-I R a (moLoT a C2 R I MRI E 10H R c ( �'SPECIF --- AV -0 LAN (34ITM OCHGOL) (DISTR,rT m 7,� 93 -0 • RI HE El R az & QRI ;�Jo -0 mJ CF-E UX- 6 , !oj RV 4 0 "4- , v R �l /V F2-PD-10 RI R 11 R I A MVILL Av ( c" ST ar OLDTOWI or EM I r I C RI R I PLAN( T ) FM-PD-10 Wt, KM�C88��. t� P88�-�5 �I RSS��. �. >� HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION v 54 . The Planning Commission shall review and, if necessary, may modify the conditions as set forth in this use permit, at the first regular Planning Commission meeting in October, 1989, and at five year intervals thereafter, and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews; provided that the phrase "change of ownership" as used herein shall not include any sale or other transfer to a corporation, partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas-United States and/or one or more of its shareholders or subsidiaries owns the controlling interests, or any sale or transfer so long as Angus or one of its subsidiaries retains responsibility for the operation of the project. 55 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . The City shall provide the property owner with notice in writing of any violation, stating the City' s basis for determining that a violation has occurred. The property owner shall have a reasonable time to cure the violation before further action is taken. The City may require the property owner with notice in writing to submit written documentation of actions taken to remedy any violation and may require monitoring or other procedures to be implemented in order to ensure that the violation will be • cured. 56 . The nine member project review committee shall monitor the project during the drilling phase and semi-annually thereafter. The Fire Department and Community Development departments shall jointly provide a staff liaison. 57 . The property value protection plan submitted by the applicant shall be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 58 . In the event that either one of the two blocks is to be without 24-hour supervision, a video camera shall be employed on-site to provide continuous surveillance which can be monitored by personnel at the other site. ATTACHMENTS• 1 . Area map 2 . Site plan, elevations and landscape plan 3 . Previous findings and conditions of approval for Angus Project 4 . Draft Ordinance 5 . Comparison of Current and Prior Springfield Project 6 . Letters in support of project 7. Letters in opposition of project SH:RLF: jr • Staff Report - 10/18*8 -15- • (1453d) Liao - 000 n F 00 xi 0 0 0000 -Tj 0 L pi -u > z ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION • 1 0 SPRINGFIELD PROJECT i SPRINGFIELD AVENUE I I ! I • I I I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I I ! I I M1 I ( ? 1 I < r ~ L, U I W I 1 1 I W O L. rI 1 C- I~ I ! I I I~ O C < 1 � I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I 1 1 Z ' - I I 3 w L o f it I 1 < c L l J �• I J I IW � 2 < I O L U C C I 1 L I I I I I , 11//N7AA�1ii� < I1I DRILL SITE ` .. PLAN 4 �.� = a � ao c im DffC111�Tt4. TMCt MO. if).f. lOt � ROCHE - AVENUE S- 1 TORONTO AVENUE Q IL 00 W w U LY I I i I � ` I I � 2 to i :D Q 0 9f! I J f ! I `� IQ WJ ZI s9. : E- �� �_� Io ° u CD EED I j ... L) ." I � J (n _ � I U • Q FACILITY r� SITE PLAN g"..'f.'ca' j uo.. oteuvrow. rw.cr«o. .ar•e• nor i 1 .--.-. -.- .-.-. S=RINGFIELD AVENUE e.n[c moo. S— 2 EAST ELEVATION OF DRILL SITE AT DELAWARE STREET 0 LLJ IL -) "Nilliiii /-liji F 0 L) L SOUTH ELEVATION OF DRILL S!-E WALL AT ROCHESTER AVENUE Z C) LL" 0 LL EAST ELEVATION OF FACIL-17Y SITE AT CALIFORNIA STREET 0 z • -�iq SOUTH ELEVATION OF FACILITY SITE AT SPRIN;FIELD AVENUE S- 3 ATTACHMENT 3 PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ANGUS PROJECT FROM NOVEMBER 2, 1987, AND OCTOBER 20, 1986 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ( City Council ) - ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION - ANNUAL REVIEW 6 PROPOSED . MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO USE PERMIT N - - APPLICATIONS TO AD HOC COMMITTEE TO BE ACCEPTED The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Community Development Director - transmitting for Council ' s consideration the required annual review of Use Permit 86-7 - Angus Petroleum Corporation pursuant to Condition #53 of the conditions of approval and modification of five of the original • conditions imposed on Angus Petroleum Corporation . Subject location is the two blocks bounded by Delaware, Huntington, Toronto & Rochester . The Deputy City Administrator/Community Development presented a staff report . Discussion was held regarding the feasibility of installing a fixed noise monitor with a printed read out to operate continuously with the reports to be made available to officials and the Ascon Ad Hoc Committee . Discussion was held regarding Condition No . 41 pertaining to the Emergency Action Plan . The masonry walls surrounding the site and the make up of the Ascon Committee was discussed . • page 10 - Minutes of Council/Agency - 11/2/87 A motion was made by Green, seconded by Mays, to modify conditions of approval of Use permit No. 86-7 as follows : Condition 11 : The site plans dated October 20, 1987 shall be the approved project layout. Condition7 : Changes have been required and incorporated in the project during the course of the public hearing and consultation process to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the project ; the Division of Oil and Gas entorces rules and regulations for the conduct of secondary recovery operations ; the mitigation measures incorporated, proposed and adopted, together with application of the rules and regulations of the Division of Oil and Gas, will effectively mitigate all of the adverse impacts identified; public agencies other than the City, including the Division of Oil and Gas , Regional water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District, will be reviewing aspects of this project for mitigation measures as to matters within their responsibility and jurisdiction, including . subsurface operation, water and air quality; the critical need for oil renders infeasible the alternatives of no project or delayed project implementation, ano alternative surface locations are infeasible because of their limited availability, or the greater disruption to the community at large which would result therefrom. Except the well cellar excavation and construction be allowed to proceed concurrently with the construction of masonry walls , landscaping and street improvements . Condition #15: The project shall tully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance . At the applicants expense a continuous calibrated meter shall be on site to monitor the decibel (dba ) level with a printed copy to be made available to city staff and Ad Hoc Ascon Project Review Committee on a weekly basis . Condition #41 : Prepare and submit a Preliminary Emergency Action Plan ( EAP ) prior to issuance of building permits.. A completed Emergency Action Plan based on as-built plans shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The Emergency Action Plan shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto street from .,,,site ( 'a ) would be handled (stockpile of sand, etc. ) , the sate handling of any chemicals and/or materials , and full knowledge of all Page 11 - Minutes of Council/Agency - 11/2/87 systems' and emergency equipment . A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis . In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc . , not otherwise covered in the Emergency Action Plan shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . Condition #53 : The City Council shall review and, if necessary, may modify the conditions as set forth in this use permit, at the first regular City Council meeting following September 21 , 1988, and at five year intervals thereafter , and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews ; provided that the phrase "change of ownership' as used herein shall not include any sale or other transfer to a corporation, partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas-United States and/or one or more of its shareholders or subsidiaries owns the controlling interests , or any sale or transfer so long as Angus or one of its subsidiaries retains responsibility for the operation of the project . The motion carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : Winchell , Mays , Kelly, Erskine , Green NOES : Finley ABSENT: Bannister (out of the room) Interim City Administrator Cook informed Council that applications for a position on the Ad Hoc Ascon Project Review Committee were still being accepted . A motion was mace by Winchell , seconded by Kelly, to amend Condition #55 to read as follows : Condition 155 : A nine member project review committee shall be selected by City Council to assure compliance with conditions of this use permit . The motion carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : Winchell , Mays , Finley, Kelly , Erskine, Green NOES : None ABSENT: Bannister (out of the room) Councilman Bannister returned to the room. .J � Page 4 - Count-il Min u - 10/20/86 AYES: Kelly, MacAT_l.ister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None JOINT SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED 10/27/86 - COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Thomas, to hold a ,joint Special Meet- ing October 27, 1986 to consider all the Redevelopment Agency items scheduled to be heard October 20, 1986. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING COMMISSION OVERRULED - ZONE CHANGE 86-4 - APPROVED - USE PERMIT 6-7 - APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND MENDED CONDITIONS - EIR 6-1 CERTIFIED - ANGUS PETROLEUM CORP The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from October 13, 1986 to consider an appeal filed by Councilman John Thomas to the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change 86-4, Use Per- mit 86-7. Zone Change 86-4 proposes a change of zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan - Dis- trict 2-0" to "Oldtown Specific Plan - District 2-01.". Use Permit 86-7 - to develop a consolidated drillsite and oil operation. The subject location is two blocks bounded by Delaware Street to the east, Huntington Street to the west, Toronto Avenue to the north and Rochester Avenue to the south. The Mayor stated that Environmental Impact Report 86-1, assessing the environmen- tal effects of said proposal would also be considered by the City Council. The City Clerk announced that an informal petition had been submitted listing • approximately 402 signatures in opposition and that communications in opposi- tion had been submitted by James E. Walton. Staff reports were presented by the City Administrator; the Director of Devel- opment Services, Scott Hess, Assistant Planner; Pam Posten, Assistant Planner; Jim Crisp, Vice-President of BCL regarding environmental concerns; and Fire Chief Picard. Planning Commissioner Porter informed to Council as to the rea- sons why the Planning Commission denied Zone Change 86-4 and denied Use Permit 86-7. Discussion was held between Mayor Mandic and staff regarding Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project; and the noise equivalent. Discussion was held regarding the time to be allowed for public testimony. Spencer Sheldon, Kevin Williams, B. G. Williams, Edd Schofield, Nick McLachlan, John Rohrig, Ted Ehring, George Grundt, Kathy Walker, Larry Washa, Mel Frost, Dr. Ed Helton, Craig Webb, Mickey Shafer, Steven Berg-Hansen, Martha Brock, John Van Hauleu, Tom Van Tuyl and Kirk Kirkland spoke in support of the project. Stan Lawrence, Robert Richardson, Dean Albright, Sharon Sarkis, Rachael Kaloian, Jason Rosen, Paula Rosen, Michael Craig, Dolores Walton, Lynn Moseman, G. T. Lee, Nancy Hartmann presented certified copy of CC&R's, Peter Fassnacht, Steven Ganetos, Lucille Battu, Michael Kaloian, George Corry, Mark Conley, Dirk Hartmann spoke in opposition to the project. Dij:cussion was held r ding whether to clone the pOi.c hearing and continue with the rest of the a nnda. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Bailey, to close the public hearing and to continue discussion of the matter at the present time. The motion car- ried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Thomas NOES: Mandic, Green ABSENT: None The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2876 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDI- NANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM OLD- TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DISTRICT TWO) WITH OIL SUFFIX TO OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DISTRICT TWO) WITH OIL SUFFIX FOR DRILLING PURPOSES ON REAL PROPERTY GENER- ALLY LOCATED BETWEEN DELAWARE STREET TO THE EAST, ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, CALIFORNIA STREET TO THE WEST, AND SPRINGFIELD AVENUE TO THE NORTH." (ZONE CHANGE #86-4)". The City Attorney stated that CC&R's were only enforceable between the private parties who own the property. She stated there was no conflict of interest to disallow Councilman Thomas from voting on the issue. She referred to a letter from Angus Petroleum stating that there was no existing contract between Angus Petroleum and Councilman Thomas. A motion was nude by Bailey, seconded by Finley, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Environmental Impact Report 86-1, and deny Zone Change 8E-4 with findings set forth in the October 13, 1986 RCA and to wta NM deny Use Permit 86-7 with revised findings as set forth in the October 13, 1986 RCA. Following discussion, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey NOES: Kelly, MacAllister, Green, Thomas ABSENT: None A motion was made by Green, seconded by Kelly, to certify Environmental Impact Report 86-1 as adequate and in conformance with California Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and to overrule the Planning Commission decision and approve Zone Change 86-4 and Use Permit 86-7 with findings and conditions as amended to include optional Condition No. 55 pertaining to a five member review committee to monitor and inspect the project; Condition No. 56 pertain- ing to the one million dollar trust fund that Angus Petroleum Corporation is prepared to eHtablish per the letter from Angus received October 17, 1986; Condition No. 57 pertaining to video camera scanning the drill site that can be viewed by 24-hour security personnel at the tank farm site; and amending Condition No. 13 to change the words to read " . . .50 dBA. . .", and to approve introduction of Ordinance No. 2876, after reading by title; the findings and conditions are as follows: Findings for Approval - Zone Change No. 86-4: 1. A change if zone from "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-O" (Oil Opera- tions excluding Oil Drilling) to "Oldtown Specific Plan, District Two-01" (Oil Operitions including Oil Drilling) will be compatible with surround- :13 Page 6 - Council Minute�- IC/20/86 residential uses �Fiased on the mitigation measures described in the ing g environmental impact report and conditions of approval outlined in the use permit. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations ! is encouraged because it reduces the land area used for oil facilities. Approxim.itely 5.3 acres of developable land will become available after the consolidation on the two blocks (3.1 acres) . 3. Compliance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the use permit conditions of approval will ensure that the proposed use allowed by the zone change will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety of the community. Findings for Approval - Use Permit No. 86-7: 1. The estai)lishment, maintenance and operation of the oil operation will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building based on the conditions of approval and compliance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 2. The proposed oil operation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Oil activities are a consistent use in any land use category of the General Plan. 3. The project will consolidate oil operations in one location reducing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Springfield Oil Field area. Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and 4 noise reduction purposes. The project will result in the abandonment and reclamation of 34 existing wells and 16 oil storage tanks in the Spring- field Oil Field area and will not significantly increase traffic in that area. 4. The project will result in increased tax revenues for the City of Hunt- ington Beach and other governmental agencies. 5. The conditions of approval are desirable and necessary in order to effec- tuate the purposes of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the official General Flan Land Use Plan and the best interests of the City. Further, they include mitigation measures set forth in the final Environmental Impact Report that will assure- the location is suitable for the type of use proposed and the following will not result or be reasonably anticipa- ted from the project: damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration; hazards from explosion, contamination or fire; hazards occa- sioned by unusual volumes or character of traffic; incompatibility with surrounding development . And, the project complies with all requirements of Division 9 and other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 6. The conditions imposed include requirements of plans for the disposition of oil wells and for oil operations on the property involved, and for berms, walls and landscaping to provide maximum feasible screening of equipment and facilities. Page 7 Council Miauo- 10/20/86 7. Changes have been required and incorporated in the project during the course of the public hearing and consultation process to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of the project; the Division of Oil and Gas enforces rules and regulations for the conduct of secondary recovery operations; the mitigation measures incorporated, pro- posed and adopted, together with application of the rules and regulations of the Division of Oil and Gas, will effectively mitigate all of the adverse impacts identified; public agencies other than the City, includ- ing the Division of Oil and Gas, Regional Water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District, will be reviewing aspects of this project for mitigation measures as to matters within their responsi- bility and jurisdiction, including subsurface operation, water and air quality; the critical need for oil renders infeasible the alternatives of no project or delayed project implementation, and alternative surface locations are infeasible because of their limited availability, or the greater disruption to the community at large which would result therefrom. 8. The subject location is centrally located within the Springfield Oil Field ar(:a; ' relocating the, proposed project to another site is infeasible. 9. No substantial public purpose would be served by denial of Use Permit No. 86-7 but rather: (a) It is important that the United States develop its existing oil reserves in order to meet its energy needs without increasing dependence on foreign oil, and this project will result in incremen- tal recovery of approximately five (5) million barrels of oil; and (b) The project will consolidate oil operations in one location, reduc- ing the visual impact of numerous wells now spread throughout the Oldtown portion of the City; and (c) Such consolidation will also be advantageous for safety and noise reduction purposes; and (d) The project will be only an interim use of the surface site involved, and at the termination of the project the site will be available for recycling into other uses; and (e) The project will benefit and accrue to the general welfare of the City and the public for each of the reasons set forth above. (f) Approval of this project will reduce the immediate demand for more off-shore drilling facilities. 10. The proposed oil consolidation project will have 24 hour on-site person- nel, and will be safer than the existing non-continuous monitoring of the 34 scattered wells to be abandoned throughout the area. This will reduce the possible attraction of younger persons. 11. The most modern, efficient energy-saving equipment available will be integrated into the design of the project which will mitigate environmen- tal impacts such as fire, noise and air pollutants. v u — 10/20/86 • Page 8 Council Minutes 12. The applicant has submitted a property value protection plan which will be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. Conditions of Approval - Use Permit No. 86-7: 1. The site plan dated August 15, 1986, and section drawings dated August 27, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout. (a) This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 86-4 has been approved and in effect. 2. A11 structures and procedures shall conform to Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the Division of Oil and Gas Standards. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical and building permits. 4. Measures to reduce erosion should be used during grading and site prepa- ration. Grading and construction activity shall take place only during daylight hours. 5. During grading and excavation, earthmoving crews should observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds. In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined. 6. A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Develop- ment Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Prior to any on-site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed. 8. Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. (a) All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 15.22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and all trees shall be minimum 24 inch box type and spaced no greater than 20 feet on center. 9. Prior to the installation of the office structure, elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Development Services department. (a) The office shall be on a permanent foundation. (b) A mansard or pitched roof shall be provided. 10. The applicant shall enter into a franchise agreement with the City for the installation of the underground connection between the two blocks. 11. The proper sealing and abandonment of the existing scattered wells which will be replaced by this project shall take place following approval of this project and must be completed within eighteen (18) months. Page 9 - Council Minutes - 10/20/86 12. The surface of the site shall be completely covered with an appropriate material (such as gravel) subject to review and approval of Development Services. 13. A report prepared by an acoustical engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to com- mencing drilling. Said report shall predict and project dBA sound levels at the Angus Oil Site property line and adjacent residential property line both with and without an acoustical blanket on the drilling rig and service rigs. The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to assure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Code and a maximum noise level at the residential property line of 50 dBA during the nighttime hours between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. (a) A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man--door entrances. 14. Noise attenuation for the drilling operation,- oil operation and service operation shall be provided pursuant to the Oil Code and noise report specified in Condition 13. (a) If- a noise problem occurs, the entire drilling structure shall be wrapped with an acoustical blanket for greater noise attenuation. 15. The project shall fully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. 16. No speakers, lot+d bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. 17. Excessive vibration, as determined by the Direczor of Development Ser- vices, shall be reduced to acceptable levels. 18. Light and glare shall be directed and/or screened to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent residential properties. 19. All heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 freeway and the subject site: Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street. For entrance to the site only Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used. 20. Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. (a) No trucks may park on the street. (b) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no more than two trucks shall be on the premises at any one time. 21. A11 employees must park on either one of the two sites both during con- struction and after. 22. Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be 3.7 repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the applicant. 23. All driveways shall be radius type and constructed to Public Works Stan- - dards. Page 10 - Council Minute 10/20/86 24. There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the drilling site between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM except for emergency purposes. 25. An overload permit should be obtained from City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets. 26. Pipe string cementing through fresh water bearing sands shall be imple- mented to prevent salt water intrusion into the aquifers. 27. A system for collecting, treating, and releasing storm drainage must be provided by the applicant and approved by Public Works. 28. Excess brine must be treated and a permit obtained, to meet Orange County Sanitation District and City Fire Department standards prior to being released into the sewer system. 29. Recycling of produced zone water back to the oil reservoir shall be cert- ified by -the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all its conditions and restrictions shall be adhered to. 30. Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. 31. No more than four well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 100 feet in height and shall be double muffled and utilize acoustical blankets. 32. All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. 33. The drilling rigs shall not operate for any longer than 2 years during Phase One. 34. Drilling rigs after the two year period for the remaining 16 wells (Phase Two) shall comply with the conditions herein and may not be installed after an additional two years. The second phase drilling shall be limi- ted to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM only. 35. Drilling derricks shall not exceed 142 feet in height. 36. Upon completion of initial drilling of injection and producer wells, all. drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 37. Service rigs shall be erected only during maintenance operations. 38. Applicant shall install blowout prevention equipment. 39. A full vapor recovery system shall be installed. 40. Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and shall never be com- pletely full at once. 41. Prior to issuance of building permits, an emergency action plan, includ- ing employee training and periodic practice, shall be developed by the applicant with consultation from the City and other regulating agencies. The plan should include how spillage onto street from site(s) would be Page 11 --Council Mims*-• 10/20/86 handled (stockpile of sand, etc.); the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equip- went. A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis. 42. All oil must be transported by pipeline. 43. An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection. 44. Celler requirements for oil wells: (a) Must be provided with heat detection system from celler to 24 hour monitoring location. (b) Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel. (c) Provide metal open grate covers over top of well cellers. 45. Storage tank requirements: (a) Must have pre-plumbed foam injection system installed on all product storage tanks. (b) Must have exterior deluge water spray system on all storage tanks. 46. Site requirements: (a) A11 diked areas must have an engineered drainage system. (b) Foam storage area and foam quantity to be approved by Fire Depart- ment. (c) Fire hydrants to be located in areas approved by Fire Department. (d) Hydrogen sulfide detection system approved by Fire Department to be installed on project perimeter. (e) Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed throughout the site. (f) All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installation must comply with Fire Department Specification 403. 47. Well cellars shall be cleaned periodically to prevent waste accumulation. 48. Twenty (20) abandoned wells have been identified within the project area which do not meet present day abandonment requirements. A contingency plan shall be outlined and submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Depart- ment for review and approval with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any of these abandoned wells finds its way to the surface. 49. Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted- sub- ject to review and approval of the Fire Department and 'Development Ser- vices Department, showing how the site shall be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. Page 12 - Council. Minute*10/20/86 • 50. There shall be no pipeline construction activity outside the site except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday only. 51. The methodology of oil recovery for this project shall be limited to water injection only. Steam injection shall be prohibited. 52. The operator shall at all times during the term of this use permit and any renewal or extension thereof, maintain in force an insurance policy or policies insuring the operator, and as additional insureds the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the City acting in the due course of his employ- ment or in his official capacity, against liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person or per- sons, and from all costs and expenses of litigation brought against the insureds, in the amount of not less than $5,000,000 combined single limit for any injury to persons or damage to property, including (but not limi- ted to) injury or damage from subsidence and rebound, resulting from the operator's oil drilling and production activities and operations inciden- tal thereto. Said policies shall_ provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced' by the insurance carrier without the City having been given at least ten days prior written notice thereof by such carrier. The operator shall not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. At all times during the term of this use permit, and any renewal or extension thereof, the operator shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate or certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or carriers showing that said insurance is in effect in the amount required above, and a copy of each insurance policy. If the oper- ator does not keep said insurance in full force and effect, the City may obtain said insurance and pay the premium thereon, which shall then be deemed a debt owned by the operator to the City. Any insurance policies procured by the operator hereunder shall provide that the insurance car- rier waives all rights of subrogation against the City. If the City obtains any policy of insurance hereunder, such policy shall include a waiver by the insurance carrier of all rights of subrogation against the operator. 53. The City Council shall review and, if necessary, may modify the condi- tions as set forth in this use permit , at the first regular City Council meeting following October 20, 1987, and at five year intervals there- after, and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews; provided that the phrase "change of ownership" as used herein shall not include -any sale or other transfer to a corpora- tion, partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas-United States and/or one or more of its shareholders or sub- sidiaries owns the controlling interests, or any sale or transfer so long as Angus or one of its subsidiaries retains responsibility for the opera- tion of the project. 54. The Planning Commission/City Council reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 55. A five member review committee shall be selected by the City Council com- prised of three property owners, who reside directly adjacent to the pro- ject site, one member of the Planning Commission and one City Counc i member. The Fire Department and Development Services Department shall 1.40 Page 13 - Council Minu*- 10/20/86 jointly provide a staff liaison. The purpose of this committee shall be to monitor and inspect the project on a quarterly basis during the drill- ing phase: and semi-annually thereafter. 56. The property value protection plan submitted by the applicant shall be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 57. In the event that either one of the two blocks is to be without 24-hour supervision, a video camera shall be employed on-site to provide continu- ous surveillance which can be monitored by personnel at the other site. Findings for Approval - Environmental Impact Report 86-1: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report is an informational document which informed the City Council and the general public of the environmental effects of the project and which was read, reviewed and considered by the City Council before making its decision on the project. 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report contains discussions of the signi- ficant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects, alternatives to the project , the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, statements of significant irreversible environ- mental changes which will result from the project and the growth-inducing impact of the action. 4. The Final Environmental Impact Report contains the comments and recom- mendations received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report a list of persons, organizations and public agencies consulted and commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and responses to significant environmental questions raised in the review and consultation process, a notice of completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report was filed with the Secretary of the Resources Agency as required by law. 5. Since completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report there have been no substantial changes in the proposed project, or in the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, or new information, which require its revision; the Final Environmental Impact Report is therefore certified as complete. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Green, Thomas NOES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey ABSENT: None RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called 'a recess of Council at 11:20 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 11:25 P.M. 141 1 ORDINANCE NO. BUR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DISTRICT TWO) WITH OIL SUFFIX TO OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DISTRICT TWO) WITH OIL SUFFIX FOR DRILLING PURPOSES ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN DELAWARE STREET TO THE EAST, ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, CALIFORNIA STREET TO THE WEST, AND SPRINGFIELD AVENUE TO THE NORTH (ZONE CHANGE CASE #88-11) WHEREAS, pursuant to State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 88-11 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said hearings, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington • Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The following described real property, generally known as the full block bounded by Delaware Street to the east, Rochester Avenue to the south, California Street to the west, and Springfield Avenue to the north, is hereby changed from Oldtown Specific Plan (District Two)-0 to Oldtown Specific Plan (District Two)-01 : Tract 12747 being a subdivision of lots 1 to 20, inclusive, in Block 1804 of the Vista Del Mar Tract, Huntington Beach as recorded in Book 4 , Page 15 of the Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County, CA. SECTION 2 . Section 9061 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 2 (Sectional District Map 2-6-11) is hereby amended to reflect the change contained in this ordinance and on the map attached hereto. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of said district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. DM- FT SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: • City Administrator Director of Community Development (1453d) SHELDON CONSULTING SERVICES Seacliff Office Park 2134 Main Street, Suite 285 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-1437 Government Relations• Environmental Regulations • Project Permitt`i i August 12, 1988 Mr. Bob Franklin Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Comparison of Current Springfield Project to Prior Project Dear Bob: You requested that I compare the features of the current Springfield Project with those of the original proposal . This letter attempts to list the significant changes . They include: Increase in Oil Recovery - Oil recovery was originally estimated at approximately 5 million barrels . Further engineering has allowed that estimate to be increased to approximately 9 million barrels. Revision of Site Plans - The site plans for the project are now different than originally proposed. They are the same, however, as the site plans approved by the City Council on November 2 , 1987 as a modification of Condition #1 of Use Permit No . 86 -7 . The basic features of the revised site plans are: Drillsite: The well cellars have been downsized to a maximum of 45 wells rather than the 60 wells included in the originally approved layout. Facility Site: The overall interior grade has been lowered two feet below street grade in order to reduce tank visibility and provide greater water retention capacity. (The elevation of the oil handling tanks is therefore lowered to six feet below street grade. ) The water handling tanks and equipment were reoriented into the area previously occupied by a residential structure at the northwest corner of the site . That modification allows two smaller tanks to be substituted Affiliated wit!i Laird & Associates: Houston,Texas and Washington, D.C. • for the single large brine water storage tank . The separate tanks are four feet lower in height than was the single tank. The above modifications resulted in a minor relocation of both driveways (off Huntington Street and California Street) and gates in to the facilities site and office. Trip Generation - The original EIR included an estimate of the maximum number of employees and contract personnel based on the possibility of using two drilling rigs simultaneously. The current proposal is for the use of only one drilling rig . The required personnel and resulting trip generation has been reduced accordingly. Source of Make-up Water - The prior project was to obtain brine water for initial injection and as make-up water in the production process from either new brine water source wells or from excess water from existing oil production activities. The source of the necessary injection water has now been determined to be surplus brine water available at Chevron' s water treatment plant located near Clay Street west of Goldenwest Street . The brine water to be used in the Springfield Project is now being disposed of by discharge in to the sanitary sewer system. Water Disposal - The original project contemplated that certain surplus waters including storm runoff and surplus produced water might be disposed of, as required, by discharge into either the sanitary sewers or by permit to the stormdrains . The current project has been modified to be a "zero water discharge" facility. The project will contain or capture all waters on-site including : make-up water; produced water ; storm runoff ; and/or fire fighting water . After filtering and treating any such waters will be injected in to the subsurface reservoirs. taell and Tank Abandonments - The prior project provided for the abandonment of 29 oil wells and 9 tank batteries . The current project provides for the abandonment of 21 wells and 7 tank batteries. The difference is as a result of the wells and tank batteries that have already been abandoned either by ANGUS Petroleum Corporation or other party in conjunction with the prior project. I have attempted to include all the significant differences between the currently proposed Springfield Project and the prior project. If any others come to mind, I will be certain to call them to your attention. Please let me know if any further information on these changes is needed at this time. I think you'd agree with me that all the above changes have • either reduced project impacts or have otherwise provided for improvem nt in an environmental aspect of the project. Very t ly yours, ., i Sp ce C. Sh don CS/ CC: Mr. John D. Carmichael Ij JUl )' Ili 1988 G�pNBEE CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT pF H0N1N��LOFF\c 1805 CALIFORNIA STREET C+�0C`(� (,p� HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 714/536-7534 The Honorable John I'rskine MEMBER Ma)'or' Of Fluntington Beach AMERICAN INSTItUTE OF CPAS C i t y 11,11 1 CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF CPAS 2000 Main S t rec t LICENSED Hunt r ng Lon lleach , CA 92648 CALIFORNIA AND PENNSYLVANIA R E : ING NGF 1 I;LD PROJ ECT ( by Angus Petroleum Corporation ) Dear Mayor Erskine : As you can see from our address above , we live and work directly across the street from the proposed Springfield Project . We ' re writing to let you know we want to see the project go forward as soon as possible . Naturally , we are concerned with safety , noise and property Values , but we feel Angus Petroleum is responding to these concerns . In your deliberation~ we request that the project be approved and that it include the following provisions : -Compliance with all safety standards . -Completion of streets and sidex"alks as a priority . -Completion of landscaping and permanent wall ( high enough to block any unsightly view from a second story window) . -Soundproofing and dust control. during drilling phase . -Springfield Property Trust ( as previously proposed) . As you may know from correspondence on file , we initially opposed this project . However , we subsequently reconsidered and changed our position . This , therefore , gives you the right to change your mind , too , since you ran ,your campaign oppc;sing the Springfield Project . At any rate , please unCl('r•�ta11d t.lra t the "Concerned Citizens" group does not speak for us . sincerely , 13oyd D. Wheeler Linda L . Wheeler Cc : City Council Members City Planning Commissioner & Members Angus Petroleum Corporation Davis Consultants , Inc . Editor , Orange County Register • 9381 Molokai Dr. Huntington Beach, Cal . 92646 September 20, 1988 . The Honorable John Erskine, Mayor of Huntington Beach, Dear Mayor Erskine : Upon discussing the case of the Angus Company petition to consolidate their wells in a one square block area which would be camouflaged and noise monitored, it seems to me, in view of the na'Cion-wide search for new sources of oil , the petition should be given serious thought and fair consideration. It appears to me that if safeguards are taken to insure the fulfilment of company promises , the proposed develop - ment would be a good deal for all concerned - including an added source of revenue for Huntington Beach. The sewage treatment plant, the Edison generating plant and the Ascon dump are all close to my home , but these things have not ruined the beauty or serenity or lowered property values of my neighborhood. Sincerely, Don Van Sickle D SEP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY. COUNCIL OFFICE r 262 Granada Avenue = = Long Beach, CA 90803 October 6, 1988 Chairman Victor Leipzig and Planning Commission Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Leipzig and Planning Commission Members: This letter is in regard to a Planning Commission hearing on October 18, 1988, to consider a proposal by Angus Petroleum Corporation to develop a secondary recovery program on the old eastside town lot oil field. Studies over the past several years have shown that a large amount of recoverable oil remains in the formations of that field. Current secondary recovery methods could extract millions of barrels of good quality oil. The long-term benefits of this program outweigh the short-term inconvenience that may result during the construction of facilities. The residents in the immediate vicinity will be able to enjoy two blocks of landscaped open space. Residents within the lease area will : benefit from the removal of many unsightly oil wells and storage tanks. The City of Huntington Beach will receive additional revenue from the project. Considering the recent reduction in oil exploration activities and the abandonment of many producing wells in this country, we may again in the near future find ourselves at the mercy of the OPEC nations. We should develop our oil reserves now and not wait for the next shortage crisis to occur. I encourage you to grant development permits to Angus Petroleum Corporation within limitations established by your city environmental planners. Sincerely yours, Edward W. Tuck r A. Loor ES2SK1.9E I fAcn6c C'iT , 2ooa MA►a eE f , yco ti/4, . }}--)NT1-4 c— 'BEAc41 CIA AP M 4-ye W5 K%45 Q COIQ tic L Nl u•bcr.5. T re-sob ,,,r� �F�►c AcT'A C►4CM Le-tier b,,-ical 'Z,1.a30 ti98�� As +�tr< S4i 11 vslid Colttr� S -�- T hc�,t. �� �osi-��•,� 1�^ f t�M�S `�D `�,� s P�e,ec� �c�Cir I c S T Fet ,i4) aeG7', 1 n 4 ( t Gx4i4 ( XJ el�k6rkosd Am a-) let be- 4 e+r C`ts, r J Qx -kcS f `f D�s V O�`t ej.S tL f c O / 5 pro id-O� George Corry 1801 California Street I11 1 y "Sc) , 1986 llunti ngton' Beach , C.A Mayor Robert Mandic City Cnunci. l. Menber. s CITY O1' HUNTI NGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street IluntingLon Beach , CA 92648 Dear Mayor Mandic & Council. Members , My name is George Corry and I atl a honeowner at the above stated address . sty neighbors and I are very concerned about a project which will be up for review by the Planning Commission sometime in September . This project is being proposed by Angus Oil Co . which wants to drill 50 - 60 new oil wells over a period of two ( 2 ) years . Angus Oil Co . has purchased two, blocks of Land , itt which there are approximately six homes on presently . This proposed drill site is Located between California Street and Delaware , Kochester and Springfield streets and is surrounded by residential homes on three sides . The value of the project is in the range of $25 , 000 , 000 . 00 . I have been waLchi.ng the City of Ilun.tington Beach develop and I like what has been approved , however , there seems to he no way that a project of this magnitude could be constructed and not have an effect on the neighborhood . I have just recently received the Environmental Tmpact Report and I art concerned about a few things in which I WOUld like you to review and consequently , respond to : A) Dri. 11.ing noise for a period of one ( 1 ) to two ( 2 ) years using a 1 , 000 horsepower electric iitotors for twenty- four ( 24 ) hours a day . Will you guarantee us that this drilling operation will not be a nuisance? The EIR report is not detailed enough in regards to the effect the noise level will. have on the surrounding resiclence , especially at night . [low about li.tiiting, the dri. 1. 1 ing period to day time hours only . 11) Maintenance of the wells . This will occur after the wellsar. e completed . Lets say they have 60 wells that need to he cleaned two times a year . This operation takes approximately two days per well. , which equals 120 clays out of the year a pulling rig will be operating on the site creating noise . Perhaps you can request that they insulate these pulling rig s ever. though the actual. work occurs during the daytime hours . What about the Neighbors that work out of their Domes , have daytime boarders , and the people that work at • night , will this noise create a nuisance in their case? continued . . . -1- hi I y 30 , 1986 l:-ly()I- Ma11d i.c Ci. ty Council Members Page Two I know that a 1)u1. ling rig will exceed the City noise ordinance if un- insulated . Please respond on this with your views . One option is to limit the amount of wells to be (trilled which in turn wi. l1. decrease the maintenance . C) Depreciation of the homes surrounding an industrial site . I just purchased my first home and I am concerned that if an emergency was to occur and I had to sell my home , how would potential buyers feel about buying a home surrounded by drilling rigs operating 24 hours a day? Would you buy a home across the street from a project like this? I)) Zoning . This land is currently zoned as "0" which expressly prohibits new drilling operations . To allow this project to proceed , the City has to re-zone this area . The zoning was also written to protect the residential area from new well. drilling . How can you allow this in a residential area which has been zoned For residential units . What good is zoning if you change it all the time? It was initially zoned "0" to allow the existing wells to continue pumping • which is fair since they have been here many years . E) Aesthetics . The EIR report states our homes are 10 to 15 years old . My hor,ie is only 7 years o..1d . Will the block wall. surrounding the site blend or semi match each type of housiiig feature? The homes along California Street between Rochester and Springfield have brick facades , will this block wall have brick incorporated into its ' design? The landscaping around the site needs to be well maintained , bond should be posted to insure this . We suggest that you take a drive by our homes , and take a look at them . F) Set backs . The standard set back for a residential home is 15 feet . Since this is an industrial use , wouldn ' t you tend to agree that set backs ;hnuld be larger then 15 feet which would allow a larger buffer zone between the site and the residence . It would also decrease the possibilities Of accidents . It must be noted that these rigs stand a yew hundred feet in the air , and if an accident did occur , it would effect the residence . C ) Alternative sites . I would propose that they drill near the Civic Center which is a commerical zoned area . Of course , it would cost the oil company more money to drill from that • location , however , at least it would ble,-id in better . continued . . . -2- _ju 1 y 30 , 1'1'6 Flayor Mardi ::: City Couri(-�i l Members ` Page Three it) Please road page 7-1 of EIR report on alternatives . I personally do not like to be threatened by a condominium project being developed vs . a residential project . If the planning commission can s _=.e condominiums being developed on a si. te that already has homes on it and oil wells , they must be blind . Also , I believe the intensity should be reduced . As a matter of fact , this project should not even be allowed in a residential area as already stated . I ) This EIR report does not address the homeowners concerns and is very biased in my opinion . Please read Environmental Check list forms , you will note , there sure is a lot of maybe ' s . _J ) Please review the Angus Oil Company for financial status and pcevious experience in projects of this type . I can ' t understand with the oil abundance and prices of oil being as l.ow as they are , how this project could be economically feasible during these tines . This peice of property has been around a long time and has never been developed by a large oil. company . WHY? Is this someones pipe dream at the expense of the residential neighborhood? What happens if the project doesn ' t produce as expected? Will it be re- zoned again? 1 am closing with the hopes that you will look at this situation from our point of view as homeowners , not future income to the City or the ell.i.minati_on of existing wells in the surrounding areas , because eventually , these wells will deplete themselves . The Angus Oil. Company is claiming this is a unitization project in reality it is a new drilling project in a residential area which i.s against the zoning ordinance . 1 hope I. do not sound to arrogant , however , I am upset at what 1 have been hearing and seeing in regards to this project , and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the City or of the surrounding area . I Look forward to your prompt response . Sincerely , c;eurge Corry (;C/s j 1 • cc : Planning Commission & Staff City Council Members EST. 1915 (213) 435-7571 -- ----PHILLIPS STEEL COMPANY 1368 WEST ANAHEIM STREET LONG BEACH, CAUR 90813 September 26,1988 Attn: Robert Franklin, Associate Planner Huntington Beach Planning Comission Please be advised that I am against any above ground oil development in the city of Huntington Beach. I am also against reduction of set backs on this project. The only thing I are not against is building beautiful homes on this site. • Thank You, Daryl Phillips r ` huntington beach department of community development STA f f 4 „-V REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 18, 1988 SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 FOR THE PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (IN CONJUNCTION WITH ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-11 AND USE PERMIT NO. 88-25) APPLICANT: Angus Petroleum 5772 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 210 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: Review and take action on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 (Certified in September 1986) 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 (DSEIR 88-1) and adopt and recertify Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 (EIR 86-1) adopting attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407 with Statement of Overriding Considerations . 2 . 0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: DSEIR 88-1 was prepared to augment the analysis of the proposed Springfield Oil Recovery Project undertaken in EIR 86-1. EIR 86-1 was published and certified as a Final EIR by the Planning Commission in September 1986 . Subsequent to the certification of Final EIR 86-1 and approval of Zone Change No. 86-4 and Use permit No. 86-7 by the City Council on October 20, 1986, litigation brought against the City and ANGUS Petroleum Corporation (As Real Party in Interest) by the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach, Inc. was settled by an agreement dated May 9, 1988 . As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City Council ' s vote of October 20, 1986 by which Final EIR 86-1 was certified, was set aside. On May 6, 1988, new Project applications were filed with the City. Those applications are for Zone Change No. 83-11 and Use Permit No . 88-25 . A93tk A-F M-23C k . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1, once certified and recertified respectively, are intended to be utilized for the aforementioned discretionary actions. California Environmental Ouality Act Process Following new project applications being filed with the City in May, 1988, the Department of Community Development determined that a supplement to the existing EIR (EIR 86-1) should be prepared and circulated in accordance with CEQA requirements . The City serves as the Lead Agency for the CEQA review process as it did for the review process for EIR 86-1. A supplement to an EIR may be prepared when "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. " (Guidelines 15163 (a) (2) ) . A supplement may be circulated by itself, without recirculating the previous EIR. (Id. at Section 15163 (d) ) . In order to assure the fullest review by both Responsible Agencies and the public, however, the City recirculated both the Supplement and previous EIR 86-1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 has gone through the following public notification and review process : 1. Notice of Preparation posted, advertised and circulated June 1, • 1988 . 2 . Notice of Completion of DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 posted, advertised, and circulated August 23, 1988 . 3 . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 are available for public review and comment August 23 , 1988 - October 7, 1988 . 4 . Copies of DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council members August 19 , 1988 . 5 . Initial comments on DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 forwarded to Planning Commission at Study Session for Angus Project on October 4, 1988 . 3 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 identify several impacts from the proposed project which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the mitigation measures included in this staff report. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS: Both EIRs identified three significant adverse impacts which could not be mitigated to an insignificant level . A brief discussion of these impacts follows : Staff Report - 10/18/88 -2- (1455d) r • Risk of Upset - Fire SRisks associated with the project include release or ignition of flammable liquids stored on site, oil spills, impacts from hazardous chemicals, and gas leaks . All risk can be mitigated to an insignificant level except the chance that a fire could result in radiant heat affecting the area surrounding the project . The EIR quantifies the risk of radiant heat from an oil tank fire as "rare" or as 1: 10, 000 to 1: 1, 000.000 chance of happening in one year. This risk was calculated using a worst case scenario with no perimeter wall and no mitigation measures. The radiant heat hazard footprint will be significantly reduced by lowering facilities to 6 ' below grade, building an 8 ' perimeter wall and keeping on-site storage of oil at a minimum level . Although the possibility of a fire will be reduced to a very rare statistical level it can not be totally eliminated so is being listed as a significant unavoidable adverse impact . It should be noted, however, that the risk of upset associated with the proposed project is less than that associated with the existing oil facilities around the project area which will be eliminated as part of the proposed project . Seismic Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with regard to topography, soils, or geology except in the event of an earthquake of 8 . 0 magnitude or greater in the area. All the mitigation measures proposed will minimize the risks of an event of this magnitude however adverse impacts the surrounding area can not be overlooked. Aesthetics/Light & Glare Aesthetically, the project itself will be an improvement to the neighborhood over existing conditions . However, some aspects of the construction phase and maintenance will create unsightly nuisances . Although mitigated with an 8 ' perimeter wall and mature landscaping, 165 ' rigs will be clearly visible directly adjacent to residences for up to two years . Also impacting the surrounding neighborhood will be a temporary 30 ' high sound barrier at the property line. Tanks will be visible above the perimeter wall and landscaping on the facilities site. These views can not be eliminated. Impacts from light and glare will be mitigated to an insignificant level . No flood lighting will be used. All lights will be low profile and directed to equipment areas only. Less light will be visible than from a residential project . GENERAL CONCERNS: The following are areas of general concern where impacts have been noted but have been reduced to insignificant levels through mitigation measures . Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed as well . • Staff Report - 10/18/88 -3- (1455d) Risk of Upset - Oil Spills There is a potential for oil spills from the pipes, valves, fittings, tanks and equipment . Tc adequately mitigate this, all new materials will be used and protected against corrosion. The drill site and the facilities site will be designed in such a way to provide total containment of all fluids in the event of a spill . Any surface water from a rainstorm coming in contact with a spill will be diverted to catch basins and filtered for reinspection. Risk of Upset - Hazardous Chemicals The only chemicals to be used are those normally used in oil operations and none would be used in large quantities. If a spill should occur, it would be contained in the area and no impact would occur outside the project area. Risk of Upset - Gas Leaks Although there is a change that gas leaks could occur at old abandonments upon repressurization of the resevoir, diligent monitoring should preclude the risk. The project will actually lessen the possibility of gas leaks by providing open producing wells which serve as low pressure areas for the release of gas . A contingency plan has been filed with the Huntington Beach Fire Department which will be implemented should any leaks occur. Traffic and Circulation During the drilling phase, there will be an increase in traffic impacts around the project area. An average of 3 heavy vehicle trips are anticipated over the period. Impacts will be heaviest during the nine month construction phase. During the production/injection phase there will not be project-related increase in traffic in the neighborhood. To mitigate traffic impacts to an insignificant level truck traffic will be restricted to the hours of 7 :00 AM to 5 : 00 PM seven days per week during the drilling phase and six days per week during the construction phase. Noise Noise from the proposed project , particularly during the drilling phase, is of prime concern to the City and residents who live near the site. A noise study was conducted as part of the DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 and it discusses at length the existing noise environment and the projected noise impacts resulting from the proposed oil recovery project . • Staff Report - 10/18/88 -4- (1455d) r a � � Existing noise levels in the area are a result of traffic or nearby roadways and the existing oil production operations . Currently there are 40 wells scattered throughout the project area. Each of these wells constitute a minor source of noise impacting its immediate surrounding . With the project these wells will be consolidated onto the two project sites . The final result is that through much of the project area, the noise levels will be lower. In the immediate vicinity of the project sites, the noise levels will increase but with proper mitigation measures incorporated into the project design, the resulting noise levels will still be within the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. No significant noise impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project. The site plan for the project shows that the distance from the drilling rigs to the nearest residences will be approximately 105 feet . The worse case noise levels at these residences for each type of drilling rig are given in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 show the City' s Noise Ordinance Standards for comparison with projected drilling noise levels. The data in Table 1 show that in order for the drilling operation to satisfy the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards electric motors with acoustic blankets must be used. The proposed project will use only electric motors with acoustic blankets . Acoustic blankets as well as the proposed 8-foot masonry wall along the site perimeter are predicted to reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance limits . There are currently a number of pumps operating at the site, and the project will increase their number. The project calls for installing submerged pumps for all wells, however. With the submerged pumps, noise from oil pumping should decrease. Occasionally wells will need to be pulled, serviced and repaired. Due to proximity of the nearest residences to the wells, the Oil Code requires that for any redrilling performed at night, soundproofing will be provided. The Oil Code prohibits the pulling of wells during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m. ) . Along with the mitigation measures provided in the DSEIR and EIR, the applicant has agreed to a noise monitoring program to ensure compliance with the City' s Noise Ordinance. This measure should be included by the Planning Commission as an additional mitigation measure for the project . Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within three working days after completion of each phase of the monitoring effort. The monitoring shall include the following : Staff Report - 10/18/88 -5- (1455d) TABLE 1 Maintenance Drilling Operation Noise Levels at the Nearest Residences Noise Level Type of Motor One Rig Two Rios Three Rigs Four Rigs Diesel 70.0 dBA 73.0 dBA 74.8 dBA 76.0 dBA Diesel, with acoustic blanket 54.0 dBA 57.0 dBA 58.8 dBA 60.0 dBA Electric, with acoustic blanket 33.5 dBA 36.5 dBA 38.3 dBA 39.5 d8A TABLE 2 Huntington Beach Outdoor Noise Ordinance Standards Noise Level Not Maximum Allowable to be Exceeded Duration of Exceedance Daytime Standards (7:00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. ) 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour 60 dBA 15 minutes/hour 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 70 dBA 1 minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time Nighttime Standards (10 : 00 P.m. to 7: 00 p.m. ) 50 dBA 30 minutes/hour 55 dBA 15 minutes/hour 60 dBA 5 minutes/hour 65 dBA 1 minute/hour 70 dBA For any period of time TABLE 3 Huntington Beach Indoor Noise Ordinance Standards Noise Level Not Maximum Allowable to be Exceeded Duration of Exceedance Daytime Standards (7:00 a .m. to 10 :00 p.m. ) 55 dBA 5 minutes/hour 60 dBA 1 minute/hour 65 dBA For any period of time Nighttime Standards (10 : 00 p.m. to 7: 00 p.m. ) 45 dBA 5 minutes/hour 50 dBA 1 minute/hour 55 dBA For any period of time • Staff Report - 10/18/88 -6- (1455d) �i a . Pre-drilling phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures which have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance shall be identified. b. Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. ) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to those specified in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Where an exceedence of the Ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. C. During the Drilling Phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. at least one each month during the Drilling Phase of the project. The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards . Where an exceedence of the standards is identified, noise control measures shall be • applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. ALTERNATIVES: As required by Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in both EIR 86-1 and DSEIR 88-1. DSEIR 88-1 evaluates ten alternatives to the proposed project . In addition to the "no project" alternative, two revisions to the proposed project are evaluated ("Reduced Intensity Alternative" and "More Intense Drilling Program") . Four alternative sites are examined; the evaluation of one of these alternative sites examines two potential configurations . The overall abandonment of oil production is evaluated, as is the development of a medium-density residential project on the project site. CEQA requires that at least one alternative be identified as "environmentally superior" to the proposed project; the DSEIR concludes that the overall abandonment of oil production is "the environmentally superior" alternative to the proposed project, but that this alternative does not appear to be "feasible" . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -7- (1455d) T CERTIFICATION OF DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1: DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 adequately analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project . Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve and certify the document . Resolution 1407 (Attachment No. 6) is provided for certification. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: CEQA Section 15091 requires that prior to a public agency approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed and identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the public agency must make one or more written findings for each of those significant effects . In addition, CEQA requires that findngs must be supported by substantial evidence. Findings and facts in support of findings regarding the significant effects identified in DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 are listed in detail in Attachment 4 of this staff report . In addition, CEQA requires that when a project has been identified as having significant impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures, a statement of overriding considerations must be made. In this statement, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the project ' s potentially adverse impacts . A statement of overriding consideration is found in Attachment No . 5 of this staff report . In that statement, staff ' s for determining that the remaining effects of the adverse impacts are "acceptable" , given off-setting project benefits, is discussed. 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt and certify as adequate DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407 with Statement of Overriding Considerations, and forward DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 to the City Council for their adoption and certification with the following findings and conditions of approval (mitigation measures) . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1: 1 . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as amended June 1986, and all State and local quidelines therefore. 2 . DSEIR 88-1 and EIR 86-1 adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Springfield Oil Recovery Project and is found to be certifiable. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - DSEIR 88-1: 1 . The economic and social benefits of the proposed Waterfront project outweigh the project ' s unavoidable adverse seismic, energy, aesthetic/view and cumulative air quality impacts . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -8- (1455d) MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DSEIR 88-1 AND EIR 86-1• 1 . The site plan, elevations and landscape plan dated received October 13, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout . a. This use permit shall not become effective until Zone Change No. 88-11 has been approved and in effect . 2 . All structures and procedures shall conform to Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the Division of Oil and Gas Standards . 3 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical and building permits . 4 . Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange. Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effect . The monitoring shall include the following: a . Pre-drilling Phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance shall be identified. b. Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10: 00 PM to 7 : 00 AM) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to those specified in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance by the Department of Community Development . Where an exceedance of the ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -9- (1455d) C. During the Drilling Phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10 :00 PM to . 7 : 00 AM at least once each month during the drilling phase of the project . The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards by the Department of Community Development. Where an exceedance of the standards is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required. 5 . Measures to reduce erosion should be used during grading and site preparation. Grading and construction activity shall take place only during daylight hours after the issuance of a grading permit by the Department of Public Works . 6 . During grading and excavation, earthmoving crews should observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . In the event of a potential find being located, operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined. 7 . A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8 . All street improvements for both tracts shall be constructed after the heavy grading operations have been completed (approximately 4 weeks) : a . Final grading, or any other on-site construction shall be prohibited until street improvement construction has commenced. b. Prior to any on-site construction or drilling, the masonry wall and all landscaping and street improvements shall be installed subject to the approval of Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works. 9 . Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval . a . All landscaping shall comply with Chapter 15 .22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and all trees shall be minimum 24 inch box type and spaced no greater than 20 feet on center . 10 . Prior to the installation of the office structure, elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Department of Community Development . a . The office shall be on a permanent foundation. b. A mansard or pitched roof shall be provided. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -10- (1455d) 11. The applicant shall enter into a franchise agreement with the City for the installation of the underground connection between the two blocks, if required. 12 . The proper sealing and abandonment of the existing scattered wells which will be replaced by this project shall take place following approval of this project and must be completed within eighteen (18) months . 13 . The surface of the site shall be completely covered with an appropriate material (such as gravel and/or asphalt) subject to review and approval of Public Works Department, Fire Department and Department of Community Development. 14 . A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to commencing drilling. Said report shall describe noise levels at the Angus Oil Site property line and at the nearest residential property line both with and without an acoustical blanket on the drilling rig and service rigs . The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Code. This shall include the provisions of the Ordinance Code regarding maximum hourly average noise level at nearest residential property line of 50 dB(A) during nighttime hours between 10: 00 PM and 7: 00 AM. a. A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances . 15 . Noise attenuation for the drilling operation, oil operation and service operation shall be provided pursuant to the Oil Code and noise report specified in Condition 14 . a . If a noise violation occurs, the entire drilling structure shall be wrapped with an acoustical blanket for greater noise attenuation. 16 . The project shall fully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. At the applicant ' s expense, a continuous calibrated meter shall be on site to monitor the decibel (dBA) level with a printed copy to be made available to City staff and Ad Hoc Ascon Project Review Committee on a weekly basis. 17 . No speakers, loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. 18 . Excessive vibration, as determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be reduced to acceptable levels . 19 . Light and glare shall be directed and/or screened to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent residential properties and shall be energy efficient subject to the requirements of the Building Division. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -11- (1455d) 20 . All heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 freeway and the subject site: Beach • Boulevard, Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street. For entrance to the site only Springfield Avenue and California Street may be used. 21. Heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7: 00 AM and 5 : 00 PM. a. No trucks may park on the street. b. Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no stacking shall occur on public streets . 22 . All employees must park on either one of the two sites. Street parking for employees is prohibited. 23 . Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the applicant . 24 . All driveways shall be radius type and constructed to Public Works standards . 25 . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles from the drilling site between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7: 00 AM except for emergency purposes . 26 . An overload permit should be obtained from City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets . 27. Pipe string cementing through fresh water bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent salt water intrusion into the aquifers . 28 . A system for collecting, treating, and releasing storm drainage shall be provided by the applicant and approved by Public Works . 29 . Brine water shall not be released into the sewer system. 30 . A recycling plan of produced zone water back to the oil reservoir shall be certified by the Department of Oil and Gas and the Fire Department and all its conditions and restrictions shall be adhered to. 31 . Well service rigs shall be operated no more than a total of 48 days per year between 7: 00 AM and 7: 00 PM or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. 32 . No more than four well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double muffled and utilize acoustical blankets as deemed necessary. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -12- (1455d) 33 . All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. 34 . The 24-hour phase drilling rigs shall not operate for any longer than 2 years from the issuance of the first drilling permit . 35 . Drilling rigs for remaining wells after the two year period shall comply with the conditions . Subsequent drilling shall be limited to 7 :00 AM to 10:00 PM only. 36 . Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in overall height. 37 . Upon completion of 24 hours phase of injection and producer wells, all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. 38 . Service rigs shall be erected only during maintenance operations . 39 . Applicant shall install blowout prevention equipment . 40 . A full vapor recovery system shall be installed as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 41. Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and shall never be completely full at once. 42 . Prepare and submit a Preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP) prior to issuance of building permits . A completed Emergency Action Plan based on as-built plans shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The Emergency Action Plan shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto street from site(s) would be handled (stockpile of sand, etc. ) , the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment. A copy shall be on file with the Fire Department and updated on a five year basis . In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills, etc. , not otherwise covered in the Emergency Action Plan shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . 43 . All oil must be transported by pipeline. 44 . An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection pursuant to Fire Department requirements . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -13- (1455d) f. i 45 . Celler requirements for oil wells : a. A hydrogen sulfide detection system for the well cellers shall be installed subject to Fire Department requirements. b. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel on-site. C. Provide metal open grate covers over top of well cellers . 46 . Storage tank requirements : a. Must have pre-plumbed foam injection system installed on all product storage tanks . b. Must have exterior deluge water spray system on all storage tanks . 47 . Site requirements : a . All diked areas must have an engineered drainage system. b. Foam storage area and foam quantity to be approved by Fire Department. c. Fire hydrants to be located in areas approved by Fire Department . d. Hydrogen sulfide detection system approved by Fire Department to be installed on project perimeter. e. Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed throughout the site. f . All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installation must comply with Fire Department Specification 403 . 48 . Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent waste accumulation. 49 . Twenty-one (21) abandoned wells have been identified within the project area which do not meet present day abandonment requirements . A contingency plan shall be outlined and submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any of these abandoned wells finds its way to the surface. 50 . Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Community Development Department, showing how the site shall be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. Staff Report - 10/18/88 -14- (1455d) i • • 51 . There shall be no pipeline construction activity outside the site except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8 :00 PM, Monday through Saturday only. 52 . The methodology of oil recovery for this project shall be limited to water injection only. Steam injection shall be prohibited. 53 . The operator shall at all times during the term of this use permit and any renewal or extension thereof, maintain in force an insurance policy or policies insuring the operator, and as additional insureds the City of Huntington Beach, the City Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the City acting in the due course of his employment or in his official capacity, against liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person or per- sons, and from all costs and expenses of litigation brought against the insureds, in the amount of not less than $5, 000, 000 combined single limit for any injury to persons or damage to property, including (but not limited to) injury or damage from subsidence and rebound, resulting from the operator ' s oil drilling and production activities and operations incidental thereto. Said policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced by the insurance carrier without the City having been given at least ten days prior written notice thereof by such carrier. The operator shall not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage. At all times during the term of this use permit, and any renewal or extension thereof, the operator shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate or certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or carriers showing that said insurance is in effect in the amount required above, and a copy of each insurance policy. If the operator does not keep said insurance in full force and effect, the City may obtain said insurance and pay the premium thereon, which shall then be deemed a debt owned by the operator to the City. Any insurance policies procured by the operator hereunder shall provide that the insurance carrier waives all rights of subrogation against the City. If the City obtains any policy of insurance hereunder, such policy shall include a waiver by the insurance carrier of all rights of subrogation against the operator. 54 . The Planning Commission shall review and, if necessary, may modify the conditions as set forth in this use permit, at the first regular Planning Commission meeting in October, 1989 , and at five year intervals thereafter, and upon any change in ownership of the project which occurs between five-year reviews; provided that the phrase "change of ownership" as used herein shall not include any sale or other transfer to a corporation, partnership or other form of business organization in which Alberta Natural Gas-United States and/or one or more of its shareholders or subsidiaries owns the controlling interests, or any sale or transfer so long as Angus or one of its subsidiaries retains responsibility for the operation of the project . Staff Report - 10/18/88 -15- (1455d) p 55 . The Planning Cormnission reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . The City shall provide the property owner with notice in writing of any violation, stating the City's basis fcr determining that a violation has occurred. The property owner shall have a reasonable time to cure the violation before further action is taken. The City may require the property owner with notice in writing to submit written documentation of actions taken to remedy any violation and may require monitoring or other procedures to be implemented in order to ensure that the violation will be cured. 56 . The nine member project review committee shall monitor the project during the drilling phase and semi-annually thereafter. The Fire Department and Community Development departments shall jointly provide a staff liaison. 57 . The property value protection plan submitted by the applicant shall be implemented as outlined prior to drilling. 58 . In the event that either one of the two blocks is to be without 24-hour supervision, a video camera shall be employed on-site to provide continuous surveillance which can be monitored by personnel at the other site. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Errata Sheet 2 . Comment letters on Draft Supplemental EIR No. 88-1 and EIR No. 86-1 3 . City responses to comments on Draft Supplemental EIR No. 88-1 and EIR No . 86-1 4 . Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Regarding the Environmental Impact Report for Angus Oil Petroleum Corporation 5 . Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 . Resolution No. 1407 SH:KM: sds Staff Report - 10/18/88 -16- (1455d) ATTACHMENT 1 ERRATA SHEET ERRATA TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page 23 Section 2. 3 . 3 Change "CUP" to "UP" Page 25 Section 3 .4 .2 . 5 . 1 Change "CUP" to "UP" Page 26 Section 3 . 6. 2. 6. 2 Change "CUP" to "UP" Page 27 Second line Change "CUP" to "UP" Page 27 Last line Delete "nine" , Add "of the" Page 28 at C. Zoning Change reference to "CUP" to "UP Page 32 Section on Change "55 feet" to "50 feet" Turning Vehicles ATTACHMENT 2 COMMENT LETTERS ON DRAFT SEIR NO. 88-1 AND EIR NO. 86-1 CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH September 13 , 1988 1)19 Alsuna Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF I LPMN'GTON BEEACH DEPARTMENm OF COMRMITY DEVE10PMENT ATT: CATHARINE O'HARA Dear Ms O'Hara: RE: DRAFT SUPPIM-72NT IMPACT REPORT NiO. 86--1 AUGUST, 1958 In response to the ANGUS SEIR just received, to would like .to .bring your attention to the following CONCERNED CITIZENS comments: A6-1 �2) CV,!1MTS AND RESPONSE DUST CONTROL: At CONCERNED CITIZENS request, the COUNTY AIR QUALITY BOARD came to measure the dust at project site. They reported by telephone,, that the wind factor was only 8 miles per hour on that particular day. The dust blowing was coming from the unfinished streets surrounding the two project sites and as we went into the dryer month of July the dust factor would get worse. A warning was sent to ANGUS, but no fine could be made on that date. We were advised to call again when the wind factor was over 15 miles per hour and another measurement will be made, CONCERNED CITIZENS never observed any crater being put r-n the quite high mounds of dirt to control the dust. We were subjected to unhealthy layers of dust in our atmosphere and homes between OCTOBER. 11, 1987 gad JUNE 19 1988 due to the Santa Ana wind conditions* which will be soon upon us again. A6-1(4) HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC According to SEIR, A5-100 a 58 foot turning radius is needed for a semi tractor-trailer . Delaware Street is 60 feet wide with one-half only paved. Turning south on Delaware off Springfield Avenue at oil drilling site will be risky for school children and their bus to be so near to any truck turning path to the entrance of the drill site. on Delaware Street. The opposite entrance is on California Street. California Street is 40-Meet wide and only half paved on residential side. CONCERNED CITIZENS are having difficulties in believin that the project will have only two trucks (what size? per nay coming to the project site during drilling phase and no additional truck traffic during the production phase. Very truly yours, CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR H B MURY M. MRISH cc: John Westermeier �'REASURER C PAI,U M GROUP Jo'rn B. Murdock / 4-4 :iol A/C j' s rn4 uJor EQSKI�JE � Ci'� Co-►�c�1 Mc�{Dcrs �(% ok- Uy O ; -2o0a MA%a 5-TiZe0"T . CO NC�uTp A 42GAS � �F cF C q�y k Cootc:1 tA-,,6c&s. 'r r�s,.bM; +1? -VJ►#- Ar-"A.COW Le-*kr bicol ",SLAa30►`18fv, As Z F'ctl -}b►tK Oct •r,c.�..a S�tG�, e����, P r�jec� V1G�C�S� 4 S 'Ftcl 41w.+ ►n C� (t 5:�en�i4f ���� �oa� weo �� be 4 dCTei "SCi ` Z cer Ce-jo esf `kC� e _760s i S,,1 re / i G rge Corry 1801 California Street ,hi l y 30 , 1 (386 Huntington' R(aach , C,A • Mayor Robert Mandic City Council. Members CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Dear Mayor Mandic &Council Members , My name is George Corry and I am a homeowner at the above stated address . My neighbors and I are very concerned about a project which will be up for review by the Planning Commission sometime in September . This project is being proposed by Angus Oil Co . which wants to drill 50 - 60 new oil wells over a period of two (2 ) years . Angus Oil Co . has purchased two blocks of land , in which there are approximately six homes on presently . This proposed drill site is located between California Street and Delaware , Rochester and Springfield streets and is surrounded by residential. homes on three sides . The value of the project is in the range of $25 ,000 ,000.00. 1 have been watching the City of Huntington Beach develop and 1 like what has been approved , however , there seems to be no way that a project of this magnitude could be constructed and not have an effect on the neighborhood. I. have just recently received the Environmental Impact Report and I am concerned about a few things in which I would like you to review and consequently , respond to : A) Dri. l.l.ing noise for a period of one (1 ) to two (2) years using a 1 ,000 horsepower electric motors for twenty-four ( 24) hours a day . Will you guarantee us that this drilling operation will not be a nuisance? The EIR report is not detailed enough in regards to the effect the noise level will have on the surrounding residence , especially at night . How about limiting the drilling period to day time hours only . 11) MainCenance of the wells . This will occur after the wel. lsar.e completed . lets say they have 60 wells that need to he cleaned two times a year . This operation takes approximately two days per well. , which equals 120 days out of the year a pulling; rig will he operating on the site creating, noise . I'erhaJ)S YOU can request that they insulate these pul line, rigs ever. though the actual work occurs during the daytime hours . What about the neighbors that work out of their homes , have daytime boarders , and the people that work at night , wi. l.l this noise create a nuisance in their case? Continued . . . -1. - i • F • July 30 , 1986 Mayer Mandic City Council. Members • Page Two 1 know that a pul l.i.ng rig will. exceed the City noise ordinance if Lin- insulated . Please respond on this with your views . One option is to Iiuli L the amount of wells to be drilled which in turn will. decrease the maintenance . C) Depreciation of the homes surrounding an industrial site . I jilst purchased lny first home and I am concerned that if an emergency was to occur and I had to sell my home , how wOul.d potential buyers feel about buying a home surrounded by drilling rigs operating 24 hours a day? Would you buy a home across the street from a project like this? D) Zoning. This land is currently zoned as "0" which expressly pro ibits new drilling operations . To allow this project to proceed , the City has to re-zone this area . The zoning was also written to protect Lhe residential area from new well. dri.l. l.ing. I-tow can you allow this in a residential. area which has been zoned for residential units . What good is 7.011 l llg if you change it all the tine? It was initially zoned "0" Lu allow the existing wells to continue pumping which is fai.r since they have been here many years . E) Aesthetics . The IIR report states our homes are 10 to 15 years old.. My horde is only 7 years old . Will the block wall. surrounding the site blend or semi match each type of housiing feature? The homes along California Street between Rochester and Springfield have brick facades , will this block wall have brick incorporated into its ' design? The landscapi..ng around the site needs to be well maintained , bond should be posted to insure this . We suggest that you take a drive by our homes , and take a look at them. F) Set backs . The standard set back for a residential home is 15 feet . Since this is an industrial use , wouldn ' t you Lend to agree that set backs Should be larger then 15 feet which would allow a larger buffer zone between the site and the residence . It would also decrease the possibilities of accidents . It must be noted that these rigs stand a �ew hundred feet in the air. , and if an accident did occur , it would effect the residence . C; ) Alternative sites . I would propose that they drill near the Ci.vi.c Center which is a commerical zoned area . Of course , it would cost the oil company more i;ioney to drill from that locaLion , however , at least it would ble,id in better . con L i nuec. . . • -2 .July 30 , 1986 Mayor. Mandi.c City Council Members 'age Three II) Please read page 7-1 of EIR report on alternatives . I personally do not like to be threatened by a condominium project being developed vs . a residential project . If the planning commission can s?e condominiums being developed on a site that already has homes on it and oil wells , they must be blind . AIso , I believe the intensity should be . . reduced . As a matter of fact , this project should not even be allowed in a residential area as already stated . I ) This EIR report does not address the homeowners concerns and is very biased in my opinion . Please read Environmental Check list forms , you will note , there sure is a lot of maybe ' s . _l ) Please review the Angus Oil Company for financial status and previous experience in projects of this type . I can ' t understand with the oil abundance and prices of oil being as low as they are , how this project could be economically feasible during these times . This peice of property has been around a long time and has never been developed by a large oil company . WHY? Is this someones pipe dream at the expense of the residential neighborhood? t47hat happens if the project doesn ' t produce as expected? Will it be re- zoned again? 101 am closing with the hopes that you will look at this situation from oiir point of view as homeowners , not future income to the City or the ell.i.mination of existing wells in the surrounding areas , because eventually , these wells will deplete themselves . The Angus Oil. Company is claiming this is a unitization project in reality it is a new drilling project in a residential area which i.s against the zoning ordinance. I hope T do not sound to arrogant , however , I am upset at what I have been hearing and seeing in regards to this project , and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the City or of the surrounding area . I look forward to your prompt response . 5i.ncer.ely , cc : Planning Commission R Staff City Council Members V Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street,8 260, Huntington Beach,California 92648-2499 (714)960-4351 FAX 714-969-3659 October 5, 1988 Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Ms. Kelly Main Re: Supplemental EIR 86-1 Springfield Oil Recovery Project Dear Ms. Main: Huntington Beach Company has reviewed the above referenced document and supports the Spri-ngfield Oil Recovery Project as proposed. Section 7 of the Supplemental EIR discusses project alternatives and identifies four alternative drilling sites. Two of those four sites (Parcel 1 , Sec. 7.5 and Parcel 3, Sec. 7.8) are owned by the Huntington Beach Company. Please be advised that those parcels are not available for use in conjunction with the Springfield project and should not be considered feasible alternative drill sites. The Huntington Beach Company is currently processing entitlements for residential development of Parcel 1 . Parcel 3 is planned for future commercial and residential development consistent with the property's zoning. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Supplemental EIR 86-1 . Very truly yours, 1 0, lr/i William D. Holman Sr. Project Representative J STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVE • GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemo, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET do �RAMENTO, CA 95814 ' Pam Posten October 7, 1988 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Comm. Dev. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Angus Petroleum Springfield Area Oil Recovery Project SCH# 86040917 Dear Ms. Posten: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The state agehcy review period is now closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse regarding this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance V ATTACHMENT 3 CITY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT SEIR NO. 88-1 AND EIR NO. 86-1 ` i\J • City of Huntington Beach r,S ii 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 �f DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 636-6241 Housing/Redevelopment Division 536-6542 Planning Division 536-6271 October 13, 1988 Ms . Mary M. Parrish Treasurer Concerned Citizens for Huntington Beach 1919 Alsuna Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO 88-1 AND EIR NO. 86-1 Dear Ms . Parrish: Staff has investigated the issues raised in your letter of September 13 , 1988 and has found the following: DUST The Inspector from the SCAQMD determined that there was no dust Problem. He determined that any dust being created in the area was probably coming from the unfinished (that is , dirt) City streets . No warning was sent to ANGUS Petroleum by the SCAQMD or any other agency. The comment states that area residents were subjected to unhealthy layers of dust for a nine month period between October 1, 1987 and June 1, 1988 . Initial project construction did not commence until after November 27, 1987, however, when the City first issued a site grading permit . Construction activity ceased less than three months later after the Preliminary Injunction was issued on February 18, 1988 . During the period of construction, provisions of the approved Dust Control Plan including the use of a water truck were carried out fully. Truck Traffic It appears that this comment has failed to distinguish "turning radius" from street width. Figure I of the Supplemental EIR clearly shows that a truck with a turning radius of 50 feet can easily turn from one street with a 40 foot street width (curb to curb) to another 40 foot wide street without requiring any special parking restrictions . , C(14d) Draft SEIR NO. 88-1 & EIR NO. 86-1 October 13 , 1988 Page 2 of 2 The street improvements planned as part of the initial phase of the project will be completed long before any trucks delivering drilling equipment and supplies will need to be in the project area. The two (2) heavy trucks arriving on a daily average basis will be going slow, preparing to turn, as they approach the project site and therefore should pose no risk to any school children waiting for a school bus on the east side of Delaware Street . The risk would be less than that from the numerous cars that drive on Delaware Street at and above the speed limit . As to the number of trucks, Mr. John D. Carmichael ' s letter of September 17, 1986 estimated the number of heavy truck trips required to support the drilling of each well . That estimate remains 30 trips per well . As each well will take between 15 and 21 days to drill and complete, the number of heavy trucks visiting the site during the drilling phase on a daily average basis remains 2 or less . The Trip Generation Forecast on page 31 of the SEIR uses a daily average of .3 per day to be conservative. Thank you for your attention to these matters . Sincerely, Kell Ma' Assistan Plann r KM:gbm • (1460d) • • may'. • '.;�- �il-]'.'�' - , ' City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 _ r...? ... ..'�.:. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Housing/Redevelopment Division 536-5542 Planning Division 536-5271 October 13, 1988 Mr . George Corry 1801 California Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO. 88-1 AND EIR NO. 86-1 Dear Mr. Corry: Staff has investigated the issues raised in your letter of October 6, 1988 and has found the following: • COMMENT NO. 1 Letter to Mayor Erskine and City Council members dated October 6, 1988 . I am re-submitting the attached letter dated July 30, 1986, as I feel there are many aspects of this project which are still valid concerns that I have. My position in regards to this project remains unchanged as I feel that an Industrial Project in a residential neighborhood would be a detriment to our quality of living. I sincerely request that you vote against this project . RESPONSE: Your concern is noted and your comment will be forwarded to decisionmakers for their consideration. COMMENT NO. 2 Letter to Mayor Mandic and Council Members dated July 30, 1986 My name is George Corry and I am a homeowner at the above stated address . My neighbors and I are very concerned about a project which will be up for review by the Planning Commission sometime in September . This project is being proposed by Angus Oil Co . which wants to drill 50 - 60 new wells over a period of two (2) years. • Angus Oil Co. has purchased two blocks of land, in which there are approximately six homes on presently. This proposed drill site is located between California Street and Delaware, Rochester and Springfield Streets and is surrounded by residential homes on three sides. The value of the project is in the range of 25, 000, 000 . 00 . I have been watching the City of Huntington Beach develop and I like what has been approved, however, there seems to be no way that a project of this magnitude could be constructed and not have an effect on the neighborhood. I have just recently received the Environmental Impact Report and I am concerned about a few things in which I would like you to review and consequently, respond to: RESPONSE: Project has been revised since 1986 . . The number of wells has been reduced to 30 - 45 . COMMENT NO. 3 Drilling noise for a period of one (1) to two (2) years using a 1, 000 horsepower electric motors for twenty-four (24) hours a day. Will you guarantee us that this drilling operation will not be a nuisance? The EIR report is not detailed enough in regards to the effect the noise level will have on the surrounding residence, especially at night . How about limiting the drilling period to daytime hours only. RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Comment 22 by the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach. COMMENT NO. 4 Maintenance of the wells . This will occur after the wells are completed. Lets say they have 60 wells that need to be cleaned two times a year . This operation takes approximately two days per well, which equals 120 days out of a year a pulling rig will be operating on the site creating noise. Perhaps you can request that they insulate these pulling rigs even though the actual work occurs during the daytime hours . What about the neighbors that work out of their homes, have daytime boarders, and the people that work at night, will this noise create a nuisance in their case? I know that a pulling rig will exceed the City noise ordinance if un-insulated. Please respond on this with your views . One option is to limit the amount of wells to be drilled which in turn will decrease the maintenance. RESPONSE: The Use Permit for the Project, if approved, will include the following conditions, (1459d-2) • � s "Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year between 7: 00 a. .m. and 7:00 p.m. or daylight hours, whichever is shorter. No more than 4 well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double-muffled and utilize acoustical blankets . " COMMENT NO. 5 Depreciation of the homes surrounding an industrial site. I just purchased my first home and I am concerned that if an emergency was to occur and I had to sell my home, how would potential buyers feel about buying a home surrounded by drilling rigs operating 24 hours a day? Would you buy a home across the street from a project like this? RESPONSE In January 1988, the Springfield Property Trust was created to protect homeowners in the area against depreciation of their property resulting from the Project. Mr. Corry' s property is included within the area covered by the Springfield Property Trust . COMMENT NO. 6 Zoning: This land is currently zoned as "O" which expressly Prohibits new drilling operations . To allow this project to proceed, the City has to re-zone this area. The zoning was also written to protect the residential area from new well drilling . How can you allow this in a residential area which has been zoned for residential units . What good is zoning if you can change it all the time? It was initially zoned "O" to allow the existing wells to continue pumping which is fair since they have been here many years . RESPONSE Please refer to §4 . 5 of the FEIR No. 86-1 (pages 21-28) , which discusses Project consistency with the City' s Zoning Law and General Plan. COMMENT NO. 7 Aesthetics . The EIR report states our homes are 10 to 15 years old . My home is only 7 years old. Will the block wall surrounding the site blend or semi-match each type of housing feature. The homes along California Street between Rochester and Springfield have brick facades, will this block wall have brick incorporated into its design? The landscaping around the site needs to be well maintained, bond should be posted to insure this. We suggest that you take a drive by our homes, and take a look at them. • (1459d-3) RESPONSE The walls surrounding the site would consist of an earthtone broken block wall . The Project would be conditioned to comply with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 15 .22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Prior to the installation of any landscaping, a landscaping irrigation plan would be submitted to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval . COMMENT NO. 8 Setbacks . The standard setback for a residential home is 15 feet. Since this is an industrial use, wouldn' t you tend to agree that setbacks should be larger than 15 feet which would allow a larger buffer zone between the site and the residence. It would also decrease the possibilities of accidents . It must be noted that these rigs stand a few hundred feet in the air, and if an accident did occur, it would effect the residence. RESPONSE The Project setbacks, in conjunction with the buffer provided by the City right-of-way, provide an adequate buffer between the Project and residences in the area . Please refer to §4 . 10 of the SEIR (pages 37-43) for a discussion on public health and safety issues . COMMENT NO. 9 Alternative sites . I would propose that they drill near the Civic Center which is a commercial zoned area. Of course, it would cost the oil company more money to drill from that location, however, at least 4t would blend in better. RESPONSE Please refer to §7. 5 and 7. 6 of the FEIR (pages 61-63) . The site referred to in the comment is zoned R-1. COMMENT NO. 10 Please read page 7-1 of the EIR report on alternatives . I personally do not like to be threatened by a condominium project being developed vs . a residential project . If the planning commission can see condominiums being developed on a site that already has homes on it and oil wells, they must be blind. Also, I believe the intensity should be reduced. As a matter of fact, this project should not even be allowed in a residential area as already stated. This EIR report does not address the homeowners concerns and is very biased in my opinion. Please read Environmental Check list forms, you will note, there sure is a lot of maybe' s . (1459d-4) • � 9 Please review the Angus Oil Company for financial status and previous experience in projects of this type. I can' t understand with the oil abundance and prices of oil being as low as they are, how this project could be economically feasible during these times. This piece of property has been around a long time and has never been developed by a large oil company. WHY? Is this someones pipe dream at the expense of the residential neighborhood? What happens if the project doesn' t produce as expected? Will it be re-zoned again? I am closing with the hopes that you will look at this situation from our point of view as homeowners, not future income to the City or the elimination of existing wells in the surrounding areas, because eventually, these wells will deplete themselves . The Angus Oil Company is claiming this is a unitization project in reality it is a new drilling project in a residential area which is against the zoning ordinance. I hope I do not sound too arrogant, however, I am upset at what I have been hearing and seeing in regards to this project, and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the City or of the surrounding area . I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, George Corry RESPONSE Your concerns are noted and your comments will be forwarded to decisionmakers for their consideration. Thank you for your attention to these matters . Sincerely, Kelly a n Assista t Planner KM:gbm Attachment : Response to Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach Comments on Draft SEIR No . 88-1 and EIR No . 86-1 (1459d-5) City +o►f Huntington Beach i 2©00 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92048 DEPARTMENT Of COM, UNITY PEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-52241 Housing/Redevelopment Division 536-6642 Planning Division 636-5271 October 13 , 1988 Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach c/o Ms . Mary M. Parrish, Treasurer 1919 Alsana Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Draft Supplemental EIR No. 88-1 and EIR No. 86-1 Dear Citizens : Staff has investigated the issues revised in your letter of September, 1988 and has found the following : _Q_ene s0l _Comments : �or�ttent No. 1 The summary of findings fails to conform to §15123 of CEQA in that the summary .should include all significant impacts .and mitigation measures as well as identification of alternatives that could reduce these impacts to significant levels . The summary fails to list all significant impacts identified in the main text of -the document . The summary does not discuss alternatives, areas of controversy or issues to be resolved. Answer The "Summary of Environmental Impacts" identifies the significant impacts set forth in the text of the EIR. In subsequent comments , the author of this comment has stated that a number of impacts not identified in the text could occur, or that some impacts are more significant than is stated in the text of the EIR. The responses to these comments address these issues in detail. To summarize, however, the comments do not identify any new impacts requiring inclusion in the Summary section of the SEIR. The Summary clearly sets forth mitigation measures which would reduce significant effects of the project to the extent feasible. The Summary is not required to discuss alternatives, except to the extent that alternatives are discussed in evaluating methods of mitigating impacts . In the case of the alternatives to the Project, however, the alternatives generally would have some positive (mitigating) environmental impacts and some adverse environmental impacts . For example, a number of alternatives could mitigate impacts in one location, while resulting in the potential for adverse impacts in another location. In order to avoid oversimplifying the potential effects of alternatives, thereby misrepresenting the extent to which they could mitigate impacts, the Summary discusses mitigation measures for the proposed Project. A full discussion of the positive and negative environmental effects of alternatives is set forth in S7. 0 . Areas of controversy and issues to be resolved are identified on page 2 . As stated on page 2, these issues are discussed in greater detail in Appendix 6, which includes a complete response to comments submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach following the Notice of Preparation for the SEIR. !omment No. 2 The Draft SEIR fails to address the environmental issues associated with the construction of a water pipeline from the Chevron facility to the proposed project site. Construction of such a pipeline would have the potential to create traffic, air quality, noise and public safety impacts that are not addressed in the document . Furthermore, the water quality impacts are not addressed should the pipeline rupture during operation. Answer Traffic Impacts: The route of the pipeline is described on page 18 of the DSEIR, which states that the pipeline will be installed from Golden West Street, easterly along Clay Avenue to Huntington Street, then southerly along Huntington Street from Clay Avenue to the Facility Site at Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . Page 32 of the DSEIR states that traffic may be disrupted over a short period (four weeks) , and sets forth mitigation measures . These measures provide that no more than one lane of traffic shall be closed during the day, that no lanes shall be closed at night, and that busy intersections shall be either bored or plated over so that traffic interruptions will be kept to a minimum. Noise: Noise impacts from the construction of the pipeline are described on page 37 . A backhoe would be used during the construction of the water pipeline. Double mufflers will be used on backhoes during the construction of the water pipeline. Any residual noise impact would not be significant, because it would be temporary in nature and would only occur during the day. Residents of each block would only be affected for approximately one day. Public Safety: The only potential public safety impacts would be either from the possibility of rupture of the pipeline or from accidents if pedestrians have access to trenches during the brief periods during which they would be open. Please refer to the discussion of Water Quality, below, for a discussion of the possibility of rupture. As stated in the SEIR on page 32, no trenches will be left open at night, and several hundred feet of (1440d-2) .pipeline will be installed, surveyed, inspected, and the trench backfilled in one day. During the day, barriers would ensure that pedestrians do not approach trenches . This is standard operating procedure in the construction of underground pipelines . No significant unavoidable public safety impacts would result from construction of water pipeline. Air Ouality: The only possible air impact from construction of the pipeline would be the temporary impact of dust emission. This impact is discussed on page 4-37 of the original EIR, which states as follows: "Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities . Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated by grading and site preparation. " The mitigation measures set forth on page 4-41 shall apply to all construction phases of the project, including the construction of the water pipeline. Water Ouality: As described on page 20 of the SEIR, the water line would be buried approximately 30 inches below the street surface. It would not encounter any surface water. Even if water from the pipeline reached groundwater, this would not have a significant effect, as explained in the original EIR on page 4-12 : "The water found in (both shallow and deep groundwater) aquifers is, for the most part, brackish. Potable water has been extracted from aquifers in the Huntington Beach area, although usually only in areas east of the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The project site is west of the fault and is, in fact, located between two branches of the fault. Injection of water and extraction of oil in the oil-bearing strata will not have a significant effect on the quality of groundwater because the water currently is not usable for other domestic or industrial uses. " (Page 4-12) . Furthermore, the water pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors so that any sudden pressure drop will trigger an alarm and shut down the transfer pumps. This will ensure that any release of water is minimal . The development of the water pipeline would not have any significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water quality. Comment No. 3 The SEIR does not address the impacts associated with the construction of a gas pipeline of the Chevron facility. As described under No. 2 above, there could be significant impacts associated with construction of the pipeline as well as the public safety impacts associated with a potential pipeline rupture. (1440d-3) Answer The excess produced gas from the Project would be metered on the Facilities Site and delivered to the existing Chevron low pressure gas gathering system under Huntington Street . No new gas pipeline will be required by the Project . Comment No. 4 The Project Site is rather unique in that the proposed drilling and processing site is located directly adjacent to residential units . The SEIR does not address the impacts in enough detail necessary to determine the actual impact, nor does it identify specific mitigation measures to reduce any identified impacts. Of particular concern is the release of toxic materials during accidents and spills, as well as the migration of gas due to the repressurization of the formation. Answer Within the City, more than 20 drilling and processing sites are located in residential areas . Therefore, the Project is not "unique" . The Facilities Site is not located "directly adjacent" to residential areas . It is separated by public rights-of-way on all sides . In contrast, a number of existing drilling and processing sites are "directly adjacent" to residential areas, without the buffer provided by public streets . The impacts and mitigation measures concerning toxic materials, spills and migration of gas are discussed in §4 . 10 on pages 38 through 43 of the SEIR. In addition, please refer to the responses to Comment Number 2, under "Water Quality, " and to the responses to Comments Numbers 10, 12, 23 , 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 . Comment No. 5 The SEIR fails to identify the criteria that were used for the determination of significance of impacts . Additionally, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the significance of the residual impacts have not been clearly defined. Answer The SEIR FOLLOWS THE CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE ESTABLISHED BY LAW. The State CEQA Guidelines provide as follows : "The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for a careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to. the extent possible on scientific and factual data . An ironclad definition of significant effect is not Possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. " [14 Cal . Admin. Code, Tit . 6, §15064 (b) ] (1440d-4) where possible, the SEIR incorporates specific criteria . For example, the significance of impacts from noise is measured against the City Noise Ordinance. In other instances, the determination of "significance" was related to the context of the activity. For example, the judgment as to the aesthetic impacts of the project is largely subjective. Because the project has cause controversy in the neighborhood, the EIR concludes that the project would have a significant unavoidable adverse impact on aesthetics. (See SEIR at page 4 , 29 . ) The SEIR is an important source of information regarding the potential significance of impacts . Decision-makers will also take into account other sources of information, however, including written and oral testimony by the public and public agencies, in reaching their determinations as to the significance of the Project ' s impacts . The effectiveness of mitigation measures and the significance of residual impacts have been clearly identified, both in the Summary section and in the discussion of each area of potential impact . The sections entitled "Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" identify any impacts which have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance. This is true of all sections except the section on Noise in the Summary (§2 . 9) , the section on Traffic and Circulation Impacts in the text (§4 . 6) , and the section on Energy Conservation in the text (§4 . 12) , where this statement was inadvertently omitted. This does not mean, however, that the level of residual impact has not been identified for these impacts . The text of the DSEIR states clearly that there will be no significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts . (see p. 37) . The Summary section states clearly that there will be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to traffic and circulation (see p. 5) or energy conservation (see p. 6) . Therefore, for every impact, the SEIR identifies the effectiveness of mitigation measures . Comment No. 6 Although the SEIR does identify various projects for cumulative analysis, it fails to provide an analysis of the overall cumulative impact, determination of the significance of this impact and formulation of mitigation measures as requires in §15130 of CEQA. The analysis fails to reflect the full range of cumulative impacts particularly for systems safety, seismicity, hazardous materials, noise and water quality. Answer The State CEQA Guidelines provide that "cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant . " (Cal . Admin. Code, Tit . 14 §15130(a) , emphasis added. ) The discussion "shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. " (Id. at §15130(b) . ) The discussion of cumulative impacts may rely on a list (1440d-5) of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. ( d_ ) The comment states that cumulative impacts relating to seismicity, hazardous materials, noise and water quality were not adequately discussed. The DSEIR concludes that the Project would not have adverse effects on water quality or adverse effects resulting from hazardous materials . Therefore, the DSEIR does not analyze cumulative impacts in these areas, because the Project would not contribute to the impacts of any other projects in the area . Mitigation measures for noise impacts take into account cumulative noise impacts . The Project is required to comply with the City' s Noise Ordinance, thereby ensuring that the cumulative noise level in the Project vicinity will not exceed community noise standards . Additionally, cumulative noise impacts are discussed in DSEIR No. 88-1 on page 52 . The Project is engineered to withstand seismic events up to an earthquake of M 8 . 0 . Even in an earthquake of this magnitude, the well cellars should not break. (DSEIR at p. 17 . ) As described more fully in the response to Comment 10, the subsurface design of the oil storage area should prevent the release of oil . In light of the cumulative effects of such a major earthquake, however, including the breakage of water lines, destruction of bridges, fissures opening in the ground, and bending of rails (see Id. ) , the SEIR concludes that significant unavoidable adverse impacts could result if an earthquake of M 8 . 0 or greater occurs . It is also important to recognize that the cumulative impacts of the proposed Project must be compared to existing conditions . Under existing conditions, a major earthquake would damage operating tank batteries, none of which is engineered to achieve the level of seismic safety required of the Project . A major earthquake would rupture the tanks and cause many flow lines to break, resulting in oil spills . Therefore, the Project would reduce cumulative effects on seismic safety, by removing 22 wells and 7 associated tank batteries which could be damaged by an earthquake of lower magnitude than would affect the Project. §15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require an analysis of "overall cumulative impact . " The term is not used in CEQA, and the meaning of this comment is unclear. It appears that the author of the comment is requesting a judgment as to the "overall" significance of all of the impacts of the Project, and further requesting mitigation measures for this "overall" impact . If all individual impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible, the "overall" impact is also mitigated to the extent feasible. "The "overall" significance of the Project ' s impacts is an issue for decision-makers to determine, in deciding whether or not to approve the project . (1440d-6) • • Comment No. 7 The SEIR fails to address a full range of alternatives . In particular, it does not address the alternative of processing oil at a site remote from the proposed project area . This alternative would substantially reduce the systems safety impact associated with a fire in the storage tanks . It also does not address the No Oil Storage Alternative nor does it address alternative designs of the proposed facilities on the proposed sites . Additionally, the document does not consider an alternative where the unprocessed oil is transferred via a new pipeline to the Chevron facility, eliminating the need for separate processing facilities . Answer The DSEIR evaluates ten alternatives to the proposed Project . In addition to the "no project" alternative, two revisions to the proposed Project are evaluated ( "Reduced Intensity Alternative" and "More Intense Drilling Program") . Four alternative sites are examined; the evaluation of one of these alternative sites examines two potential configurations . The overall abandonment of oil production is evaluated, as is the development of a medium-density residential project on the Project site. The "processing" merely consists of separating the oil from water . If this took place "on a site remote" from the Project site, two additional pipelines would have to be constructed. One would transport oil and water to the remote site; the other would return processed water, under pressure. The Chevron facility is merely a re-pump station and does not have the capacity to separate oil from water. If oil were not stored on the Project site, any risk of fire would simply be moved to another area. Furthermore, the additional water pipeline would create a hazard of rupture because it would be under pressure. The water pipeline for the Project, in contrast, is a low pressure pipeline. The current design of the Project is intended to mitigate visual, noise, and traffic impacts of the Project on the surrounding neighborhood. Alternative designs were not evaluated in the SEIR because they would not result in the mitigation of impacts . CEQA does not require analysis of every imaginable alternative. The State CEQA Guidelines state as follows : "The range of alternatives required in the EIR is governed by the rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. " (Cal . Admin. code, tit . 14 §15126) . (1440d-7) The range of alternative evaluated in the SEIR meets, and exceeds, • this requirement. Comment No. 8 The SEIR fails to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative as required by §15130 of the CEQA guidelines . Answer The Abandonment of All Oil Producing Sites, §7.4 is identified as the "environmentally preferable alternative" in §7.4 .2 on page 60. Comment No. 9 The SEIR fails to provide a full list of preparers as required by CEQA. Answer The principal preparers are listed on page 1 of the SEIR. Organizations and persons consulted are listed on page 71 . Comment No. 10 , Topography, Soils and Geology The SEIR fails to address the consequences of the 8 . 0+ earthquake on the operation of facilities including such effects as rupturing and overturning of tanks, rupturing of containment dikes and other accidents that would have a potential for release of product . This damage would have the potential to affect the neighboring residences and would exacerbate any public safety impacts associated with damage to residential units . No mitigation measures are provided in terms of emergency procedures, mobile containment facilities or the like to mitigate any potential impacts associated with the release of- products during a seismic event. Answer The effects of seismic events of the Project are described on pages 16 - 17 of the SEIR. The consequences of an M 8 . 0 or greater earthquake are described on page 17. as stated on page 41, oil will be shipped on a continuous basis, so that all of the tanks in the oil storage area will never be full at the same time. The oil storage area is located six feet below grade, and the area is surrounded by reinforced concrete retaining walls . The volume of this depressed retaining basin exceeds the Uniform Fire Code, and Division of Oil and Gas requirements, by a .factor of 2 (p. 42) . even if the retaining walls ruptured, the retaining area would hold oil released by tanks which burst or overturn. As stated on page 17, if the epicenter of the earthquake were located in the area, no known mitigation measures could ensure that • the cumulative effects of the earthquake (including the breakage of (1440d-8) • water limes, destruction of bridges, opening of fissures in the ground, and landslides) would not be significant . The Facility would shut down under a "fail-safe" system, as soon as the power went off. No emergency situations would be created requiring immediate attention by, or an augmentation of, public safety personnel . Comment No. 11, Hydrology The SEIR fails to identify the water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed gas pipeline and brine pipeline. Answer There is no gas pipeline required. Please refer to the response to Comment No . 2, under "Water Quality. " Comment No. 12 The SEIR fails to identify the water quality impacts associated with the potential rupture of the crude oil pipeline carrying the oil produced by the proposed project to the Chevron facility. While we understand that the use of an existing pipeline controlled by Chevron is proposed, the proposed project will nevertheless create additional quantities of oil shipped in the pipeline and the release of this additional oil should be addressed. Answer As discussed on page 41 of the SEIR, the addition of the Project ' s oil stream would reduce pressure on the crude oil pipeline. Because the oil from the Project would enter the pipeline at a higher temperature than the oil currently in the pipeline, ,it would reduce the viscosity of the oil . This, in turn, would reduce pressure in the pipeline, thereby decreasing the possibility of pipeline rupture when compared to existing conditions . Therefore, Project-related crude oil in the pipeline would have the effect of reducing the possibility of rupture. Even if the pipeline ruptured, the only oil that would be released would be the oil in the pipeline between block valves . Automatic shutdowns would keep the incremental volume of oil attributable to the Project at an insignificant level in the event of pipeline rupture. Comment No. 13 The hydrology section does not address the water quality impacts to the groundwater aquifer due to the release of crude oil, solvents or other toxic material . • (1440d-9) Answer Please refer to the response to Comment No. 2, under "Water Quality. " Please also see pages 41-43 of the DSEIR (establishing mitigation measures for the release of materials from the Project site) . Comment No. 14 The SEIR fails to identify the impact of disposal of filtrate material associated with the processing of injection water. Answer The "filtrate" from the water filters consists of clean injection water . This water will be injected into the underground reservoirs . The material filtered from the .produced water consists mainly of salts of Silicon, Iron and Calcium, none of which is hazardous . This material will be disposed of, as necessary, at a proper disposal site in conformance with regulations of governing agencies . Comment No. 15 The SEIR fails to address the impact of the proposed project on the existing CC&R' s for the proposed project. Answer The DSEIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the Project against a baseline of existing environmental conditions, as required by CEQA. The Project description and evaluation of impacts clearly identify and take into account the character of the neighborhood. The DSEIR further evaluates Project consistency with City planning policies (see pages 21-28) . CEQA does not require the evaluation of the Project against private contractual arrangements in the area. Comment No. 16. Aesthetics. Light and Glare The SEIR does not address the flood lighting required during the drilling process . Answer No area flood lights will be used (see page 29) . The derrick will be enclosed and all lights, except the aircraft warning light, will be on the inside of the acoustical blanket . Lights around the auxiliary equipment will be near ground level and well below the top of the 30 ' acoustical wall . • (1440d-10) • Comment No. 17 The SEIR only contains one rendering of the proposed project. It does not show scale nor does it have a description of perspective. Several scaled renderings from several viewpoints would be necessary to assess the visual impact . Answer The people and automobiles in the rendering are for the purpose of showing scale. The rendering is drawn to perspective in order to show visibility at eye level . Because the view of the Project site would be the same from all viewpoints, except that gates would occur in two walls (as shown in Figure J. ) , additional renderings would not differ from the one included in the DSEIR and would not provide additional assistance in evaluation visual impacts . Comment No. 18, Air Quality The SEIR does not describe the air quality impacts associated with construction of the gas and water pipelines . Answer There is no gas pipeline. Please refer to the response to Comment No. 2, under "Air Quality" , for a discussion of potential air impacts . Comment No. 19 The SEIR also does not address the dust related impacts noted by area home-owners during the initial construction phase. Additional measures for dust control such as use of dust control chemicals should be discussed. Answer Please see Appendix 6, page 1, Response to Comment No. 2, for a discussion of dust impacts currently noted by area residents . Mitigation measures for dust control are set forth at pages 41-42 of the original EIR. According to the Public Works Department of the City, these measures will adequately mitigate the Project ' s dust impacts . Comment No. 20 Although the SEIR does analyze emissions associated with normal facility operation, it fails to calculate emissions associated with oil spills in the facility. Because the facility is in close proximity to residential units, the emissions, including public exposure to benzene, should be calculated for an episode where oil is spilled and contained in the containment area and then cleaned up by vacuum truck. (1440d-11) Answer • The facilities do not require vacuum trucks . Drains are provided in each cellar and in the containment area of the oil handling facilities . If a spill should occur, the system is designed to pump the spilled fluid back through the separation system and into the tanks, as described on pages 41 and 42 of the SEIR. The benzene emission calculations shown in the SEIR were made for the purpose of comparison with the SCAQMD Proposed Rules 223 and 1401 (See Appendix No. 4) . These proposed rules are designed for analysis of a new source' s potential to increase individual cancer risks . There are no guidelines within these proposed rules relating to low level, short term exposure risks associated with benzene emissions since this is not thought to be a significant health risk by health authorities . Comment No. 21 The SEIR fails to mention the expected concentration of H2S within the gas extracted from the well . Since sour gas occurs within the Huntington Beach Fields, the air quality analysis should include modeling of the exposure of H2S to area residents in the event of release of toxic gas . Answer There is no H2S in the gas produced from the Project reservoirs (See Appendix 4, page 10) . Comment No. 22. Noise The SEIR, as well as the previous EIR did not quantify the magnitude of impact of the noise associate with the drilling operation. The extent of mitigation afforded by the control measures have not been quantified in order to determine whether impacts have been reduced to insignificance. Answer The Project will meet the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance with well known and understood technology. See noise analysis in the original EIR at S4 . 9 , pages 4-42 through 4-50, Appendix E of the EIR and Appendix 3 of the SEIR. Comment No. 23. Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety The construction of a major oil and gas facility in close proximity to residential areas presents special systems safety problems . The analysis in the SEIR generally takes the approach that if an event is unlikely to occur, there is no impact. The general state-of-the-art analysis for oil and gas projects base the project impacts on consequences of an accident, not upon the probability of occurrence. It is likely that even an event of low probability of (1440d-12) occurrence could occur during the life of the project . The analysis of this section is fully inadequate, lacking quantitative analysis assuming reasonable worst-case analysis and fails to provide detailed mitigation measures to mitigate or reduce the consequences of an upset or accident . Answer Please refer to pages 4-52 - 4-56 of the original EIR, and pages 37-43 of the SEIR. The commentator ' s characterization of the evaluation of the risk from fire is incorrect . The SEIR states that the possibility of a fire is a significant unavoidable adverse impact of the Project, although the likelihood of occurrence is very low. (See SEIR at p. 6) . The comment is also incorrect in stating that it is "likely" that such an event could occur in the life of the project . As stated in the SEIR, the likelihood is "rare" (1 : 10, 000 - 1 : 1, 000, 000) . Rare events have only occurred a few times on a worldwide basis . Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a worst-case fire of a magnitude described in the EIR could occur. Comment No. 24 Additionally, a preliminary risk management plan and spill contingency plan should be provided during review of the SEIR in order to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the programs proposed for mitigation. Answer The Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Oil and Gas and the City of Huntington Beach all require a Spill Contingency Plan before the facilities can go into operation. This will be done. Comment No. 25 The SEIR states that there will not be any impact caused by leakage of gas due to repressurization of the formation. This conclusion is based on studies .indicating few current problems with existing wells . The proposed waterflood project would initially substantially increase pressure within the formation and may cause gas leaks at wells that currently do not leak. Additional studies are required to determine the extent of this impact and realistic mitigation measures such as resealing of wells, use of gas detectors in homes and the use of evacuation plans must be provided. Answer This issue is discussed on pages 39, 40, 42 and 43 of the DSEIR. Page 40 explains the effects of water flooding on gas leaks, concluding that it will "reduce the amount of free gas and lessen • the possibility of gas leaks . " As stated on page 40, any free gas will flow to areas of low pressure. The producer wells are areas of low pressure, and the gas will flow there throughout the process of (1440d-13) repressurization. Injection wells will be located away from poorly abandoned wells and in closer proximity to producing wells, ensuring that free gas will flow to the producing wells . On page 43 , a comprehensive contingency plan is required to be prepared in case any leaks occur in the 13 wells which have not been abandoned to modern standards . Comment No. 26 The SEIR should discuss the impact of fire and/or explosion at the drill rigs in addition to those impacts associated with oil storage. Answer The drilling equipment will be equipped with Class III Blow Out Prevention Equipment as described in Figure 6 of the original EIR. Please see also Appendix F of the original EIR, "Oil- and Gas Well Blowout Prevention in California. " Additionally, the reservoirs of the Project are well known, having been produced for over 60 years . The reservoir pressure is well below hydrostatic and will be easily controlled by the drilling mud. Therefore, all anticipated subsurface pressures will be contained by the weight of the mud. If a fire should occur, the open cellars will allow the Fire Department to control it from the surface without entering the cellars themselves . Comment No. 27 The SEIR should discuss the potential for release of gas containing H2S from both the facility and from the pipeline. Hazard footprints should be calculated based on the concentration of H2S as well as the volume in the pipeline or well head. Answer Please refer to the response to Comment No. 21. Comment No. 28 The SEIR should discuss the potential for fire and explosion from natural gas at the well head or in the proposed pipeline. Answer With respect to well head fire, please see the response to Comment No. 26 above. Also, as discussed in the response to Comment No. 12, this project will use an existing gas gathering system. No incremental fire risk is created by the use of the existing system. Comment No. 29 The SEIR should discuss the incremental impact of oil spills or fires in the Chevron crude oil pipeline. (1440d-14) Answer Please refer to the response to Comment No. 12 . Please see also pages 11, 39 and 41 of the SEIR and page 4-55 of the original EIR. Comment No. 30 Quantities of each hazardous chemical projected for use should be estimated. An analysis should be made of the impact of spills of the quantities of each chemical as well as combination of chemicals on the surrounding area . Answer Please see pages 38-41 of the DSEIR. Based on the extremely low level of hazardous chemical use, the regulation of any such use by federal, state and local regulation, and the stringent spill control features contained in the Project design, the use of hazardous chemicals would not have any significant impacts . Comment No 31 Traffic The SEIR does not address the traffic impacts associated with the construction of the gas and water pipelines . • Answer There is no gas pipeline. Please refer to the response to Comment No . 2, under "Traffic Impacts . " Comment No. 32 Our review of the SEIR has pointed out several major deficiencies in the document including the omission of analysis of two major pipelines directly associated with the project as well as not providing a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project . Additionally, the systems safety aspects of the proposed project and several other issues have not been adequately addressed. Substantial revision of the current Draft SEIR is therefore required. Since the revised document will undoubtedly identify additional significant impacts, we believe that the revised document should be recirculated as a Draft SEIR to allow further review by both Responsible Agencies and the Public before consideration by the decision makers of the City. Answer The recirculation of the responses to comments on a draft EIR is not required unless the responses contain substantial new information showing the possibility of a significant environmental impact . (See Pub. Resources Code §21092. 1; Cal Admin. Code, tit. 14 §15162 . 3 Sutter Sensible Planning. Inc. v Board of Supervisors (1981) (1440d-15) 122 Cal . App 3d 813) . As shown by the responses to comments, no new issues or potentially significant impacts have been identified by the comments on the EIR. No revisions to the SEIR are required. Therefore, recirculation is not required. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Kelly Mai Assistant Planner KM:gbm ac: Chambers Group, Inc. 2933-B Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 • • (1440d-16) . . ATTACHMENT 4 FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ANGUS OIL PETROLEUM CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS PETROLEUM CORP RATION HUNTINGTON REACH- CALIFQRIUA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (ZONE CHANGE 88-11 AND USE PERMIT 88-25) EIR 86-1: SCH NO, 86040917 1 . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT 3 CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 1 . 1 Aesthetics 3 1 . 2 Risk of Upset/Health and Safety 4 1 . 3 Seismic Impacts 5 2 . POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE 6 NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 2 . 1 Topography, Soils and Geology 6 2.2 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality 9 2 . 3 Biological Resources 12 2 . 4 Archaelogical/Paleontological. Resources 12 2 . 5 Land Use, Zoning and General Plan 13 2 . 6 Light and Glare 21 2 . 7 Traffic and Circulation 21 2 .8 Air Quality and Odors 24 2 . 9 Noise 26 2. 10 Risk of Upset/Health and Safety 29 2 . 11 Public Services and Utilities 33 2 . 12 Energy Conservation 36 2 . 13 Growth Inducing Impacts 36 2 . 14 Cumulative Impacts 37 3 . Findings Regarding Alternatives 41 i 3 . 1 No Project Alternative 41 3 .2 Reduced In Alternative 42 3 .3 More Intense Drilling Program 43 3 .4 Abandonment of All Oil Production Sites 44 3 .5 Alternative Sites : Parcel 1 45 3 . 6 Parcel 1 Development Only 46 3 .7 Alternative Sites : Parcel 2 47 3 .8 Alternative Sites : Parcel 3 48 3 .9 Alternative Sites : Parcel 4 49 3 . 10 Medium Density Residential Project 50 ii . FINDINGS . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CON REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA OIL RECOVERY PROJECT (ZONE CHANGE 88-11 AND USE PERMIT 88-25) EIR 86-1: SCH N0, 86040217 The State Guidelines ("Guidelines") promulgated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provide: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those insignificant effects , accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (This finding shall be referred to as "finding (1) . 11] (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (This finding shall be referred to as "finding (2) 111 (3) Specific economic , social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (Guidelines Section 15091 . ) i (This findine shall be referred to as "finding (3) , 11] The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the oil recovery project ("Project") proposed by Angus Petroleum Corporation ("Project Applicant") identifies significant effects on the environment which may occur as a result of the Project . Section 1 of this Attachment identifies the significant environmental effects of the Project which cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of significance . Section 2 sets forth potential environmental effects of the Project which are not significant because of the design of the Project or which can feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 3 summarizes the alternatives discussed in the EIR. Section 4 consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the City's specific reasons for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable environmental effects . The findings set forth in each section are supported by findings of facts established in the administrative record of the Project. 2 . • 1 . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF MSIGNIFICANCE, The City has determined that EIR mitigation measures and proposals included as part of the Project will result in a substantial mitigation. of the following effects , but that these effects cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 1. 1 AESTHETICS 1 . 1 . 1 Significant Effect: The neighborhood surrounding the Project Site consists of medium density residential uses , predominantly in small (8-10 unit) developments and single family residences . Views of the Project Site from adjacent residences will consist of the screening block wall and landscaping. During the initial drilling phases , drill rigs will be visible . During the production and injection phases , temporary drill ri*s will be used periodically for maintenance and will be visible from adjacent residents . Tanks will be visible above the wall . Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and Facts in SuRport of Findings-L The following measures will result in a substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect. (a) The Project shall comply with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 15 .22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (b) All trees shall be a minimum of 24-inch. boa type, and spaced no more than 20 feet on center . (c) Landscaping and the construction of masonry walls and street improvements shall occur: concurrent with excavation and construction. (d) Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year , and no more than 4 well service rigs may be on the site at any one time. These service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height . (e) Drilling derricks shall not exceed 165 feet in height . Upon completion of initial drilling of injection and producer wells , all drilling rigs shall be removed from the site. . 3 . (f) The enclosure of both parcels of the Project Site will provide the most direct mitigation of visual • impacts . Surrounding the drill site with an acoustical wall will provide a more aesthetic viewshed . (g) During the initial drilling phases , when drill rigs are visible, the drill site shall be surrounded by an acoustical wall and portions of the rig will be acoustically wrapped . (h) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 6, addressing light and glare, hereby are incorporated by reference. (i) The Project requires the drilling of 30 to 45 wells from the drill site. These wells shall be located within the fenced and landscaped drill site and the wells shall be concealed from view. (j ) The topography of the Facility Site would be substantially lowered to reduce the height of the storage tanks . (k) These mitigation measures included within the Project Design and imposed by the Use Permit will substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts of the Project . Nonetheless , the Project will result in a change in the views from adjacent residences , because of the • addition of a 30-foot sound barrier wall and a 165-foot drilling derrick. This ,is an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project . 1 .2 RISK OF UPSET/HEALTH AND SAFETY 1 .2. 1 Significant Effect : Under a worst case scenario, assuming that all oil tanks are full and the tanks are set out in an open field without surrounding perimeter walls , there is a "rare" (defined in the standard methodology for risk assessment as 1 : 10,000 to 1 : 1,000,000 chance that an oil tank fire could result in radiant heat effecting the area outside of the immediate Project Site. Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will result in the substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect : (a) Oil handling facilities will be lowered -to six feet below the level of the surrounding streets . This measure, coupled with the eight-foot perimeter wall, will 4. • • very significantly reduce any "radiant heat hazard footprint ," which is calculated using no containment whatever . (b) Oil will be shipped on a co;atinuous basis . Therefore , only a minimal amount of oil. will be required to be held in the tanks . Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted, and these tanks shall never be completely full at once. (c) Prior to the issuance of building permit, a preliminary emergency action plan (EAP) shall be prepared and submitted . A completed EAP, based on as-built plans , shall be completed and submitted prior to the start of oil production operations . The EAP shall include employee training and periodic practice, how spillage onto streets from Site would be handled, the safe handling of any chemicals and/or materials, and full knowledge of all systems and emergency equipment. A copy shall be on file at the Fire Department and updated every five years . In addition, a Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan in compliance with City requirements for handling of spills , etc . , not otherwise covered in the EAP shall be completed and filed with the City prior to the start of oil production operations . (d) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 11 .2. relating to fire prevention/protection, hereby are incorporated by reference. (e) Although the likelihood of this impact occurring is extremely low, if it did occur , the impacts would be significant . Therefore, it is considered a significant unavoidable impact . 1.3 SEISMIC IMPAC'1 1 . 3 . 1 Significant Effect : If an earthquake of M 6.0 or greater on the Richter Scale occurs with its epicenter in the Project Area, structures in the Project Area, including tanks and walls of the Project facilities , would be damaged. Findings : The City hereby makes findings (1) and (3) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will result in a substantial reduction of the adverse impacts of the identified significant effect . s 5. (a) The Project engineering will prevent the well cellars from being damaged, even in an M 8 earthquake . • (b) Oil will be shipped on a continuous basis , so that all of the tanks in the oil storage area will never be full at the same time. Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted and these tanks shall never be completely full at once. The oil storage area is located six feet below grade, and the area is surrounded by reinforced concrete retaining wails . The volume of this depressed retaining basin exceeds the Uniform Fire Code, and Division of Oil and Gas requirements , by a factor of 2 . Even if the retaining wall is ruptured , the retaining area would hold oil released by tanks which burst or overturn. (c) The Facility would shut down under a "fail-safe" system, as soon as the power went off during a major earthquake. No emergency situations would be created requiring immediate attention by, or an augmentation of , public safety personnel. (d) Engineering soils analysis and fault line investigations were performed to determine if near surface faulting is present within the Drill Facility Site Areas . The resultant study concluded that no faults or related fracture zones were observed in the trench exposures . • Accordingly, an active fault line is not known to be present within the trench limits . The fault line investigation report show that no faults were found . (e) Although the above measures would prevent the creation of an emergency situation during an earthquake of M 8 or greater , no known engineering or other mitigation measures could avoid damage to the Facility if such a major earthquake occurred . In conjunction with damage that would occur to the surrounding area, this is a significant unavoidable impact of the Project . 2 . POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The City has determined that the following effects will not be significant , for the reasons stated below. 2 . 1 TOPOGRAPHY. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 2 . 1 . 1 Potential Effect : Development of the Project will alter the existin; topography of the Drill Site and Facility Site . The existing surface of the ground on the 6. a 0 • Drill Site will be graded and recompacted to substantially follow the contoure of the abutting streets . Excavation t9 A depth of approximately 12 feet will be required to permit construction of three subsurface well cellars , The topography of the Facility Site will be lowered approximately two feet below the street elevations on the south and west and six feet below the street elevations on the northeast corner , in order to reduce the height of the storage tanks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Factg in AuRport of Findings : (a) The Project Site currently consists of two parcels, which are vacant except fox existing oil production facilities and well pumps . The vacant areap of the parcels are covered with filter piles from prior construction activity. Because the existing topography of the Project Site is disturbed and covered with piles of dirt , the effects of grading are not significant .' (b) The surface can be restored at the end of the Project' s life span. Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted for the review and Approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department , showing how the Site will be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state. (c) All loose upper soils within the foundation areas for process equipment on the Facility Site should be removed and replaced as compacted fill . Foundation areas for the well cellars on the Drill Sites shall be overexcavated a minimum of two feet vertically and three feet horizontally and replaced by compacted fill . Superficial fills near the cellars should be removed and replaced as compacted fill, 2 . 1 . 2 Potential Effect: Land surface subsidence has occurred in the Huntington Beach area, with a major subsidence area roughly correlating with the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field . According to the last leveling survey for the Huntington Beach Pump Station located near the intersection of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard , the subsidence in the Project Area is -0. 1 to -0 . 2 feet for the period from 1976 through 1986 . The current average rate of subsidence per year is approximately -0 .02 feet . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . 7 . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Several reports indicate that the rate of • subsidence has decreased since water flooding of oil producing zones was initiated in 1959 . The Division of Oil and Gas (1973) reports that the maximum recorded rate of subsidence was 0. 15 feet per year from 1955 to 1968, but decreased to 0. 05 feet per year from 1968 to 1972. (b) Experience in other oil fields , such as Wilmington, shows that repressurization of the oil producing zones through water injection has caused reduced rates of subsidence and often has completely halted subsidence and even caused from rebound . (c) Based on the studies by the Division of Oil and Gas and experience in Wilmington, cited above, the implementation of the Project, will not increase subsidence, and should reduce the rate of subsidence, in the Project Area. 2 . 1 .3 Potential Effect: In three cases , oil field operations or other fluid injection activities have been documented as relating to induced seismic movements . In the Wilmington Field, California, several small , subsidence-induced earthquakes occurred. In the U. S . Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, a series of earthquakes was caused by fluid emplacement in a liquid waste disposal project . In an oil reservoir at Rangely Field, Colorado, water injection operations resulted in induced seismic movements . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) None of the above situations is likely to occur at the proposed site. The Project is a water injection project , which will not cause subsidence. The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 1 .2 hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rangely earthquakes in Colorado occurred in hard brittle rock. This rock is geologically different from the young sediments of the Los Angeles basin. (c) Micro-earthquake monitoring systems , designed to accurately locate small , shallow earthquakes that .might be generated by oil operations , have been in operation about 11 years in the vicinity of Inglewood and Wilmington oil 8 . fields . No earthquakes have been located in either field or in nearby fields , that would indicate: oil operations to be a causative factor . 2 . 2 HYDROLOGY. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY 2 . 2 . 1 Potential Effect : Storm water runoff will be increased because the existing permeable land surface will be decreased by approximately three acres of land , resulting from the paving of the Project Site with asphalt . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The increase in storm water from paving the Project Site will not have negative impacts on the existing storm drain system because the Project has been designed to utilize all on-site storm water runoff for water injection purposes . (b) The construction of new half-section streets with concrete curb and gutter will alleviate the present water ponding problems along the City right-of-way. • (c) Surface drainage, including storm water , on the Drill Site shall be diverted to catch basins , then by gravity flow via underground pipeline across the street to the Facility Site. The water will be collected in sand interceptor No. 1 and then pumped into the water processing area, filtered and mixed with the production brine and injected into the oil bearing zone as part of the water flood . The interior of the Facility Site will be partially paved with asphalt over a rock base and the remaining portion will be paved with crushed rock. The majority of storm water and surface drainage will infiltrate into the soil through the crushed rock. Any remaining storm water and surface drainage will be collected in catch basins , diverted to the sand intraceptors and then follow the same process as water from the Drill Site. (d) In the event of a power failure during a 100-year storm, an emergency valve could be opened on the Facility Site and all storm water could be directed via gravity flow pipeline to Well Cellars A and B. When the cellars are partially filled, water will flow to a three-stage clarifier , then, if necessary, via pipeline to the County storm drain in Delaware Street . Cellars A and B have been specifically engineered to perform as additional 9 . clarifiers for this emergency use. 2 .2 .2 Potential Effect . The original EIR stated that produced water or make-up water would be released to the sanitary sewer system. This is no longer the case. Injection water will not release to the sanitary sewer system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) All water used for injection into the underground oil reservoirs will be obtained from the following sources : storm water runoff ; produced water from the production wells ; and make-up brine water (water to initially fill the underground reservoirs) purchased from Chevron U. S .A. At present Chevron U. S .A. is treating and releasing the make-up brine water into the sanitary sewer system. Use of the brine water for injection purposes will initially reduce the existing load on the sanitary sewer system by approximately 30,000 barrels per day. (b) All brine produced with the oil will normally be cleaned by circulation through sand filters and settling tanks and will then be reinjected into the formations . (c) In the event of a complete electrical failure, all production wells will go down, and there will be no produced water . The flow of make-up water will be stopped at the source. The water filtration system will include reserve capacity to allow for continued operation during equipment maintenance or repair . If a longer time period is needed to make repairs or to replace equipment, make-up water will be reduced and/or a partial shutdown of high water-cut production wells will be implemented . 2 . 2 . 3 Potential Effect : The drilling of the wells for the Project will involve penetrating both shallow and deep groundwater acquif ers to gain access to oil-bearing layers below, resulting in potential adverse effects on groundwater . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) The water found in the shallow and deep groundwater acquifers is , for the most part , brackish. 10 . Potable water has been extracted from acquifers in the Huntington Beach area, although usually only in areas east of the Newport-Inglewood Fault . The Project Site is west of the fault and is , in fact, located between two branches of the fault . The injection of water and extraction of oil in the oil-bearing strata will not have a significant effect on the quality of groundwater because the water currently is not usable for either domestic or industrial uses . (b) State Division of Oil and Gas Regulations require that the base of all fresh water sands that are penetrated be protected from salt water invasion from below by cementing. The Division of Oil and Gas will require that water test be performed to assure proper seals were formed . The Use Permit requires that pipe string cementing through fresh water-bearing sands shall be implemented to prevent saltwater intrusion into the acquifers . (c) During drilling operations , the drilling fluid which is circulated in the well board to remove cuttings forms a membrane around the bore hole wall and inhibits water infiltration into the formations which have been penetrated . The area of water infiltration from the drilling mud is usually no more than a few feet in • diameter . 2 .2 .4 Potential Effect : Make-up water will be transported to the Project site through a pipeline. If the pipeline ruptured, brine could be released . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Finding: The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) The make-up water pipeline will be buried approximately 30 inches below the street surface measured from the top of the pipe. The pipeline is above the groundwater surface and will not encounter any surface water . (b) The pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors so that any sudden pressure drop will trigger an alarm and shut down the transfer pumps . This will insure that any release of water is minimal . 11. (c) Fact (a) in Support of Finding 2 . 2 .3, relating to the quality of groundwater in the area, hereby is • incorporated by reference . 2 .3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 . 3 . 1 Potential Effect: The development of approximately 3 . 1 acres of the Project Site will destroy weedy species on the Project Site. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in SuRRort of Finding : (a) The Project Site is currently disrupted, containing piles of dirt from earlier construction activities . No cultivated or native species exist on the site, except for weedy plants . Landscaping will replace all vegetation lost during grading and add additional vegetation. (b) No rare or endangered species are known or expected to breed on the Project Site. 2 .4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 .4. 1 Potential Effect : The grading of the Project Site and excavation for foundations and well cellars will disturb any undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources . Findings_: The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) There is little likelihood of undiscovered resources on the Project Site. The majority of the known archaeological sites in the City are located along the bluffs along the banks of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers . The two archaeological sites nearest the Project Site are approximately 0. 6 and 1 mile away from the Project Site. (b) During grading and excavation, earth moving crews shall observe cuts and spoils for potential archaeological finds . In the event of a potential find being located , operations shall be suspended until the significance of the find is determined . The project will be conditioned through the Use Permit to follow specified procedures in the event that remains are located . 12 . 2 . 5 LAND USE. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN 2 .5 . 1 Potential Effect : The Project site currently is zoned "Old Town Specific Plan" (District: 2) , combined with Oil Production (0) . The 110" Oil District prohibits drilling. In order to implement the :Project , a zone change from 110" to 1101" Oil District is required . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Section 9682 of Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Code provides for the establishment of 1101" Districts . The only limitation for such an 01 District is that of a minimum surface area (100 feet by 150 feet) , as required by section 9682 . 1 . The proposed drill site for the Project is considerably larger than the minimum dimensions required by section 9682 . 1 . Therefore, it is consistent with this provision. (b) Section 9682 .2 requires dedication, or an irrevocable offer of dedication, of all real property that the City may require for its streets and other public service facilities or improvements . All City-required dedications will be implemented through the terms of recorded tract maps for the Project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this provision. 2.5.2 Potential Effect: The project zoning must be consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan. According to the General Plan, "consistency between the zoning proposal and the General Plan would be determined by considering all the policies and programs of each element of the General Plan and their relationship to the proposed zoning. " Findings.: The City hereby makes finding (1) . The following policies of the General Plan apply to the Project . The Project is consistent with these policies for the reasons stated below. (a) Open Space and Conservation Element Section . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 3 : "Encouraging beautification of oil producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil lands . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites , thereby permitting the restoration of oil sites 13 . scattered over 160 acres . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the appearance of the Project site will be improved over its present condition. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Figure 2-1 . "Priority Oven Space Areas": "Oil Production Areas" are included in "Third Priority Areas , " defined as "areas containing valuable assets (not of less significance) which should be incorporated into a comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Program. " The Project site is not included in any adopted Open Space or Conservation Program. Figure 2-2 . "Resource Conservation Priority Areas": "Mineral Resources" are listed as a "Second Priority Areas ," accompanied by a policy to "encourage utilization of mineral wealth; prevent blight, pollution, and undue destruction of natural features ." The Project will use secondary recovery techniques to increase the efficiency of oil production. As conditioned and mitigated , the Project will not add to blight or pollution. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Figure 2-3 . "Open Space and Conservation Plan": "The plan encompasses all existing and planned open space and conservation programs as well as several additional projects . " (General Plan at p. 16. ) No open space developments , open space plan areas , or scenic corridors are designated on the Project Site or within the subsurface Project Area. The McCallen Park site, the nearest identified site, is two blocks to the north of the site . (b) Seismic Safety Elements Figure 2-6 . Flood Hazard Areas : The Project site is located in Zone C, "Minimal Flooding. " Therefore, the Project is not in a flood hazard area. Section 2 . 2 . 4. 1 . 3 : "Continue to require geologic investigations of all significant development projects and to stipulate by Conditions of Approval that all construction within those projects be designed to withstand predicted probable ground motion accelerations . " 14. Project structures will be designed to w:thstand predicted probable ground motion accelerations . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (c) Noise Elect Section 2 . 3 . 2 . 1 : "Goal : To reduce to acceptable levels the degree of noise exposure from all transportation, stationary and other nuisance sources :in the community to insure the public health, safety, and welfare. " Section 2 . 3 .2.2 j "Objective: To minimize external noises and prevent them from penetrating existing quieter areas . " Section 2 . 3.2 . 3 .2 : "Policy: The use of quieter auto- mobiles , machinery and equipment should be encouraged . " Section 2 .3 .3 . Optimum Noise Levels : "The optimum noise level for all residential uses in LDN 60 for outdoors (approximately equivalent to CNEL 60) and Ldn 45 for indoors . " The Project will be conditioned, through the CUP, to exceed the requirements of the City noise code. • Therefore, the Project is consistent with these policies . Section 2 . 3 .4. 14 . Noise Abatement Kan, Noise From Oil Pum2i Operations : "Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of an electric motor-driven pump. ,, Although this section is not directly applicable to the Project, it implies that a 25-foot buffer should exist between pumps and residential areas . The pumps on the Project site will be in excess of 100 feet from the nearest residential unit. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (d) Recreation Element Figure 2-13 . "Existing and Proposed Recreation Facilities": "Figure 2-13 shows the existing and proposed parks at ultimate development. " The Project will not adversely affect or preclude the development of any recreation facility shown in Figure 2-13 . Therefore, it is consistent with Figure 2-13. (e) Circulation 15 . Section 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 : "Goal : To provide a multi-mode transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods . " The Project will not cause or result in significant traffic increases . It will only require three truck trips per day, which is too low in volume to create a significant adverse impact to safety. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 1 .2 .2.5 : "Policy: Provide adequate truck and rail service to industrial and commerical areas while providing minimum disturbance to residential areas . " Project truck routes have been planned to minimize disruption to surrounding residential areas . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (f) Scenic Highways No olicies in the Scenic Highways Element apply to the Project . (g) Housing Section 3 . 3 .4. 2 .2 : "Action: Monitor changes in industrial and commercial land uses to assess their impact • on residential land use . " I The EIR discussion of growth-inducing impacts describes the effect that the Project will have on residential development , as well as the impact on further residential development if the Project is not approved . Therefore, the City' s review of the Project complies with this policy. Section 3 . 3 . 5 . 2 . 1 : "Action: Review all changes in planned land uses to determine the cumulative impacts on community facilities ." The EIR discussion of cumulative impacts describes the Project ' s cumulative impacts on community facilities . Therefore , the City' s review of the Project complies with this policy. Section 3 . 3 . 5 . 2 . 8 : "Action: Continue to actively enforce land use ordinances ." The Project will be subject to all City land use ordinances and regulations , enforced through conditions attached to the CUP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. 16 . (h) Land Use Element Section 3 . 4.2 .3 .5 : "To provide for the proper development , maintenance, improvement , preservation, and use of the City' s natural resources by removing and restoring oil production areas as wells become non-productive . " The approval of the Project will permit the abandonment and removal of 22 wells . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3. 4. 2 .5 . 1 : "To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social , and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach by providing an adequate level of community services , facilities , improvements , and maintenance in all areas of the City. " As conditioned and mitigated, the Project will increase the quality of areas surrounding wells to be abandoned, because the appearance of the well sites will be improved and they could be developed for residential uses . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 4. 2 . 9 : "To seek out and encourage industrial development that will broaden the City' s economic base, that is diversified, that is well related to other land uses , and that provides local job opportunities by: " Section 3 . 4.2. 9.2: "Locating industrial uses adjacent to compatible land uses . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites , thereby eliminating potentially incompatible land uses from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood . Overall, the Project will reduce the potential for land use incompatibilities from oil developments in residential areas . Therefore, it is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 4. 2 . 9 . 4: "Establishing effective environmental standards that minimize the external effects on other land uses and the environment . " The conditions and mitigation measures imposed on the Project will minimize its external effects on other land 17 . uses . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 4 . 2 .9 . 5 : "Eliminating conflicts between existing industrial uses and non-compatible uses . " The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites , thereby eliminating potential incompatible land uses from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site , the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood . Overall, the Project will reduce the potential for land use conflicts from oil developments in residential areas . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (i) Community Facilities ,Section 3. 5 . 6.3 . 1 "Coordinate the installation of community facilities with street improvements where possible. " The Project will provide concrete curbs and gutters in conjunction with the construction of half streets . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. (j ) Coastal Element Although this element addresses coastal policies, the following policies relating to energy resources could be applied to developments throughout the City. Section 3 . 6 . 2 .6 .2: "Encourage the production of energy resources as efficiently as possible with minimal adverse impacts . " The Project will use secondary recovery techniques to increase the efficiency of oil production. As conditioned and mitigated , the Project's adverse effects will be minimal . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 . 2 . 6 .2(c) : "Encourage unitization and consolidation of existing oil operations . . . to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible when such activities (1) reduce the area used for oil facilities , (2) are not more environmentally disruptive than existing arrangements and (3) do not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare . 18 . s � The Project will remove oil producing facilities from 6 sites scattered over a 160-acre area and consolidate them on a 3 . 1 acre site. This will reduce the area used for oil facilities . The abandonment of existing wells will eliminate potentially incompatible land uses from residential areas . Although oil producing facilities will remain on the Project site, the Project site will be improved over its present condition to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood . As conditioned and mitigated, the Project will not jeopardize the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 .2 . 6.2(d) : "Utilize the oil suffixes to ensure that coastal dependent energy extraction is accommodated in areas designed other than resource production, except for environmentally sensitive habitat areas . " The change of zone for the Project will utilize an oil suffix to ensure that energy extraction is accomodated in an area not specifically designated "resource production. " The Project is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 .2. 6 . 2. (e) : " . . . [Consider] ' enhanced ' oil recovery activity and . . . ensure the evaluation of impacts different from those associated with conventional extraction. " This EIR discussed potential impacts of secondary water techniques which are different from those associated with conventional extraction (see, e.g. , discussions of subsidence and injection water) . Therefore, the Project is consistent with this policy. Section 3 . 6 .2 . 6 . 4: "Promote compatibility of oil and other energy-related activities with surrounding uses to the maximum extent feasible. " a. . . include measures such as additional requirements regarding fencing, planting and landscaping to ensure aesthetic and environmental compatibility between oil activities and other uses ." The Project will comply with Chapter 15 . 22 of the _City Oil Code (Screening and Landscaping) . Therefore , the Project is consistent with this policy. 19 . (k) Zoning and General Plan Consistency Figure 4-1 "Zoning and Land Use Element Matrix" : "-01" zoning is shown on the matrix to be compatible with Medium Density Residential . The Project Site will have "-011, zoning. The surrounding neighborhood is designated Medium Density Residential . Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Land Use Element, as shown by the Matrix. Section 4, 2: "A finding of consistency may only be made after analysis of the proposed zoning in terms of all nine elements of the General Plan. A finding of consistency with only one of the elements , such as the Land Use Element, is not sufficient for a finding of consistency with the General Plan. After considering all nine elements , a finding of consistency with the General Plan may be made for the zoning proposal in question if it can be shown to further or possess a measure or significant degree of compatibility with the General Plan policies and programs . " This analysis has examined all elements of the General Plan on a policy-by-policy basis . The Project will further a number of General Plan policies and programs , and is consistent with the remainder . Therefore, it is consistent with the General Plan. With respect to the Land Use Element, the policies have been translated into a Zoning and Land Use Element Consistency Matrix which is included as Figure M. The Matrix shows that as a miscellaneous district -01 may be combined , (i .e . , is consistent) with any land use category. It is specifically consistent with low, medium and medium-high density residential categories . 2 . 5 . 3 Potential Effect : The Project will be located in a predominately residential area, which could have adverse land use impacts on surrounding residences . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) with respect to all land use impacts except those specifically identified in Section 1 . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Project will result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. It will also remove 7 associated tank batteries . Therefore , the Project will reduce the number of residences which remain adjacent to 20 . • oil-producing uses . Currently some residences are within 20 feet of existing wells that will be abandoned under the proposed Project . For example, on the Villa St . Croix site , 5 operating wells are located within 20 feet or less of condominium units . In total , therefore, Project will reduce land use impacts from oil-producing uses . (b) The Facts in Support of Findings 1 . 1, 2 .5 . 1 , 2 . 5 . 2, 2 . 6 and 2 .9 hereby are incorporated by reference . With the exception of aesthetic impacts, discussed in Section 1 . 1, mitigation measures and elements of the Project which will reduce impacts on the environment will also ensure Project compatibility with surrounding uses . (c) Use Permit 88-25 includes conditions intended to ensure that the Project is consistent with the surrounding residential area. 2 .6 LIGHT AND GLARE 2 . 6 . 1 Potential Effect: The drilling phase of the Project will be in operation 24 hours a day. Lighting for safety will be required at night. Some lighting will be visible to adjacent residents and passers-by. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance. (a) Light and glare shall be directed or screened to prevent any direct glare from Project lighting outside it parameter boundaries . (b) No f lood lights shall be used . Lights will be low profile (i .e. , will light low valve and equipment areas only) . (c) During drilling, the derrick will be enclosed and all lights , except the aircraft warning light, will be on the inside of the acoustical blanket . Lights around the auxilliary equipment will be near ground level and well below the top of the 30, acoustical wall . 2 . 7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 2 . 7 . 1 Potential Effect : During the drilling phase of the Project , 3 heavy vehicle (truck) trips a day will be generated by the Project . 21 . • Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) During the drilling phase, all heavy truck traffic shall be limited to the following streets between the 405 Freeway and the Project site: Beach Boulevard , Adams Avenue, and Delaware Street . Entrances to the site shall occur only on Springfield Avenue and California Street . These truck routes and accesses were reviewed by City staff and were chosen to reduce impacts on the adjacent local neighborhood . (b) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. (c) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no trucks shall wait on the street for longer than five minutes . No trucks shall be permitted to park on the streets . (d) Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the • Project applicant . (e) It will not be necessary to restrict parking on the side streets to accommodate trucks . Trucks with a turning radius of 55 feet can easily turn from Springfield Avenue onto California Street . Curbs will be painted red to prohibit parking for 10 feet on either side of the driveways . (f) An overload permit shall be obtained from the City and State (if required) for all oversized loads to be moved on public streets . 2 . 7 . 2 potential Effect : During the drilling and construction phases , traffic will increase nominally in the Project vicinity. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impacts to a level of insignificance . (a) All employees shall park on-site . 22 . (b) Because the Project will pave and add curbs to currently unfinished streets , approximately 1 ,700 feet of additional curbside on-street parking will be made available to area residents by the Project. (c) During the construction phase, all truck traffic shall be limited to streets reviewed by the City staff and chosen to reduce impacts on the adjacent local neighborhood . Entrances to the site shall occur only on Springfield Avenue and California Street and Delaware Street. (d) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7 :00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. (e) Truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no trucks shall wait on the street for longer than five minutes . No trucks shall be permitted to park on the streets . (f) Local streets affected by truck traffic shall be inspected before and after construction. Any damage to local streets by heavy trucks shall be repaired and reconstructed per City requirements at the expense of the Project applicant . (g) Additional Project-related traffic will be of short duration and will involve less traffic than a normal construction project . (h) During the production/injection phase, there will be no increase in traffic in the Project neighborhood resulting from the Project. 2 . 7 . 3 Potential Effect : The water pipeline from the Chevron site will disrupt traffic over a short period along the following route: from Golden West Street east along Clay Avenue to Huntington Street, then south along Huntington Street from Clay Avenue to the facility site at Springfield Avenue and Huntington Street . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . 23 . (a) No more than one lane of traffic shall be closed during the day and no lanes shall be closed at night . (b) Busy intersections shall be either bored or plated over so that traffic interruptions will be kept to a minimum. (c) Several hundred feet of pipeline will be installed , surveyed , inspected and the trench back-filled in one day. Therefore, no one area will be affected throughout the period of construction. 2 .8 AIR QUALITY AND ODORS 2 .8. 1 Potential Effect : Temporary dust impacts will result from Project construction activities , including the construction of the water pipeline. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) A dust control program shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits . (b) Exposed dirt areas shall be minimized in the Project design. Roads and parking areas shall be paved and other open areas shall be landscaped or covered (with gravel or asphalt) to minimize dust generation. 2 . 8 . 2 Potential Effect : Pollutants will be emittted by construction equipment and by vehicle trips . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) During the construction phase , only 17 two-way trips will be generated by the Project . Thirty-two two-way trips will be generated during the drilling phase, and 7 during the injection/production phase . The emissions from this number of trips is not significant . 2 . 8 . 3 Potential Effect : Oil production facilities , particularly tanks , can be the source of fugitive hydrocarbon emissions . 24. • Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) As required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Project oil handling and storage tanks will use a vapor recovery system which will reduce 95-98% of hydrocarbon emissions . (b) The Project will replace 16 existing tanks which are uncontrolled for air pollutant emissions , including hydrocarbons . The replacement of the 16 tanks will reduce total estimated emissions by 24,357 pounds per year . The 7 new Project tanks with vapor recovery, assuming 95% efficiency, will generate 3 , 159 pounds of emissions per year . The total emission reduction will be 21, 198 pounds per year , 58 . 1 pounds per day, or an 87% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions . This is the substantial net benefit of the project . (c) Further hydrocarbon emission reductions also will be achieved through the elimination of other antiquated process equipment , including open sumps , oil-water separators and other similar equipment which is currently uncontrolled for air pollutants . (d) The immediate neighborhood surrounding the Project site will be exposed to 3 , 159 pounds per year of emissions , or approximately 9 pounds per day. The neighborhood currently is exposed to twice this amount because of existing tank batteries located nearby. 2 .8 . 4 Potential Effect : Oil and gas production activities can emit benzene, a known carcinogenic air contaminant . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) An evaluation of the benzene emissions which may be associated with the Project was conducted using the South Coast Air Quality Management District proposed Rules 223 (Air Quality Impact Analyses) and 1401 (New Source Review of Known and Suspected Carcinogenic Air Contaminants) . The Project ' s potential benzene emissions , using a conservative figure, will be . 00057 cubic meters per second , which is 8 to 10 times below the release limits that require further air quality analysis . 25 . • (b) The Projects will eliminate existing tanks that are totally uncontrolled for air pollutant emissions , • including benzene . Therefore , Project probably will result in a net reduction in environnmental risk from benzene emissions in the Project Area. (c) South Coast Air Quality Management District approved vapor recovery systems shall be used for tanks in oil contact . (d) Low-level , short-term exposure to benzene is not subject to SCAQMD proposed rules , because such exposures are not thought to constitute a health risk. In the event of an on-site spill, the system is designed to pump the spilled fluid back through the separation system and into the tank. Spills would be contained on site . 2 .9 NOISE 2 .9 . 1 Potential Effect : Oil well drilling and pumping operations , production wastes and earth moving equipment , and repair/maintenance equipment will generate noise which could affect residences in the area of the Project . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvport of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of a insignificance . (a) The Project shall fully comply with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2379) . (b) A report prepared by an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval prior to commencing drilling. The report shall describe noise levels at the Project Site property line and at the nearest residential property lines , both with and without acoustical treatment on the drilling rig and service rigs . The report shall indicate noise attenuation measures necessary to assure compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2379) . This shall include the provisions of the ordinance regarding a maximum hourly average noise level of SO dB(A) during the hours from 10: 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. (c) Excessive vibration, as determined by the Director of Development Services , shall be reduced to acceptable levels . 26. (d) Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an acoustical engineer certified by the County of Orange Reports shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring effort . The monitoring shall include the following: (1) Pre-drilling phase monitoring . Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those which will be experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site . In addition, the noise control measures which have been, or will be, applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the Noise Ordinance shall be identified . (2) Start of Drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10: 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. ) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring shall occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. The noise level data shall be compared to noise levels specified in the Noise Ordinance . Where an exceedance of the Ordinance is identified, noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required . (3) Daring the Drilling Phase . Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours from 10: 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. at least once each month during the Drilling Phase of the Project . The noise level data obtained shall be conpared to the Noise Ordinance standards . Where an exceedance of the standards is identified , noise control measures shall be applied and an additional two nights of monitoring shall be required . (e) Truck traffic shall be limited to the hours between 7 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p .m. No trucks shall park on the street , and truck deliveries shall be staggered so that no truck will wait in the street for longer than five minutes . There shall be no entrance or exit of vehicles 27 . I from the Drill Site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7 : 00 a.m. , except for emergency purposes, . • (f) A double acoustical blanket enclosure shall be provided at man-door entrances . (g) No speakers , loud bells or buzzers shall be employed on site. (h) Sudden high frequency noise shall be kept to a minimum by using rubber lined pipe elevators if necessary and rubber tires to absorb the impact of tubulars being rolled onto the walk in preparation for running casing. Acoustical blankets shall be used to reduce this type of remaining noise to insignificant levels . (i) All drilling rigs and production wells shall be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps only. No emergency generator shall be used . (j ) Double mufflers shall be used on production hoists and earth moving equipment , further reducing the impact to the neighborhood . (k) Well service rigs shall be operated no more than 48 days per year between 7 : 00 a.m. and 7 : 00 p.m. or daylight hours , whichever is shorter . No more than 4 well service rigs may be on the premises at any one time. The service rigs shall not exceed 120 feet in height and shall be double-muffled and utilize acoustical blankets . (1) The 24-hour drilling phase shall not operate for longer than two years . 2 . 9 .2 Potential Effect : A backhoe will be used during the construction of the water pipeline . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Double mufflers will be used on backhoes during the construction of the water pipeline , and workmen will be cautioned to work as quietly as possible . (b) Any residual noise impact will not be significant because it will be temporary in nature and will only occur during the day. Residents of each block will only be affected for approximately one day. 28 . 2. 10 RISK OF UPSET/HEALTH AND SAFETY 2 . 10. 1 Potential Effect : The potential exists for oil spills from the pipes , valves , tanks and equipment , and from the small amounts of crude oil which will be contained on the Facility Site in storage tanks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) If an oil spill occurred during a rainstorm, surface drainage water could become contaminated with crude oil The Drill Site and Facility Site have been designed to provide containment of surface fluids such as stormwater , and in emergency conditions , crude oil . The Sites shall be enclosed with masonry walls which provide complete control of surface fluids . All truck gates and maint gates shall have raised thresholds with either sloped ramps or raised stoops which preclude surface fluids from leaving the Site. All surface fluids shall be diverted to catch basins . (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 .2 . 1, describing the diversion of surface fluids to catch basins , hereby are incorporated by reference. (c) If the tanks ruptured and spilled oil , the containment area for spill will contain approximately 69 , 000 cubic feet , almost two times the minimum volume required by the State Division of Oil & Gas . The containment area is below grade, approximately 4 feet lower than the water processing area and 6 feet lower than the adjacent street level . The containment area will contain any oil spilled from tanks . (d) The Project will use all new pipelines , valves , fittings , tanks and equipments . All pipelines will meet the requirements of the State of California Pipeline Safety Act . All items will be protected against corrosion by one or more of the following: polyvinyl cloride coating on exterior buried pipelines , cathodic protection system, paint coating on all above-ground pipelines and equipment , epoxy coating on interior of water processing tanks , and use of stainless steel fittings . (e) An Operating Procedures Manual shall be prepared for the training of all new employees . Each operator shall be required to thoroughly understand and be able to 29 . operate each piece of equipment in the! system. The operating procedures manual shall explain in detail how to operate each piece of equipment and include emergency procedures , shut-down of equipment and notification of authorities . 2 . 10. 2 Potential Effect : Various chemicals , both non- hazardous and hazardous , are utilized in oil and gas drilling production. Chemicals may be used to enhance the drilling mud properties during drill of oil and gas wells , for dehydration of the crude oil to marketable quality, to inhibit corrosion, scale and baterial levels , and in treatment of the produced water to suitable reinjection quality. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) None of the chemicals used for the Project will be used in large quantities , or would ever be used off of the 2 Project sites . (b) All federal and state regulations , including worker and community disclosure programs , site Business Emergency Plans , Proposition 65 warnings , hazard labelling • and Spill Prevention Control &. Countermeasure Plans , shall be fully enforced . (c) Fact (c) in Support of Finding 1 .2 . 1, describing emergency action and spill prevention plans , hereby is incorporated by reference . (d) If a localized spill of hazardous materials should occur , it would be contained in the area and no impact would occur outside the Site boundaries . Procedures to mitigate impacts to on-site workers shall be included in the Operations Manual . (e) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 10 . 1 , describing the containment of materials on the Drill Site and Facility Site, hereby are incorporated by reference . (f) The State Department of Health Services has 30 . approved a list of non-hazardous additives to rotory mud . There is nothing in the Huntington Beach oil field drilling history that would indicate that hazardous materials will be required . Therefore, to the greatest extent feasible, the operator of the Project shall use non-hazardous additives in the Project 's drilling mud . 2 . 10. 3 Potential Effect : Crude oil will be transported in an existing Chevron pipeline from the Facility Site to Chevrons re-pump station. There is a possibility of pipeline rupture . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findines : (a) The addition of the Project ' s oil stream will reduce pressure on the Chevron crude oil pipeline . Because the oil from the Project will enter the pipeline at a higher temperature than the oil currently in the pipeline, it will reduce the viscosity of the oil . This in turn will reduce pressure in the pipeline, thereby decreasing the possibility of pipeline rupture when compared to existing conditions . (b) Even if the pipeline ruptured, the only oil that would be released would be the oil in the pipeline between block valves . Automatic shutdowns would keep the incremental volume of oil attributable to the Project at an insignificant level in the event of pipeline rupture . (c) Chevron completed hydrotesting its pipeline in March 1988 to a pressure of 750 pounds per square inch. The test was witnesses and approved for the State Fire Marshal by the Karin Corporation on March 8, 1988. 2 . 10.4 Potential Effect : The rupture of the water pipeline , or accidents resulting from pedestrian access to trenches during the construction of the water pipeline, could have public safety impacts . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findines : (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 2 . 3 , describing measures mitigating any impacts on water quality, hereby are incorporated by reference . (b) The water pipeline will be monitored with automatic shutdown pressure sensors , so that any sudden • 31 . �► • pressure drop will trigger an alarm and shutdown the transfer pumps . This will ensure that any release of water is minimal . (c) No trenches will be left open at night , and several hundred feet of pipeline will be installed, surveyed , inspected and trench back-filled in one day. During the day, barriers will ensure that pedestrians do not approach trenches . This is standard operating procedure in the construction of underground pipelines . 2 . 10 . 5 Potential Effect : Oil-related gas leaks could lead to fire or explosion. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) A report made by GeoScience Analytical , Inc . (Roberti Report) determined that a Los Angeles fire and explosion was caused by gas that was biogenic, or the result of bacterial decay, not related to a leaking pipeline or poorly abandoned oil well . It was also determined that only one of the 91 gas samples analyzed in Huntington Beach was petrogenic , or associated with oil . Eighteen samples subsequently taken in. Huntington Beach were determined to be of biogenic origin. These studies indicated that the problem of methane gas hazard does not have its roots in oil field-related activity. is (b) Water flooding in an oil reservoir reduces the amount of free gas and lessens the possibility of gas leaks . Any free gas flows to areas of low pressure. Producer wells are areas of low pressure, and gas will flow there throughout the process of repressurization. Injection wells will be located away from poorly abandoned wells and in close proximity to producing wells , ensuring that free gas will flow to the producing wells . (c) A contingency plan shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval , with steps to be taken in the event that leakage from any abandoned wells which do not meet present day abandonment requirements finds its way to the surface . (d) The possibility of fire and/or explosion at the drill rigs does not constitute a significant impact because the drilling equipment will be equipped with Class III blowout prevention equipment . Additionally-, the reservoirs of the Project are well known, having been produced for over 60 years . The reservoir pressure is 32 . well below hydrostatic and will be easily controlled by the drilling mud . Therefore, all anticipated subsurface pressure will be contained by the weight of the mud . If a fire did occur , the open cellars will allow the Fire Department to control it from the surface, without having to enter the cellars . 2 . 11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 2 . 11 . 1 Potential Effect : The Project could increase the demand on police protection services , including potential increases in vandalism and noise nuisance complaints . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The following measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insignificance . (a) The proposed site will be enclosed with a decorative masonry wall and with a landscaping berm. The wall and landscaping will avoid providing easy access to the site . (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2 . 9 . 1 , relating to noise impacts , hereby are incorporated by reference . 2 . 11 . 2 Potential Effect : The potential for fire, odor or spill incidents could increase the demand on fire prevention/protection services in the City. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Fire Department has stated that it will actually have a reduced workload due to the consolidation of many oil producing sites onto one fully equiped and protected site . (b) An on-site fire suppression system shall be installed as a primary source for fire protection. (c) Oil wells shall be provided with gas detection systems from cellars to 24-hours monitoring locations . (d) Fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department must be installed within 75 feet of travel . (e) Metal open-grate covers shall be provided over the top of well cellars . 33 . (f) Storage tanks shall have pre-plumbed foam injection systems and exterior deluge wager spray systems . • (g) The foam storage area and foam quantity shall be approved by the Fire Department, and fire hydrants shall be located in areas approved by the Fire Department . Hydrogen sulfide detection systems approved by the Fire Department shall be installed on the Project perimeter , and fire extinguishers approved by the Fire Department shall be installed thoroughout the Site. All gate openings must be 24 feet in width and installed in compliance with Fire Department Specification 403 . (h) A full vapor recovery system shall be installed, as required by SCAQMD. (i) Only three on-site crude oil tanks are permitted , which shall never be completely full at once. (j ) Fact (c) in support of Finding 1 .2 . 1, describing emergency action and spill prevention plans , hereby is incorporated by reference. (k) Prior to termination of the oil operation, a plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department, showing how the Site will be abandoned and restored to its closest natural state . 2 . 11 . 3 Potential Effect : Paving of the Project site will increase stormwater , which could present additional demands on the sewer system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Pacts in Support of Findings : (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 2 . 1 hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The Project will take about 30, 000 barrels per day of produced water from Chevron, which is currently dumping approximately 40, 000 barrels per day into the sanitary sewer . Therefore, instead of adding more brine to the sewer system, this Project will relieve the system of about 30 , 000 barrels per day. 34. • • • 2 . 11 . 4 Potential Effect : During the initial drilling operation, a fresh water demand of 21 ,000 gallons per day is expected . Following completion of the drilling phase, the water consumption rate will be reduced to 1,000 per day. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Fresh water use over the long term is roughly equivalent to an industrial use one-third of an acre in size , or about 6 attached residential units . Adequate water supplies exist to meet this demand . The available fire flow is 5 , 500 gallons per minute with 3 ,000 gallons per minute being the required fire flow at present . 2 . 11 .5 Potential Effect : During the drilling phase, one truck per day normally will be required to collect and transport liquid oil wastes and one truck per day will be required to handle solid waste collected in medal bins . Following the completion of drilling. the volume of wastes will be reduced, particularly for solid wastes such as drill cuttings . The periodic cleaning of tanks during the operational phase will require the removal of sludge from tank bottoms . • Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : The f ollowing measures will mitigate the identified impact to a level of insiginficance . (a) Dumping operations for oil field wastes are normally handled by contract service firms that specialize in waste disposal of this type. (b) Sludge from tank bottoms will be deposited in a special dump equiped to handle this type of waste, and deposited in a Class I landfill . (c) All waste materials , both liquid and solid , shall be collected and separated on site, temporarily stored in medal bins and tanks , and trucked to appropriate disposal sites . (d) Liquid wastes shall be collected and stored in closed tanks to prevent the spread of odors prior to disposal . (e) Collection areas for waste shall be located • 35 . • • within peripheral walls and will not be visible to residential areas . 2 . 11 . 6 Potential Effect : The Project will require three business lines and a public phone on each parcel . It is likely that an intercommunication line between the two parcels will be included in the telephone system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The General Telephone Company provides telephone service to the City and to the Project site . No current inadequacies exist in the system. The number of lines servicing the Project site is less than the number of lines which would be required if medium density residential units were developed on site . 2 . 12 ENERGY CONSERVATION 2 . 12 . 1 Potential Effect : Drilling rigs and production wells will be operated by electrical motors and electric pumps . Although a small amount of natural gas will be produced with the oil , additional natural gas may be required for production. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Proper sizing of the well pumps will save energy through reducing the amount of electricity used . (b) Southern California Edison anticipates no problems in providing electrical service of the Project . Southern California Gas Company, which will provide any additional natural gas required, also anticipates no problems in providing service for the Project . (c) The purpose of the Project is to produce approximately 9 . 0 million barrels of crude oil . 2 . 13 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 2 . 13 . 1 Potential Effect : Compared to existing conditions , the Project will have a growth inducing impact of 57 units . At the City-wide average of 2 . 78 persons per household , the 57 dwelling units would house 158 persons . 36 . 1 • Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Suvvort of Findings : (a) The 158 persons who would be housed on the Project site represents a population factor of only 0. 08% of the estimated 1987 City population. (b) The Project will utilize two entire City blocks for the approximately 20-30 year life of the project . Based on existing General Plan and zoning designations , but for the Project, both of the two Project blocks would be used for residential purposes . Under existing zoning, 108 residential units could be constructed on the site. Based on existing General Plan designation, 76 units could be built on the site . Therefore, the growth inducing effect of the Project could be less than the number of units that could be developed on the Project site . 2 . 14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2 . 14. 1 Potential Effect: Two other oil consolidation projects are in the process of assembly within the vacinity of the Project . The cumulative effects of these projects could have impacts on subsidence and gas leaks . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) The Facts in Support of Finding 2.1 . 2, describing the effect of the Project on subsidence, hereby are incorporated by reference. (b) The Facts in Support of Finding 2. 10.5, describing the effect of water flooding on gas leaks , hereby are incorporated by reference . (c) In the Wilmington Field , water flooding took place in an area where many wells were damaged badly and not properly abandoned . Even with this large number of improperly abandoned wells , there were no problems with injected fluids or oil or gas surfacing via these conduits . (d) The Signal Hill Field was unitized and three water floods initiated in 1974. Many of the wells in this field are as old as the Huntington Beach wells ; however , the Division of Oil & Gas has received notification of only two wells that have leaked . • 37 . • • 2 . 14. 2 Potential Effect : In conjunction with present , approved and proposed developments in the City, the secondary traffic effects of the induced growth from the Project could result in negative impacts on the circulation system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Growth induced by the Project is controlled by General Plan policies relating to land use designations and circulation improvements . The land use designations used to generate estimates of secondary traffic impacts from induced growth are consistent with the current General Plan designation. Therefore , the traffic generated by these uses has been taken into account in establishing the General Plan circulation plan of arterial streets and highways . This plan adequately accommodates traffic estimated to be generated by General Plan designated uses . (b) A recent traffic study conducted for The Waterfront , which evaluates cumulative traffic levels for the area of the City most likely to receive heavy traffic flows from proposed development, confirmed that traffic will operate at acceptable levels of service. (c) The 108 vehicles which would be associated with the 57 units that constitute the growth inducing effect of the Project represent a very small increment of the new vehicles that will be within the area. 2. 14.3 Potential Effect : In conjunction with present , approved and proposed projects , traffic resulting from growth generated by the Project may add to noise levels adjacent to circulation routes . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Implementation of the Optimum Noise Levels , and of the Noise Abatement Plan for Traffic Noise contained in sections 2 . 3 . 3 and 2 . 3 . 4 of the General Plan Noise Element, will mitigate these cumulative impacts to a level of insignificance . 2 . 14. 4 Potential Effect : In conjunction with existing, approved and proposed future projects , noise within the 38. vicinity of the Drill Site and Facility Site could exceed City noise standards . Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Facts in Support of Finding 2. 9 . 1 hereby are incorporated by reference . (b) The measurement of noise is , by definition, a "cumulative" measurement . It takes into account background noise. By conditioning the Project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, the City has ensured that cumulative noise levels will not constitute a significant adverse impact . 2 . 14. 5 Potential Effect : As a secondary effect of the Project, automobile emissions associated with the 57 dwelling units which constitute the Project' s growth inducing impact, in conjunction with present , approved and proposed development, could result in adverse impacts on air quality. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) It is estimated that vehicle emissions constituting a secondary impact of the Project would result in a daily increase in vehicle emissions of 3 ,596 .3 pounds per year . Any air quality impacts from these emissions is offset nearly 6 times by the improvement in air quality caused by replacement of existing old oil storage tanks with new tanks fully equipped with an effective vapor recovery system. The Project will result in a net reduction of 21, 198 pounds of hydrocarbons per year . 2 . 14. 6 Potential Effect : As a secondary impact of the Project , the 57 units which constitute the growth inducing effect of the Project could generate additional school children, potentially causing adverse effects on the school system. Findings : The City hereby makes finding (1) . Facts in Support of Findings : (a) Huntington Beach city schools have been experiencing a steady decline in enrollment over the past 39 . I 10 years . Capacity in the school district currently exceeds student enrollment , and the schools impacted by the Project are particularly well situated to absorb additional enrollment . Projected increased in enrollment from the Project do not exceed the excess capacity, even taking into account the increase in enrollment expected from other projects . (b) The total number of students from approved and proposed projects , including Project-related additions , is 371 new students . Enrollment projections for Union High School District schools shows a decrease in enrollment until 1990. An increase is projected from 1991 through 1995 . Even with new development, however , the expected increase in students from 1992 to 1995 is not enough to compensate for the expected decline in enrollment between 1987 and 1992 . (c) An increase in dwelling units does not necessarily result in an increase in enrollment . From 1975 to 1987 , an additional 9 ,223 new dwellings were constructed and occupied within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Union High School District . The net impact on enrollment was a minus 3, 141 students, a 37% decrease. 40. 3 . FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 3 . 1 "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE 3 . 1 . 1 Description of Alternative : The EIR defines the "no project" alternative as the maintenance of existing conditions . 3 . 1 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that the "no project" alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: (a) This alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore, compared to the Project, it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . The existing wells would continue to produce oil , gas and water without the addition of the modern vapor recovery systems , secondary recovery techniques , or state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment which will be incorporated into the Project . The continuing use of existing technology would have detrimental impacts on air quality compared to the proposed Project . The potential for arresting subsidence, or causing rebound , through injection would be eliminated . Excess brine produced by Chevron would not be used for injection and would continue to be disposed of in the sewer system, thereby increasing the load on the sewer system in comparison with the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not be able to withstand the impacts of major earthquakes . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project ; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M 8 or greater . This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls , which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project . In weighing the positive and negative environmental effects of this alternative, however , the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . 41 . 3 . 1 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "no project" alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not permit the recovery of 9 million barrels of crude oil by using secondary recovery techniques . Existing oil operations would only recover approximately 500, 000 barrels of crude oil . 3 . 1 . 4 Feasibility: The "no project" alternative is feasible . 3 . 2 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 3. 2 . 1 Description of Alternative: The "reduced intensity" alternative would involve drilling a number of limited injector wells for secondary oil recovery, while retaining all existing wells currently operating in the 160-acre subsurface unit . Approximately 10 injector wells would be drilled from one of the existing well sites . 3 . 2 .2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Findine: (a) The "reduced intensity" alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore, compared to the proposed Project , it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . Some of these residences are within 20 feet of existing wells ; therefore, these residences wold be less buffered from the noise impacts of reworking the wells . This impact would be particularly significant in the Villa St . Croix site, in which five wells are located within 20 feet or less of condominium units . This alternative also would require routing high- pressure water through lengthy pipelines under City streets . The possibility of leakage or rupture is a significant adverse impact which would not exist under the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not withstand a major earthquake . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; 42 . and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a mapnitude of M8 or greater . This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls , which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project . In weighing the positive and negative effects of this alternative, however , the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . 3 . 2. 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The reduced intensity alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not result in optimum well spacing for injection. As a result, only approximately 3 . 5 million barrels of oil would be recovered . 3 .2 .4 Feasibility: The reduced intensity alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : This alternative would require acquiring the right-of-way for a considerable length of underground pipes . Liability for these pipes could be significant . According to the Project applicant , the capital costs of this alternative would be approximately the same as the capital costs of the proposed Project, while less than one-half as much oil would be recovered . In addition, this alternative would not result in optimum spacing of injector wells . if secondary recovery did not work under this system, there would be no way to determine the source of the problem or to cure the situation. Based on these factors , the Project applicant has concluded that this alternative is not economically feasible . This alternative also is not feasible because it is not desirable, and may not be possible , to conduct well reworking in very close proximity to residential units . 3 . 3 MORE INTENSE DRILLING PROGRAM 3 . 3 . 1 Description of Alternative : Under this alternative, the proposed Project would proceed as described in this EIR, except that the drilling program would be intensified to reduce the time span of the drilling phase of the Project . A second rig would be used for drilling. The two-year drilling period would be reduced by several months . 3 . 3 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby 43 . finds that the "more intense drilling program" alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: • (a) Approximately twice as many heavy trucks per day (6 instead of 3) would be required for the intensified drilling program. Two 165 ' rigs would be used instead of one, resulting in increased aesthetic impacts and making it more difficult to control noise and light/glare impacts . (b) The Project site would be occupied for oil-producing facilities for a slightly shorter perior of time, because the intensified drilling program would reduce the construction period by several months . Impacts of the drilling phase, including the noise and traffic impacts (although intensified) , also would occur over a slightly shorter time period . When weighed against the more severe and unmitigable impacts that would occur , however , this reduction in the drilling period does not outweigh the negative impacts of this alternative. 3 . 3 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "more intense drilling program" alternative would meet the Project objectives . 3 . 3 . 4 Feasibility: The "more intense drilling program' is feasible, but would be more expensive than the proposed Project . 3 .4 ABANDONMENT OF ALL OIL PRODUCTION SITES 3 .4. 1 Description of Alternative : Under this alternative, the oil facilities on the Project site would be removed and 22 scattered wells over 160 acres would be abandoned , as under the proposed Project . The Project site and the 6 scattered sites would be available for other uses . Residential use is designated in the General Plan and Zoning. 3 . 4. 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is environmentally preferable to the Project because it would eliminate the effect of oil-producing uses throughtout the Project Area. 3 . 4. 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not result in the recovery of any oil from subsurface reserves . Therefore, it would not meet the Project objectives . It would reduce the amount 44. of oil which could be produced from 9 million barrels to zero barrels . 3 .4.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings : It is highly unlikely that (a) oil operators would all agree to abandon their operations , and that (b) ready purchasers would be available for all of the sites . Therefore, in order to implement this alternative, the City probably would have to acquire the mineral rights for some or all of the wells and pay for the abandonment of the site . Some arrangement would have to be made with the surface owner for reimbursement of all or part of the City' s costs following resale and/or development of the sites . 3 . 4. 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : It is highly unlikely that (a) oil operators would all agree to abandon their operations, and that (b) ready purchasers would be available for all of the sites . Therefore, in order to implement this alternative, the City probably would have to acquire the mineral rights for some or all of the wells and pay for the abandonment of the site . Some arrangement would have to be made with the surface owner , for reimbursement of all or part of the City' s costs following resale and/or development of the sites . As a rough estimate, using the industry standard of $15 ,000 per average daily barrel of oil production, it would cost approximately $1 .5 million to acquire the mineral rights for all of the sites . Abandonment would cost approximately $ .5 million. This alternative also would deny access to the royalty owners of the mineral estates . Even assuming that the mineral rights could be purchased for $1 . 5 million, this figure does not assign any value to unrecovered reserved, which are worth in the tens of millions of dollars . This alternative does not appear to be "feasible . " 3 . 5 ALTERNATIVE SITES: PARCEL 1 3 . 5 . 1 Description of Alternative : Parcel 1 consists of 1 . 8 acres located to the northwest of the Project site on Pine Street , bounded by Yorktown Avenue on the north and Utica Avenue on the south. The Project applicant .does not own the surface or the minerals below the surface. The Huntington Beach Company is the mineral owner . Parcel 1 is surrounded by approximately 15 acres of fee land which 45 . i is also owned by the Huntington Beach Company. Although this land is currently vacant , it is zoned for residential • use . Parcel 1 is too small to accommodate all of the facilities and well cellars necessary for an oil recovery facility. Therefore, the Project Facilities Site would still be used . Although some wells could be drilled on Parcel 1 , some wells would still have to be drilled on the Project Drill Site . 3 . 5 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: Approximately 60% of the wells for the Project could be drilled on Parcel 1 . Although this would result in a slight reduction in the effects of the drilling phase on the neighborhood surrounding the Project, drilling would affect two residential neighborhoods instead of one . Although the area surrounding Parcel 1 currently is vacant , it is proposed for residential use . 3 . 5 . 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would meet. Project objectives . 3 . 5 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : The Project applicant does not own Parcel 1 . Furthermore, in order to use Parcel 1 as a surface site to drill into the southeast part of the Springfield Unit , the Project applicant would have to acquire pass-through rights from the Huntington Beach Company. The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development for the 17 acres site surrounding Parcel 1 , and that it would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the project . Therefore , the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfullly in a reasonable period of time , taking into account economic, social, and legal factors . 3 . 6 PARCEL 1 DEVELOPMENT ONLY 3 . 6. 1 Description of Alternative : A project designed to be solely developed from Parcel 1 would need to be reduced in size considerably. The 1 . 8 acre site would 46 . only accommodate approximately one 20-well cellar and much smaller production/injection facilities . The southeastern portion of the Project could not be reched by directional wells from Parcel 1 so that portion of the reservoirs could not be exploited . 3 . 6 .2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative would have environmental effects of a magnitude equal to those of the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: Although the area surrounding Parcel 1 currently is vacant , it is proposed for residential use . Project impacts , including aesthetic impacts , the possibility of fire and impacts of an M 8 or greater earthquake, would affect any such residences . 3 : 6.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Prof ect Objectives : This alternative would not meet Project objectives because it could only recover approximately 4.5 million barrels of oil, since injection rates would have to be lower and the Project could not be fully developed . It would also take longer to produce the reserves . 3. 6. 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible. Facts in Support of Findings : The Project applicant does not own Parcel 1 . Furthermore, in order to use Parcel 1 as a surface site to drill into the southeast part of the Springfield Unit , the Project applicant would have to acquire pass-through rights from the Huntington Beach Company. The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development for the 17 acres site surrounding Parcel 1, and that it would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the project . Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfu111y in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social , and legal factors . i 3 . 7 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 2 3 . 7 . 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 2 is located on the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue . It consists of approximately 3 .5 acres and is zoned 01 . Parcel 2 is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Springfield Unit and would require wells to be drilled which exceed the normal parameters of conventional 47 . directional drilling . The site is too small for the facilities necessary to accompany the wells . Therefore , the Project Facilities Site would still be used . 3 . 7 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally preferable to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: Under this alternative , there would be a greater buffer to residential areas , and there is direct access for traffic from Beach Boulevard . However , impacts from the drilling of wells would affect residential areas and would be increased under this alternative because the wells would require a longer trajectory and would take considerably longer to drill . Drilling impacts would affect the people living in part of the Seabridge project because Parcel 2 is in close proximity to this development . The first phase, Seabridge Village, consists of 200 units . The second phase, the Lakes at Seabridge, is planned for 202 units . 3 . 7 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would meet the Project objectives . 3 . 7 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findines : The Project applicant has been advised that the property owner is planning a surface development on Parcel 2 when the existing Chevron wells are no longer viable, and would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of this alternative . Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time , taking into account economic , social, and legal factos . In addition, the site configuration would not allow for the drilling of the necessary wells , even if the facilities were located on the Facilities Site . 3 . 8 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 3 3 . 8 . 1 Description of Alternative : Parcel 3 is bounded by Memphis Avenue on the north, Knoxville Avenue on the south, Florida Street on the west , and Beach Boulevard on the east . It consists of approximately 8 . 2 acres- and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) facing Beach Boulevard and R-3 (Medium-High Residential) on the remainder of the site . 48 . i Parcel 3 is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Springfield Unit and would require wells to be drilled which exceed the normal parameters of conventional directional drilling. 3. 8. 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Protect : The City hereby finds that this alternative is environmentally preferable to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: More buffering could be provided since the site is larger . The parcel also has good access for truck traffic to Beach Boulevard . The facilities and the wells could be consoliated onto one site, reducing the perimeter of the oil producing area. This could reduce the impacts of oil operations on surrounding residential areas . 3.8.3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would not meet the Project objectives . Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would not meet the Project objective of recovering 9 million barrels of oil, because wells would be unable to reach the thickest part of the resevoir . It is estimated that it would result in the recovery of a maximum of 6 million barrels of oil . 3 . 8.4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : The City has been advised that the Huntington Beach Company is planning a surface development on Parcel 3 when the existing Chevron facilities are no longer viable, and would not be interested in delaying this development for the 20-30 year life of the alternative. Therefore, the alternative is not "feasible" because it is not capable of being accomplished successfully in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic , social , and legal factors . The alternative also would be economically infeasible. The land costs of the alternative site would be prohibitively high because of the C-4 and R-3 zoning. No acre-for-acre swap with the Project site would be possible . 3 . 9 ALTERNATIVE SITES : PARCEL 4 3. 9. 1 Description of Alternative: Parcel 4, McCallen Park, is located west of Delaware Street between Yorktown Avenue and Utica Avenue. It is a dedicated park owned by 49 , the City and consists of approximately 5 . 1 acres . Surrounding uses are residential (R-2) . 3 . 9 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of tie Alternative to • the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: The facilities and the wells could be consolidated onto one site, reducing the perimeter of the oil-producing area. However , the possibility of upset would be increased:, because all of the wells wuold have to penetrate the main portion of th Inglewood-Newport fault . Well damage by fault movement is a well-known phenomenon in the Wilmington oil field , even when no measurable earthquake has been recorded . Although surface damage to the wells or surface installations probably would not occur , down hole damage at the fault intercept would preclude the proper abandonment of the damaged wells . This alternative also would eliminate a dedicated park. This impact could be partially mitigated by conducting a "land swap" in which the Project applicant traded the Project site to the City. A, park could then be established on the Project site. The park on the Project site would be smaller than the existing 5 . 8 acre site and would consist of two separate parcels divided by a street, creating an adverse safety impact . 3 .9 .3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : This alternative would meet Project objectives . 3 .9 . 4 Feasibility: This alternative is not feasible . Facts in Support of Findings : The City does not desire to exchange McCallen Park for the Project site . Safety issues relating to the need to drill through the Inglewood-Newport fault make this a less deniable alternative. 3 . 10 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL__PROJECT 3 . 10 . 1 Description of Alternative : Neither block of the Project site would be used for oil recovery, but instead would be made available for development of a medium density residential development project . Oil recovery operations would continue at the 22 wells within the 160 acre Project Area. At density levels permitted -by the General Plan, the Project Site could be developed with 76 residential units . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code 50. • • allows for the development of 108 units , and other provisions of the Code may allow a greater number of units for special purpose projects . 3 . 10 . 2 Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project : The City hereby finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the Project . Facts in Support of Finding: (a) This alternative would not result in the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. Therefore, compared to the Project , it would increase the number of residences which remain adjacent to oil-producing uses . The existing wells would continue to produce oil , gas and water without the addition of the modern vapor recovery systems , secondary recovery techniques , or state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment which will be incorporated into the Project . The continuing use of existing technology would have detrimental impacts on air quality compared to the proposed Project . The potential for arresting subsidence, or causing rebound , through injection would be eliminated . Excess brine produced by Chevron would not be used for injection and would continue to be disposed of in the sewer system, thereby increasing the load on the sewer system in comparison with the proposed Project . Existing facilities would not be able to withstand the impacts of major earthquakes . (b) This alternative also would have positive effects . It would eliminate the need for three heavy trucks per day to travel through the neighborhood adjacent to the Project Site during the drilling phase of the Project ; would eliminate the possibility of a fire or a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals on the Project Site; and would eliminate the possibility of damage to Project facilities and walls in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude of M 8 or greater . This alternative also would eliminate the use of perimeter walls , which would be required to mitigate aesthetic and noise impacts of the proposed Project . In weighing the positive and negative environmental effects of this alternative, however , the City has determined that the positive effects of this alternative are less significant than the negative effects . (c) In addition, the "medium density residential development" alternative also has the adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction and occupancy of residential units . The construction of 51 . residential units would involve the temporary impacts normally associated with residential construction including increased noise, traffic , dust , risk of fire , paint fumes and trash. Such construction related impacts would occur for a period of between nine months and a year . Traffic and parking impacts are associated with the sales of rental activities involved with residential units . Such sales or renting related impacts may occur over a period of between three months and a year . Noise, traffic , parking, risk of residential fire are impacts assocites with the occupancy of residential units . Such impacts would be permanent . 3 . 10. 3 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives : The "no project" alternative would not meet Project objectives because it would not permit the recovery of 9 million barrels of crude oil by using secondary recovery techniques . Existing oil operations would only recover approximately 500, 000 barrels of crude oil . 3 . 10. 4 Feasibility: This alternative is feasible . s 52 . • • ATTACHMENT 5 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 • STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 for the Springfield Oil Recovery Project identifies certain unavoidable adverse significant environmental effects . CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether the project should be approved. If the decision-maker concludes that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the effects may be considered acceptable. The final EIR identifies three separate unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. (See Section 2 .0, Draft Supplemental EIR 88-1. ) These are: 1. Aesthetics: The neighborhood surrounding the project site consists of medium density residential uses, predominantly in small (8-10 unit) developments and single family residences . Views of the project site from adjacent residences will consist of the screening block wall and landscaping. During the initial drilling phases, drill rigs will be visible. During the production and injection phases, temporary drill rigs will be used periodically for maintenance and will be visible from adjacent residents . Tanks will be visible above the wall . 2 . Risk of Upset/Health and Safety • Under a worst case scenario, assuming that all oil tanks are full and the tanks are set out in an open field without surrounding perimeter walls, there is a "rare" (defined in the standard methodology for risk assessment as 1: 10, 000 to 1: 1, 000, 000 chance that an oil tank fire could result in radiant heat effecting the area outside of the immediate Project Site. 3 . Seismic If an earthquake of Magnitude of 8 . 0 or greater on the Richter Scale occurs with its epicenter in the project area, structures in the Project Area, including tanks and walls of the project facilities, would be damaged. Each of these effects is lessened by the mitigation measures suggested in the Supplemental and original EIR, which measures will be required and incorporated into the project . Here, the City of Huntington Beach does find that the benefits flowing to the City and its residents from the project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects which remain after the project ' s mitigation measures are implemented and that the aforementioned unavoidable significant effects are acceptable, based on the following overriding considerations : -2- (1466d) 1. The project will replace 16 existing tanks which are not subject to controls for air pollutants . rhis will result in a • net reduction of 21, 198 pounds of hydrocarbon emissions per year, or an 87 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions . Further reductions in hydrocarbon emissions will also result from the elimination of other antiquated process equipment. 2 . The project will bring about the abandonment of 22 scattered wells over a 160-acre area. As a result, the abandoned sites can be used for other purposes consistent with their General Plan and zoning designations . Fewer City residents will live adjacent to or in close proximity to oil activities . This will have positive aesthetic impacts on the City. 3 . The project will result in the abandonment to modern standards of wells which have been abandoned, but not to modern standards . This will contribute to the public health and safety. 4 . The consolidation of a number of oil producing operations on a single site, with modern fire control equipment, will reduce the workload of the City fire department. This will contribute to the public health and safety. 5 . The project will use approximately 30,000 barrels of produced water for injection purposes . This water is currently dumped into the sanitary sewer by Chevron. This will reduce the demand on the sanitary sewer system. 6 . The use of water injection has been shown to arrest subsidence, or even cause a slight rebound. The project will help to arrest subsidence in the Huntington Beach oil field. -3- (1466d) Another important consideration is the increase in oil • production, from 5 million barrels of oil to 9 million barrels ultimately, resulting from the consolidation. The oil will be used to produce gasoline (180 million gallons) and other petroleum products (162 million gallons) . i -4- (1466d) ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 1407 RESOLUTION NO. 1407 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-1 (SEIR 88-1) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-1 (EIR 86-1) FOR THE SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT LOCATED ON TWO BLOCKS ON OPPOSITE CORNERS, SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST, AT THE INTERSECTION OF SPRINGFIELD AVENUE AND CALIFORNIA STREET AND INCLUDING 160 ACRES OF SCATTERED WELL OPERATIONS BOUNDED GENERALLY BY FLORIDA STREET ON THE EAST AND SEVENTEENTH STREET ON THE WEST, BETWEEN YORKTOWN AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND MEMPHIS AVENUE ON THE SOUTH. WHEREAS, the Springfield Oil Recovery Project ' s related entitlements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 have been prepared; and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 was adopted and certified by the Planning Commission on September 3, 1986 and City Council on October 20, 1986; and The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the preparation of the Supplemental and original Environmental Impact Reports; and All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given have been heard by the Planning Commission either through written notice or during a public hearing on October 18, 1988, and such responses and comments as were made were duly noted and responded to, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-1 have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all state and local guidelines therefore. SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission has considered all significant effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1, together with existing and proposed measures to mitigate such significant effects . (Exhibit A) SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission further finds that through the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the Springfield Oil Recovery project can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission finds that the benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by virtue of the consolidation of existing oil producing operations to a single site, abandonment to modern standards of many existing wells and replacement to modern standards of existing tanks override the unmitigatable effects detailed in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and Environmental Impact No . 86-1 and the attached statement of overriding considerations (Exhibit B) . -2- (1443d) SECTION 5 . The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1 and recommends that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 and adopt and recertify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No. 86-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1988, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams Victor Leipzig Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Chairman -3- (1443d) REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS OIL RECOVERY PROJECT BCH NO. 86040917 Prepared for: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH c/o Ms. Mary M Parrish, Treasurer • 1919 Alsuna Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 2933-8 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 261-5414 SEPTEMBER 1988 REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANGUS OIL RECOVERY PROJECT BCH NO. 86040917 INTRODUCTION This document was prepared under contract to the Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach and summarizes Chambers Group., Inc. 's review of the Draft Supplemental EIR (Draft SEIR) for the proposed Angus Oil Recovery Project. The Draft SEIR was reviewed by members of Chambers Group's technical staff under the direction of Mr. John Westermeier. Chambers Group specializes in the preparation of environmental documents for on- and offshore f oil and gas projects. We have prepared over 30 major environ- mental documents for local and state agencies for oil and gas projects in the State of California. This review is divided into two major sections. The first section provides our general comments on the document -and the second section provides our specific comments on various subject areas. We have also included a brief conclusion to our review following our specific comments. 1 GL*NZRAL COMMZNTS We have identified several irregularities in the Draft SEIR which, in our opinion, makes the Draft inadequate in its present form. These are described below: 1 . The summary of findings fails to conform to Section 15123 of CEQA in that the summary should include all significant impacts and mitigation measures as well as identification of r alternatives that could reduce these impacts to significant levels. The summary fails to list all significant impacts identified in the main text of the document. The summary does not discuss alternatives, areas of controversy or issues to be resolved. 2. The Draft SEIR fails to address the environmental issues associated with the construction of a water pipeline from the Chevron facility to the proposed project site. Construction of such a pipeline would have the potential to create traffic, air quality, noise and public safety impacts that are not addressed in the document. Furtherpore, the water quality impacts are not addressed should the pipeline rupture during operation. 3. The SEIR does not address the impacts associated with the construction of a gas pipeline to the Chevron facility. As described under No. 2 above, there could be significant impacts associated with construction of the pipeline as well as the public safety impacts associated with a potential pipeline rupture. 4 . The project site is rather unique in that the proposed drilling and processing site is located directly adjacent to 2 -' residential units. The SEIR does not address the impacts in enough detail necessary to determine the actual impact, nor does it identify specific mitigation measures to reduce any identified impacts. of particular concern is the release of toxic materials during accidents and spills, as well as the migration of gas due to the repressurization of the formation. 5. The SEIR fails to identify the criteria that were used for the determination of significance of impacts. Additionally, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the significance of the residual impacts have not been clearly defined. 6 . Although the SEIR does identify various projects for cumula— tive analysis, it fails to provide an analysis of the overall cumulative impact, determination of the significance of this impact and formulation of mitigation measures as required in Section 15130 of CEQA. The analysis fails to reflect the full range of cumulative impacts particularly for systems safety, seismicity, hazardous materials, noise and water quality. 7. The SEIR fails to address a full range of alternatives. In particular, it does not address the alternative of processing oil at a site remote from the proposed project area. This alternative would substantially reduce the systems safety impact associated with a fire in the storage tanks. It also does not address the No Oil Storage Alternative nor does it address alternative designs of the proposed facilities on the proposed sites. Additionally, the document does not consider an alternative where the unprocessed oil is transferred via a new pipeline to the Chevron facility, eliminating the need for separate processing facilities . 3 8 . The SEIR fails to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative as required by section 15130 of the CEQA guidelines. 9 . The SEIR fails to provide a full list of preparers as required by CEQA. 4 SPECIFIC COMMENTS A. Topography, Soils, and Geology 1 . The SEIR fails to address the consequences of the 8. 0+ earthquake on the operation of facilities including such effects as rupturing and overturning of tanks, rupturing of containment dikes and other accidents that would have a potential for release of product. This damage would have the potential to affect the neighboring residences and would exacerbate any public safety impacts associated with damage to residential units. No mitigation measures are provided in terms of emergency procedures, mobile containment facilities or the like to mitigate any potential impacts associated with release of products during a seismic event. R. Hydrology 1 . The SEIR fails to identify the water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed gas pipeline and brine pipeline. 2. The SEIR fails to identify the water quality impacts associated with the potential rupture of the crude oil pipeline carrying the oil produced by the proposed project to the Chevron facility. While we understand that the use of an existing pipeline controlled by Chevron is proposed, the proposed project will nevertheless create additional quantities of oil shipped in the pipeline and the release of this additional oil should be addressed. 5 3 . The hydrology section does not address the water quality impacts to the groundwater aquifer: due to the release of crude oil, solvents or other toxic; material . 4 . The SEIR fails to identify the impact of disposal of filtrate material associated with the processing of injection water. C. Land Use 1 . The SEIR fails to address the impact of the proposed project on the existing CCSR's for the proposed project. D. Aesthetics, Light and Glare 1 . The SEIR does not address the flood lighting required \ during the drilling process. 2 . The SEIR only contains one rendering of the proposed project. It does not show scale nor does it have a description of perspective . Several scaled renderings from several viewpoints would be necessary to assess the visual impact. E. Air Quality 1 . The SEIR does not describe the air quality impacts associated with construction of the gas and water pipelines . 2 . The SEIR also does not address the dust-related impacts noted by area homeowners during the initial construction 6 phase. Additional measures for dust control such as use of dust control chemicals should :be discussed. 3 . Although the SEIR does analyze emissions associated with normal facility ' operation, it fails to calculate emissions associated with oil spills in the facility. Because the facility is in close proximity to residential units, the emissions, including public exposure to benzene, should be calculated for an episode where oil is spilled and contained in the containment area and then cleaned up by vacuum truck. 4 . The SEIR fails to mention the expected concentration of H 2 S within the gas extracted from the well . Since sour gas occurs within the the Huntington Beach Fields, the air quality- analysis should include modeling of the exposure of H 2 S to area residents in the event of release of toxic gas. F. Noise 1 . The SEIR, as well as the previous BIR, did not quantify the magnitude of impact of the noise associated with the drilling operation. The extent of mitigation afforded by the control measures have not been been quantified in order to determine whether impacts have been reduced to insignificance. G. Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety The construction of a major oil and gas facility in close proximity to residential areas presents special systems safety problems . The analysis in the SEIR generally takes the approach that if an event is unlikely to occur, there is 7 no impact. The general state-of-the-art analysis for oil and gas projects projects base the project impacts on conse- quences of an accident, not upon the probability of occurrence . It is likely that even an event of low probabil- ity of occurrence could occur during the life of the project. The analysis of this section is fully inadequate, lacking quantitative analysis assuming reasonable worst-case analysis and fails to provide detailed mitigation measures to mitigate or reduce the consequences of an upset or accident. Additionally, a preliminary risk management plan and apill contingency plan should be provided during review of the SEIR in order to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the programs proposed for mitigation. Deficiencies noted in this section include : 1 . The SEIR states that there will not be any impact caused by leakage of gas due to repressurization of the formation. This conclusion is based on studies indicatingfew current problems with existing wells . The P 9 proposed waterflood project would initially substantially increase pressure within the formation and may cause gas leaks at wells that currently do not leak. Additional studies are required to determine the extent of this impact and realistic mitigation measures such as resealing of wells, use of gas detectors in homes and the use of evacuation plans must be provided. 2 . The SEIR should discuss the impact of fire and/or explosion at the drill rigs in addition to those impacts associated with oil storage. 3 . The SEIR should discuss the potential for release of gas containing H2S from both the facility and from the pipeline . Hazard footprints should be calculated based 8 on the concentration of H2S as well as the volume in the pipeline or well head. 4 . The SEIR should discuss the potential for fire and explosion from natural gas at the well head or in the proposed pipeline. S. The SEIR should discuss the incremental impact of oil spills or fires in the Chevron crude oil pipeline. 6. Quantities of each hazardous chemical projected for use should be estimated. An analysis should be made of the Impact of spills of the quantities of each chemical as well as combination of chemicals on the surrounding area. - H. Traffic' 1 . The SEIR does not address the traffic impacts associated with the construction of the gas and water pipelines. 9 CONCLUSION Our review of the SEIR has pointed out several major deficiencies in the document including the omission of analysis of two major pipelines directly associated with the project as well as not providing a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, the systems safety aspects of the proposed project and several other issues have not been adequately addressed. Substantial revision of the current Draft SEIR is therefore required. Since the revised document will undoubtedly identify additional significant impacts, we believe that the revised document should be recirculated as a Draft SEIR to allow further review by both Responsible Agencies and the Public before consideration by the decision makers of the City. I 10 T-PH I LL I P'= ='STEEL 1:�?-2 -7 EST. 1915 RECEIVED (213) 435-7S71 PHILLIPS STEEL EOMPRNYICLERK Cki.CALIF. 1368 WEST ANAHEIM S7RET►NGToh ^=k LONG BEACH, CALIF. 9081NOV 14 September 26,1988 Attn. Robert F'ra:iklin, Associate Planner Huntington Beach Planning Commission Please be advised that I am against any above ground o=1 development in the city of Huntington Beach. I am also against reduction of set backs on this project. The only thing I am not against is building beautiful hones on this site. 'dank You, Daryl Phillips 0-`�� f'1u-14 ac El: -J4 T—PH I LL I PS =STEEL 1 0T=' y EST. 1915 (Z13) 435-7S71 :. P : MPS STEEL CUMPAN'Y 1368 WEST ANAREIM STREET LUNG BEACH, CALIF. 90813 ` f.'l J7D-( I'Y C(YJER SHFEY1' TELD'OPIER VL-;ItIE'TCA'I'IUi� I�1R�J3TI? TElZCOPII R NU"'l CP 2 t:� s 7-1012 •vk:FUE'?C:A'rIO�J *�'i;:�l�it.R. SPE21A-L TNc rRUC ClOIV ,` ' ttcCElYEtI ,,ITY CLERK CITY 4F (... FItltiTlNG""�i PF.rI{.CALIF. September 14, 1988 s 1919 Alsuna Lane QY "� Huntington B each, CA 92648 aLA1-NrNG COTIMIISSION AA:D COUNCIL P+TEIMERS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEAC111 CA 92648 Dear Sirs: RE: DECLARATION OF GENERAL PLAN OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS--VISTA DEL MAR TRACT In this country, every citizen has a distinctive right to fight for and defend his property rights. Enclosed you will find a copy of declaration of GENERAL PLAN OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS, VISTA DEL MAR TRACT on hots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1803; hots 1, 2, 18 and 19, Block 1804; and Lots 5 and 6, Block 2004. The Angus Oil Project drilling site includes Lots 1, 2, 18 and 19, Block 1803; Parcels 6, 79 9 and 10. Should there be any possibility that the Angus Oil Project be approved and permits issued; the following covenants and restrictions will be violated, et al Page 2-item 3: That no fence or wall shall be erected or permitted to remain between the street and the front setback line; nor shall any hedge therein be permitted to exceed the height of three (3) feet, and no fence or wall in excess of seven (7) feet in height shall be erected or maintained on any other portion of any residential building lot. Page 3-item 13: That no noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or - become any annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. Page 4-item 15: No derrick or other structure designed for use in boring,, mining, or quarrying for oil or natural gas or precious minerals, shall, ever be erected, maintained, or permitted upon any lot in said real property. Also enclosed are copies of the request for appointments and resignations of the former ARCHITECTURAL CONAITTEE and the new ARCHITECTURAL COFMITTEE dated November 30, 1987 by TUSTIN VILLAGE, INC. As you read these things, We hope you will bear in mind the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the citizens. Very truly yours, MARY M. PARRISH, TREASURER cc: John Murdock, Attorney CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH George Corry Mir Hartmann Hartmann en"t /a� Dck D d0/ 's,•' 711s I N V l L i./v,i[•, I'(C. . r• "x NUnt ingt On Beach. CA. 976196 1' 'Y)`ii 1 HR+w I� llrl•r••r f�•, rwli i^ DECU-PATIGN OF GEwf;;AL Pi 1h v" 1•i\ 44 rUVrV:KTC ;,No %ES'RICT.vMS �1 u�.4 .'i�/t'ir.-11 �r:l>afli'J RMOrr� �: �IL'�'—`if•''.r; WriEREAS, the undersignr:d 'UST;I. JILLFGE i.%C• , a Cor o p -at �Gn is the owner of the CCrtuin1real property more particularly described as f3. 1ows: 1•.�:�"•�•.�""•' ti ♦�a. 4 ••+w Y . .�' Lots 1 through 20. inclusive, in Blocs ibG3; ots 1 , 2 t3 b 19 4s• -s:.�r�tz Ix- . 9lock 1801/; and Lots t +• `+.5 and 6, Block 2�01; Vista Lcl Mar Tract as shciwn or a map recorded in book 6, Page I" of Mi sce I iancius , MAps of Orange County, California. y=; w:;"', ,•ham. }� 7T .and such 1>..ners hereinafter referred to as the "Dec laran;•,", desire to estoblish �ti .4.:..A• - x I a general plan of covenants and restrictions affecting the use and occupancy of ;'.a"•�, prcpert and earn lot or art thereof t said real y ? pursuant to a plan for Suao:vi4- �'%'•' x ing :.nd selling said real property or }.art thereof, fcr [r.a' nutuai Genzfl: of ' each and every lot of said real property or part ;yereof, and the owner and assigns •„ . Ifr"' ther-of.. ' NOW. THEREFORE, the Declarants do hereby declare and establish the pro- visions, covenants and restrictions upon and subject to which each and all or the lots and portions of lots in the above described real property shall be improved �•ia; :i•r _ sold, conveyed, used and held by the declarants and their assigns, and each and --;; ali of which are declared to be for the mutual benefit of the lots or portions o� of lots in said real property and each owner thereof and his successors and p p Y assigns, and further that each and all. or the covenants or restrictions, hereby 1.- declared shall run with the land and shall inure to and pass with solo real a ,: r` , . ! property and each and -every lot or purtion thereof, and shall apply to and bird � •. ='• �' the respective successors in interest tnereto, and ,are, and each thereof is, imposed upon said real property and each lot or portion thereof, is a mutual .•,. '. 4� t` c servitude In favor of each and every p:.s of i lrfG contained in said real pro- ? % .. a: - i _ �'ter•:..;:..-. perty as the dcxrinant tenement or tenecrsnts, which said covenants and restrictions .,.e1 are as follows: ,: -,.•,' ra,.7 nn T�...�,j•.,�t. F 1 . Thai: no building, fence or other structure shall be erected, placed or altered rn any building plot in this subdivision until the 5ui ding mans, s:eci- 21;� fications, and plot plan showing the location of such buiiJing have oeen approved l'r t S_ or 5 and harp:;cq of external aeslcn w:;n exis; InS slructu: In writing as to Cun)nrmity :n ;ne subdivision, end as to location cf cne bui :6ing •witr. resFec; to ir, :r,ra;.ty •�r.•. .F.;_' ,..f and ( finish ,ruund elevation by An ArChileCCurbl CG'r1i; tCe composed Of DGn.)ld a. �S Ayres, Jr. , Michael B. Jager, and Royer GeYouny, wnose aGdress Is as follows; <R - - ------- - _ -- •-.,..-r�_....a�.J..�......» - �._ _----�4aiisa.�:r...t.,.,......�...:2.i�•-'.,:w..��• - "—14._ - -— --`.Y:rr:�+wlr'•- . • �._; k3w� �7►fit: 20951 Broolthurst, hunt ington•beach, C•l i fornia, 92648. or oy a represontativo designated by a majority of,,,the members of said Committee: that In the event f of the death or resignation of any member of said committee, the romelelpq " members shall have the authority to approve or disapprove such design and location, or to`dlWi gnite a representative with.like authority. That in the event said committee or its designated representative faiis to approve or dis- approve such design or location within thirty days after said plans and specifi- cations have been submitted to it, or in.any event, if no suit to enjoin the •�,, t` erection of such building or buildings or making of such alterations have been commenced prior to the completion thereof, such approval shall not be required and this covenant shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. Heither �. . the members of this committee. nor its designated representative. shall be �t entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. That the powers and duties of said committee, and of its designated representa- tives shall cease on and after January 15,,2010. That thereafter the approval described in this covenant shall not be required unless, prior to said date and effective thereon, a written instrument shall be executed by the then record owners of a majority of the lots In this subdivision and duly recorded. appoint- . - - Ing a representative or representatives who shall thereafter exercise the same M powers previously exercised by said committee. 2. That no building shall be located nearer than 10 feet to the front lot line, located on any lot nearer than 5 feet to any side street line, nor �i located nearer than 3 feet to any side lot line and that no dwelling shall be t� located on any interior lot nearer than 7z feet 'to the rear lot line. 3. That no fence or wall shall be erected or permitted to remain between the street and the front setback line; nor shall any hedge therein be permitted a rt to exceed the height of three (3) feet. and no fence or wall in excess of (7i feet in height shall be erected or maintained on any other portion of any resi- dential building lot. 4. That no dwelling shall be erected or placed on any lot having an area of less than 3,294 square feet. 5. Each wall which Is built as a part of the original construction of the homes upon the properties and placed on the dividing line between the lots , r� shall constitute a party wail . and, to the extent not inconsistent with the .ti M IZ5'71K 1535 provisions of this Declaration. the general rules of law regarding party wells end liability for property damage due to negligence or willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto. 6. i;e� east of reasonable repair and maintenance of a party wall shell be shared by the Owners who nuke use of the wall in proportion to such use. 7. If a party wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty. any Owner who has used the wall may restore It, and if the other Owners thereafter make use of the wall, they shall contribute to the cost of restoration thereof In proportion to such use without prejudice. however, to the right of any such owners to call for a larger contribution from the others under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful acts or omissions. 8. ....Each Owner shall have the right to go on the proper.ty of the adjoining Amer for the limiited purpose of maintenance and repair of a party wall or an extension of a party wall. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, on Over who by his negligent or willful act causes the party wall to be exposed to the elements `shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements. 10. The right of any Owner to contribution from any other Owner under this Declaration shall be appurtenant to the land and shall pass to such Owner's successors In title. 11. In the event of any dispute arising concerning a party wall, or under .She provisions of this Declaration, each party shall choose one arbitrator. and such arbitrators shall choose one additional arbitrator. and the decision shall be by a majority of all the arbitrators. 12. That no trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage. barn or other out- building erected in the real property shall at any time be used as a residence temporarily or permanently. nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used as a residence. 13. That no noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot. nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or became any annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 14. Essementsof record are reserved for utility installation and maintenance. �w ' IR12571mi5m 15. No derrick or other structure designed for use in boring. wining or quarrying for weee*;-ol-I or natural gas or precipus minerals. shall ever be erected, maintained. or permitted upon any lot in said real property. 16. That no sign of any kind .&hall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one professional sign of not more than one square foot. one sign of not more than five square feet advertising the property for sale or_.rent, or signs of any site used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sales period. 17. That these covenants, with the exception of the covenants contained in paragraph Ij are to run with the land and shall be binding on 8111 parties claiming under thews until January 15, 2010, at which time said covenants shall automatically be extended for successive periods of ten yews, unless by a vote of a majority of the then Owners of the lots it is agreed to change the said covenants in whole or In pert. The covenants contained in said paragraph lj run with the land and shall- be perpetual. " Is. That If the.pirties hereto or any of them, or their heirs or assigns . shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein it shall be lawful for any person or persons awning any of. said.real property to prosecute • any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate such covenants and either to prevent or enjoin him or : •Chem from doing so or to recover' damages or other' dues for such violation. 19. That If any provisions of these covenants or restrictions be declared invalid or unenforceable. all other provisions. covenants and restrictions shall remain in full force and effect. 20. That no boats. trailers, house trailers. or trucks larger than one- half ton capacity shall be parked or stored in or upon the driveways of any lot In said real property, or upon the portion of any-lot which is visible from said street and roadway. No-automobile, motorcycle, trailer. boat. truck or similar vehicle shall be repaired or painted upon the portion of any lot in said real property which is visible from the streets or roadways of said real property. -4- 21. Each grantee of a lot agnses for himself. assigns or successors in interest that'"Ai wl Ij permit free access by owners of adjacent or adjoining lots to slopes .or drainage ways located on his lot-which affect sold adjacent or adjoining lots, when such access Is essential for the maintenance of per- manent stabilisation on sold slopes. or maintenance of the drainage facilities for the protection and use of property other than the lot on whlch•the slope or orainagoway is located. 22. Drainage easements for dispersal of roof water are recorded separately. A copy of sold drainage easement is attached hereto. 23. A breach of any of the cov"ants, conditions or restrictions shall Mt defeat or render Invalid the Ilea of any mortgage or deed of trust mode In good faith and 'for valbe on said lots or property or any portion thereof, but sold covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be binding upon and effective against any owner of sold land whose title is acquired by the foreclosure of any lien or mortgage thereon or sale under any dsed of trust given to "cure the payment of money. 24. •- This Declaration is made with the intent to establish a general scheme for the use. occupancy and enjoyment pf the properties and each and,every Lot and portion thereof. Declarant makes no warranties or representations, express or Implied. as to the binding effect or enforceability of all or any portion of this Decloratiorl, or as'to the compliance of any of these provisions with public icon. ordinances and regulations applicable thereto. IN WITNESS WEREOf, the undersigned owners, above referred to as beclarents. have caused this Instrument to be executed this 8th day of November ly 77 TUSTIN VILLAGE. INC. 4 Corporrtion f Donald b. Ayres. ,Ire 'resident i to•••c r\ rT%T1: OF CAI 11•41AN1% 1112571161538 4-01 NTh 1117_. ORANGE 4 Ilw . ....NOVEMBER B. 1977. Irbyr wv.dw uwda•,rw..l.a \.ys Irew. w .wJ 1." v«I Donald 8. Ay►es, ■ ►.v~ 1..ow la h► IRA � _ 1't►.rMwl a1t.I 1 _ ■ 1.«.ww 1.. "W t., 1. .4 16f ..wpwal..-w that rwwad Ow •.1h.1b Iw.lra,vwl- = 1,�...n L• wv 1.. Ir 16► ►r.r.w wh.. ♦•..r1n{ 1M wphm - l..•1...nrw1 •,. 1r1.01 -1 11w ...rp..•U-•w O."'w V-m,.l. m4 - •.►,..w M.lc••l 1..w.w 01.00 ....A....►.a•h.ar .I-wt.,l 1h. t .,.-........01 Iwn.n•n1 1.. W. 1..I•a, .w • r.r.lrlv+r .•1 .1, (..•nl 1 •1.,.....,. TUSTIN VILLAGE,INC• •1!\►•� my hart aAd J SETT Air 1.......«1..•w l• .., f L� AUST•F :-><::.,:.,. �nres .tM�..w.r�r..1.Mw�N :1• „.. 1,�s • '►-ram- ►'; A ,_ — 'CONCERNED OTIZENS FOR HU&INGTON BEACH Bovember 18,1967 1919 Alsuna Lane F.untington Beach, CA 92646 -.. Tustin Village, Incorporated 200,51 Brookhurst Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - RE: Vista Del Mar Tract- Dear Sirs: Lots 1 through 20, Block 1803 iet al Our Attorney, John B. Murdock has advised us that the Architectural Committee, nan-mly, Donald B. Ayres, Jr, Michael B. Jager, and Boger I)EYoung are now in force on the Declaration of General Plan of Covenants and Restrictions on the above lots of the Vista Del Mar Tract and will resigne This information is " ehown on a map recorded in Book 4, ?age 13 of Miscellaneous Maps of. Orange • County, California. We are engaged in a law suit to protect our rights under the Covenants and Restrictions on the Vista Del Liar Tract. Please have recorded the following three names of owners as being the newly created Architectural Committee for the above named tract: (1 ) GEORGE COFRY, Block 1803, lot t , r aRtC L s• 1801 Caliaornia Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (2) MARK R- Rq- :A2"Block 1803t Lot S , F4 Rc-& 7 1809 California Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 -- _ . (3) DIRCY FArL'I';lA??;, Block 1803, Lot 16, PAS:cc-L 181 Eartington Street, Euntir4t6p,Bbaah, CA 926+48 Thank you very muci; for your help on this matter. Very truly yours, Mary . Parrish Treasure Tel: 960-1673 Concerned Citizens for E. B. POST OFFICE BOX 5000, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92615 TUSTIN VILLAGE, INC. , 20981 BROOKHURST STREET MAIUNO ADDRESS HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA POST OFFICE BOX A (714) 062.0603 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92648 November 30, 1987 The undersigned officers hereby resign from the Architectural Committee for Vista Del Mar Tract in Huntington Beach. Donald B. Ayres, Jr. /'Rogpf DeYoung Michael B. gargO The resigning officers do hereby appoint as their successors the following named individuals: o Corry Mark Hartmann Dirci artm�nn AYRES SINCE 190E . 1 GUARANTEE ` Liability $100.00 Order No. Fee $ 75.00 Your Ref. 500' Variance FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES City of Huntington Beach herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. Dated: September 19, 1988 FIRST AMERICAN ,TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY -44 ` l James F. Gominsky .�� Assistant Vice President Director of Special Services First American Title Insurance Co. 114 E. Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 714/558-3211 1 l� SCHEDULE A PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE 1. That, according to the last equalized "Assessment Roll" in the Office of the Orange County Tax Assessor - a. The persons listed as "Asses' ed Owner" are shown on the assessment roll as owning real property within 500 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as Assessor's Parcel Number 25- 083-XX, 25-086-XX: b. The Assessor's Parcel Number and any addresses shown on the assessment roll are attached hereto. 2. That, according to the Company's property records, (but without examination of those Company records maintained or indexed by name) , there have been no documents recorded subsequent to April, 1988 purporting to transfer title to any of the properties listed. -100"NEW "Vw� "Wow- AM Concerned Citizens for Huntington LABELS COMPLETED PLETED Beach .=99 LABELS PRINTED 1919 Al suna Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CHURCH EVANGELICAL FREE WYCL I FFE BIBLE TRANSLATOR L I U -J AME:S YA—K i 1912 FLORIDA ST 19891 BEACH BLVD 9541 BAY MEADOW DR HUN T I NGTON BCH, CA 9264 HUNT I NG& BCH, CA 92648 HUNT I NGTON BCH, CA 92646 BENTLER NINA M BRYANT CLIFFOR❑ E CHURCH EVANGELICAL FREE 908 PECAN AVE :20361 KELV I NGRi EVE LN 1912 FLORIDA ST HUNT I NGTON BCH, CA 92648 Ht ANT I NG& DCH, CA 92646 HUNT I NGTON 8CH, CA 92648 02520041 02520050 02520051 CHURCH EVANGELICAL FREE BEST CALIFORNIA GAS LTD EC►SNO Lt SE N' TUNE INC 1912 FLORIDA S 10000 LAKEWOOD BLVD P 0 BOX 2470 HUNT I NG•T�iN BCH, CA 9264:3 DO'WNE'r, CA 90240 NEWPORT ECH, CA 92660 .J NE'S DONALD P BUTCHER PAS L i i 'STERN MARTIN •JR TR 17931 31 BEACH BLVD SUITE M _61 LA POSADA DR 9348 SANTA MONICA BLVD HUNT I NGTON BC:H, CA 92647 OAKDALE, CA 95361 BEVERLY HILL'S, CA 90210 FLORIDA APARTMENTS LTD WYCL I FFE BIBLE TRANSLATOR BALLANTYNE ROBER T 8 TR 20151 = NEW BR I TTA I N LN 19891 BEACH BLVD P 0 BOX 49951 HUN T I NG T ON BCH- CA 92646 HUNT I NGTN BC H, CA _=264:_ Li S Air#GELE:S, CA 90049 RUBENS TE I N H'_f44'ARD CA I I LL1_ J0SEPH T ARZAI IA, CA 913 _, HUN T I NG T ON BCH, CA 92646 LABELS COMPLETED **.i., i' 17 LABELS PRINTED SNOWDON ROWLAND C 2203 HUNTINGTON INC GIPE BIK 14NP411 3 16-6 : EUOIA ST 9 -' TIGT BCH, R C UTINAILTOA 7 - 9 MN #343 FOUNTAN VALLEY, CA 270:: HUNONDA 92S49 HNGTON CH, VCA 92646 02502111 02b021 021021 1:-"� SEDRAK FAWZY PETRELIS PETER GEORGE OH 4105 WOODCASTLE CT 17401 3EPSEN CIR 0614 EAST MAR VISTA ARLINGTON, TX 76106 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 WHITTIER, CA 90605 02502114 0250211S 02502116 Ili CHOI-31N SOO C G H ASSOCIATES `I6 LTD GREER EDWARD B 11 ' ES14 EAST MAR VI STA 2972 COLERIDGE DR 219 VENICE AVE #2 FITTIER, CA 90605 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 9072C) HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92643 02SO2117 0250211S 02602113 r,-LATZER BILL jELINOWICZ MILTON A HUFFMAN AINIITA". 21202 BINGHAMPTON CIR 3911 SUNFLOWER 8251 MANIFESTO CIR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 SEAL BCH, CA 90740 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 02602120 02802121 02502206 WONG GONG MING SNOWDON ROWLAND C FARMERS 1 2013 HUNTINGTON ST 16672 SEQUOIA ST 135 E 3RD ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92603 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 LONG BCH, CA L 90S62 02502211 02602212 02502218 1111SORN jAY CARNEVALE jOSEPH P IDALE T M3 UTICA AVE 203 UTICA AVE 17709 SANTA CRISTOBAL HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 02502219 02602220 02SO2222 LOZAOA ANTOND-) FR BETTS jOHN THOMAS LEBOW DONNA 210 VENICE AVE UNIT 1 8112 SE 79TH ST 20081 BEAUMONT CIR I U IT NTINGTON BCH, CA 92648, I'SLAiND . i-.1A 98040, HUNTING TN BCH, CA 926406 0250222-3 02502224 02502200'. LEBOW DONNA LEINIHARD I !LLIi-*)'1f---; L 20051 BEAUMONT CIR 6031 VIA ANGELINA DR 2676 ORANGE AVE HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92S46 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92647 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90806 -F-- nornqn04 WILLIAMS CYNTHIA D PUTTNER WERNER TR BE RN LEON. RD L 2676 OYANGE AVE 6672 GATE HILL CIR 7812 LIBERTY SIGNAL HILL, CA 90806 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S48; 2!*.,-,17 02502311 02502312 02502313 l.UKSA NANCY PK C H G P! ASSOCIATES:' H C G ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 26464 2972 COLERIDGE DR 2972 COLERIDGE DR SANTA ANA, CA 92799 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 (-'720 02502314 0250231S 02SO2316 JOHNSON CHRIS A LIN THSAI-TEN C-1-ii-ANG P 0 BOX 983 6S21 SCENIC BAY LN 880 BOLIN CIR 111RANGE, CA 92666 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92643 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 02502317 02502319 02502321 BET TS JOHN T ARTHUR J COOK 8112 SE 79TH ST 2117 ALABAMA ST #1 8165 DARTMOORE DR MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92603 BCH, CA 92646 02S0240G. 02603101 02SC310*---. HUNTINGTON BEACH CFJ DONALD -111ILTON HARRIS GERALD J P 0 BOX 761111 45 COLONIAL 265 E B ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA IRVINE, CA 92720 COLTON, CA e2324 02SO3104 02601107 02B03106 1 NYDER 1 RO G _Ti FARMERS '-& MERCHANTS TR"UST E 1 S PRODUCTION CORP 9861 OCEANBERT BLUFF CIR 135 E 3RD ST 4912 VENICE BLVD HUNTING TON BCH, CA 92643, LONG BCH, CA L 90802 LOS ANGELES, CA 90019 02603110 02603112 0250511S JELL ROBERT C: COT TA LAITH FOUAD BRADY EDWARD 9074 MALLARD AVE 3271 DEVON CIR 219 TOR ONTO AVE APT A FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92603 02503114 02603206 02503207 RAMIL ARTEMID R OLSON JUD IT.,-i DANKNER GERALD S 22301 HARWICH LN 45, CANYON !':-:;LAN,-') DR 707 11TH ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S46 NEWPORT BCH, CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HATT A LAUER 0 W jUSTICE ail RIAN BARRY TR LEONARD JENN"IFER 0-1, 11762 ATH ST 10606 C HI NOOK 2022 W 240TH ST GARDEN GROVE. CA 92640 FOUNT AI N VALLEY, CA 9270;*:-. LOMITA, CA 90713 0250321.---: 02503214 02503216 TRECHTER OLIVER E LAUSTANLEY YING—TAV.*. SUTKO MICHAEL 201 SPRINGFIELD AVE 9581 SMOKEY CIS P 0 BOX 5922S HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 NORWALK, CA 90GS0. 02503217 02503213 02503317 -IHN W C. UN'WE BB -ji WU SU-:-*AN -SU H! YOSHISATU MINORI�--'- TR 506 18TH ST 5011 SHARON DR 9801 HOT SPRINGS DR �_t�TINGTON BCH, CA 92643 LA HABRA, CA 9062:.-:-; HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 02503318 02503320 02503321 CHIU CCU SHIN MC ENTYRE MARY R CARL 9101 SANTIAGO OR 9362 COMSTOCK DR 1862 PAROS CIR HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92S46 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 02503322 0250332:? 02SO3324 CONNER BEVERLY BRADSHAW LOVELAND HOWARD VA VERKA DONALD 13934 BORA BORA 210 CITY BLVD WEST #312 25709 ALTA DR MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 ORANGE, CA 9260-3 VALENCIA, CA 91355 02503325 02503326 0250332S NN DANIEL WEEMOON TR LOPEZ ANTONI O J YUNKER VIOR113N TO DOLLEY B -1! .'52 AYONNE DR 6881 VIA CORONA DR S 100 E AN ANTONIO DR HUNTNG CH C94 HU O C 97 J--- -3 ilOB , A 26 H, CA 264 L-N3 ! 02503329 02503332 LOPEZ FRANK HERRMANN PERCY LI ALLEN 9156 MC ELWEE RIVER CIF' 6609 E CALLE DEL NOR''-_ 16574 SPRUCE ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 ANAHEIM, CA 92007 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, C6 9270:3 02503333 02503402 02SO3405 C 11,0 ONG NIMIA P AN,,3'US-' -- P i P GERGEN COMPANY INC 14326 SUFFOLK ST 6772 BOLSA AVE #210, 326 N NEWPORT BLVD WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 NEWPORT BCH, CA 9266:3 Y 1 tiA-`=E f i R N i' t_'Ftl 'CK L;—ii'•:t:Y LEE HNG?S PETROLEUM CORP 2020 HILLM v L.IFi 201 — ADr;MS AVE _ .`t_ BOL=^ AVE 4210 ORANGE, CA 92S67 HUNTINGTON60 H_{# 'i GT a B_rrt, :a 92649 025034y4 02503426 ti—_.Wit:.42f L.}i i �'!I{`{l_7_`:'{ ;+F�j L I U } ! ! EN H�L !a i��11_�`S tV14Ri Z 14 C 20332 ARL-r{t�'••'1r . 17 RHO DE ISLAND t ,{{ -r ,n + O , _!- i. __ i' i_! .i�+^+`. i F`,I _ .__ 1._,:— '!`._.' ...•1 i': 10111 L•F?H i LE t L!�! { NT.NG;}:} < A 92646 COSTA t - C}l� } TO ,C i C 92646 i•_� , I 1 I.1•.., :iF; t+�_i" _ _. _ _ . �i MESA,1� _ii _ __ _ t�i 1�!T!�V 3 i I� t+•:t+, L•f-i 02503428 02503429 0250 .''iy3t. 1 LA ___, —.-..`s`Z + AVE 1147 r .ROADWAY 44 6901 i VISTA DEL SOL OR FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 0 LEN•''!-1__E, CA 91205 !'AUNT I r'G f N B :i j , CA 92647 02503431 02503432 02503433 _. . - iINGT N i'_H , •H 92646 LA :'•t• '_.MA, _•,A 9062_ HUNTINGTON t+L. Cr 92646 —. 6 20.9 E I•-iD.A.M S AVE 206 I c.. 17709 tea{•-:t.,t!`-A L }.--i OBA tiUi';T,.i`iwT}!: BC.BCH, CA 92643 rji_tFs { {F•iG _"-•i ._ _•`7 . _. . 926073 FOUNTAIN '3`AL"...t+, •t—+: 92708 • 02603607 02550360; 02503509 - --- _ I i_t'{"-'.�__EFR t: ';''�L'`:';•' L i.','i=N DAV I D Hl+�:.ER_BEN PETER R � [-.y[(-O }-'!i Si--`•i' ;O RD 2009 AL_AB .: in _ i ai 1 E GRAND BL Y D PACIFIC PALISADES,=ADE CA 902. , 'i}`F { IIFS -t , BCHy L: - L-it= CORONA, CA 91720 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA _ .:r'_'s;= iyt_'.:'L'O=T BC , {_, . _l__+=+_: HUN I{°ivlON Bs_:H, CA 92648 . _ BOX 2706 1909 ':L_.^.`:_°. .. A -` I - '"'__ BELLEPI e}'S! AVE �• } HILLS -. :»•-.-:- •.NL—, r. :;�-'i•-;-+ i-ii {:i i T+, � e .H — :..y' <LY:'::�: ?,I :�; ��. �-T i'+ :.y•-5=-,i': ROLLING HIL�S I,:.:.iTj._iL�'+�[_#:.-0, ��.2 4 ii'::Vi ii`l•.1it��'� ..0 ,1 .., .:+�'�=,• 3 n+...•.: iMIs`�•� iER} :.A �,�.1=+±,;3 KAZANJIAN KRIKOR TR CARAISCO jOANNE HUNNER SHERREN L 4443 E PEPPER CREEK WAY 106 E SPRINGFIELD AVE 1821 ALABAMA ST ANAHEA CA 92007 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92643 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264:3 02503603 02503607 02503610 JENNINGS JOSH DARRELL STOCKER FRANCIS W TR SOON 1 C1-111-l'-1 10661 KEDGE AVEPE 10241 CAMDEN CIR 4517 CANDLEBERRY GARDEN GROVE, CA 9264:3 VILLA PARK, CA 92S67 SEAL BCH, CA 90740 02503611 0260361S 02503617 BLAKELY JAMES F SC2865HREIBER RONAD W S LALEM FATHI P 0 BOX 984 2 LAKE FOREST DR 42S 961 SANDLEWOOD AVE 'lip MIRADA, CA 90638 EL CA 92630 LA HABRA, CA 130631 02503618 0250360 02503620 FOLARON ANTHONY A KOTSCH NATALIE A ZEHNDER LOWELL D 17301 LIDO Lid 218 .?Tbl ST 206 15TH S1- HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S47 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 926433 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9260-3' 1111* C LABELS OMPLETED 108 LABELS PRINTED 02507101 02507102 02807103 LIN CHING—HO WATANABE STEVEN F BAMBECK ROBERT .-T 2500 MAHANTONGO ST POS 7901 9O67N1 ALAI N ESAPERANZA CAA VE9 1311 E B6A-LCBO A CAB L-V2D 6TVILLE, PA 1 U LEY . 361 02507104 0250710S 02507106 KAZANJIAN KRIKOR TR BELLE APARTMENTS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4443 E PEPPER CREEK WAY 13486 WASHINGTON BLVD P 0 BOX 190 ANAHEIM, CA 92SO7 MARINA OEL REY, CA 90291 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 02SO7107 ciTy OF HUNTI NGTON BEACH DELAWARE TWO ELLIOTT WILLIS M P 0 BAX1190 15272 BOLSA CHICA RED 19411 WORCHESTER LN HUNTIN -TN BCH, CA 92603- HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92646 02507113 02507114 02S0711S ELLIOTT WILLIS MELVIN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC-1 BAZIL ROBERT D Tl:-,' 19411 WORCHESTER LN P 0 BOX 190 1010 PARK S-l'' HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264-':-3 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648- 02507120 02507121 02SO0122 FOSS JAMES D SMITH JUDITH A RANN ROBERT 2417 WHITESANDS DR 2411 WHITE SANDS OR 8700 WARNER AVE 11ONTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCC, CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 02607123 02507124 02507126 FUJIMOTO GILBERT T BETTS JOHN T SIMPSON JAMES G 3898 HUMBOLDT DR 8112 SE 79TH ST 719 GOLDFINCH WAY HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 MERCER ISLAND, WA 90040 ,DNA HEIM, CA 92007 02507127 02507129 02507130 SIMPSON JAMES G CAMANYAG RODOLFO i Ti OLSON JUDITip -'D DR. 719 GOLDFINCH WAY 6071 jUDWICK CIR 4E'. CANYON !SLAN ANAHEIM, CA 92007 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 NEWPORT BCH, CA 9266''D, 02507131 0250713S 02507136 1111- TH HELEPN ALBRIGHT DAVID ELSNER ROBERT H 1 -B CALIFORNIA ST 16704 CATAMARAN AVE 0310 CORSA 1 R WAY HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 CERRITOS, CA 90701 SEAL BCH, CA 9074(:*j 02507137 02507138 0250713D STEPHENS FRED N jR NUSSBAUM ELIE2ER MGMYLER jOSEP11-11 8922 BLACKHEATH CIR 17032 LOWELL CIR 17332 GURNEY LN WESTMINSTER, CA 92603 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92645 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 02507140 tie SO7147 02507148 CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH CRAIG BARBARA DIXSON ELSNER ROBERT 'Hill. p 0 BOX 190 2 SIRIUS 210 CORSAIR WAY HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92643 IRVINE, CA 92715 SEAL BCH, CA 90740 QE n" r.--. - -- - - -- ---.I -- - u1xwvf4Lov V HiARNION LUCILLE PERLMUTTER DAN M DEERING LINDA ANN SSS2 HIMILTON AVE 36 MISSION BAY OR 9582 HAMILTON AVE' A 9 CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 .RCiNi2t CDE-1- 'Lli2l. . C.-. 2 6 2 HUNrINGTON BCH, 02508106 02508109 0260811 C.--. HSE! PAUL KAO-CHIEN MARTELL EDWARD 6 WILLIAMS BOBBIE G TR 20491 GRAYSTONE LN 2010 CALIFORNIA S-11' 2676 ORANGE AVE HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON SCH, CA 9264.8 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90806 02508113 02508114 0250811 MC GRAW RAYMOND E BICKLEY STUART D CREIGHTON DENNIS II351 WEYMOUTH LN 2007 DELAWARE ST 2009 DELAWARE ST NTINGTN BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02500116 02SO8117 02508118 KEOUGH JAMES HELEIl-41 Rj--ilHR'!G TR 2011 DELAWARE ST 2001 DELAWARE ST SAMP*:-:;011T--ql LN HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264;:-:..' HUNTINGTON BCH, CA H jai TINGTON BCH, CA 92647 02500119 02%820--� 02508206 ROHRIG 17 JOHN M TR GRISWOLD DON M TR ACKERMAN HAROLD W 6 2 2 SAMPSON LN 1906 CALIFORNIA S-l'' 1905 DELAWARE ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S47 11HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 3260ED HUNTI it_TON BCH, CA 92648 02508207 02508208 02608209 111PNEY EMMITT T KELTER KEVIN C ET AL HOWARD JOHN T 0 BOX 27 16562 GRAHAM PL 1915 DELAWARE ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 264 9 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 02SO8210 02508211 02508214 PHILLIPS GAR YL S KENDRICK CLIFFORD E YU CHARLES Y C 3622 PIRATE C I R 1917 LSE LAWARE ST 8671 TOPSIDE CIR HUNT INGTN BC , A 69 HNTIGN C 6 UTINGT 9266O 9 NTO BCA92 N ON , 02508215 02508216 02508217 BHATIA SURINDER K BOSWELL ROBERT LEE TR MC KENZIE F 16220 RANCHITA DR 6912 RID VISTA DR 1908 CALIFORNIA ST DALLAS, TX 7S243 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 [-;CH., A 2 G 41 1902 2 CALIFORNIA = . 1904 CALIFORNIA _T 5272 AL_LST3!NE Un '}tl I N GT} N i'� i' 92 ,7:= ' }` I�` G f! C C'' '=i'26 �:: f N i j '-�' (- 9 H••.iiT i•� � :! �,i, •_FF - - - i'E•:i`•�T .., f iy t•: -!; -H _ _�i•�_ ti•_t i ! C;f J t� : :H .: STEVENSAL;RED FLORA 1RA �i K I��`;'t N REVOCABLE T�i I NKL W I LL I AM A - --- HIGH TIDE D! : 752 Br:l"+!"tiFiCs•DA WAY 1901 DE nWt-tRE =T H!_N T I N17T1_ir' BCH CA 1 92646 LAGUNA B':_H, CA 92651 H NT I NG Tt N B H, CA 92648 TROYDOi AL_D - AS AN'N R I s.:HA ,D G WITHERS TIMOTHY A A M I CHE 8272 ALL STONE DR 17822 i_ BEACH B .`.`11 1916 CALIFORNIA}elf IA S i iUN T I NG T i N ,_ _. - CA 92 S'•t-`_ i 1UNT NG I i irk B H• CA 9264 7 HUNT I NG Ti IN BCH, A Ar';GU`_ PETROLEUM CORP BA T r ANGHL I t_:H G i-':i':NAZ Kl-1ZA 1.4 I AN KR I t=.OR T R 350 I ND I ANA _T 12422 VENTURA _;LVD 4443 E PEPPER CREEK K WAY GOLDEN, CO 00401 STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 ,.., `{, I M; CA 9280 H—;s 11i_;E'EN !ERR JERRY KHZAi'}j I N . .. I KOR R AMNANN KENNETH t 21400 MAGNOLIA AVE iiUr'iTlN =':__}! B'_ '. _. . 926 ,.= f'-:Ni-iHEIi1 _1 92007 . .'!t`•-i!iNvlfitti vCH; L:i=i 92646 T'IL:_,,1}; WILLIAM ._ GREEN R_t_'1"}l istD PM ;'AHLME!==iER G!L 12742 _HAS°`.. ._-. 12202 2 CANTER _ . 18142 42 LAK POI NT LN _ _ _t i'64_A ETA AN A, _, _—?S_1'_ GARDEN GROVE, CA _2 4,, ;-HUN i Ii'G if N BCH, CA '� 7 - - AVE n: :31 HEATHER 15592 _._f:L S_ _. . _ _ r --'_ LA ,Ri_SS_i.. i-1 i`•i i N G! ii J_ CA 92647 H, H-i ILA_H LORENZO YOUNG ;_1AV I D A KAj_; .j jYjHN 3463 —AN F':i•'.."AEL 16686 CEDAR C I r ti 10221 SLATER AVE 10S{H. MESA, CA SZ726 . i"OUNT. I v VLY, GO =:; 7 I8_ FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 .1 02508513 02508608 SHE R EDW I N WILLIAMS B EBB I E 6 TR AlVG S PETROLEUM CORP 6971 LAFAYET = DR 2 .6 ORANGE A�_.�� 350 INDIANA `=�T H` NT I NG t ON f"''f H CA 92647 SIGNAL I i 9t_i8 1!_ GOLDEN, � O 60401 s.1 vs :- ui HILL,� �•�". L• STUPIN DAVID . ORRY GEt R E R jR E;AFC i MANN MARK RUDOLPH 1=03 CALIFORNIA S . 1801 CALIFORNIA ST 180D CALIFORNIA ST Ht NT I NGT; N B : ,� : CA 926 HUNTINGTON BC:H. CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BC H CA 9264 Ti:_t_.:1 PAUL D WHEELER _ _7 L D F•.ELLEHER M I{:HALL I—' r,r5YC �,�•;•,IA _ _ � _ 7 =T - -—_ != L+t•'! f i_•= AVE-- 1805 �-.l- _i=i f�:5: -.1 ;:1 CALIFORNIA WILLIAMS !AN `; RTC" •N DIR'_K T 0: H'IGASHI1JKA TE 1820 HUNTINGTON _ . 1810 . ,_N IN= i _N T 1818 HiNTING! ON ST ;-•,t.N I?'#;7 t "_` 3C CIA '_i__ fj:_ HUN 1111G'-t_N B H. CA 92_-LI•;_; H(iN•r l!?•if7 ON BCH, CA 92648 i BARKER NE I L i:_ �ir_NDEL R BERT = TE`,�Ei� WAL T ON •�AMES E 1816 s4fm �,: r — it lyfrr .—:�t.! AVE ' �' f f 1�= 1 6 HUN 1 fi�,G _kid i 1;_;14 HUN j I N i N AVE i'=�31_. WALRUS LN • f tN T k' i i fN E'CH, CA 9•i649 - - - - fi i }` `.kf;" j' 'i i i =i'- '-' i _: . ._ �_—_ �1�_t'•�I1i',.s . mil; L`+•_k". �:-� _.__s;�_ `��.i`,Tiv7T_t _ S ;' 1 1:i SURINDER DE 5%1f,__ L';'`• =E R hilt E t ,iE3L-FOR - _ �s}-ij`.i`_HI A DR 1811 CALIFORNIA A AVE 1'� C[,`eL_I Ik! NIA AVElf DALLA=+, TX 75248 HUN i_'S 7 k _N BC , CA 92648 ii!_NT i'!`G 1 ON BC 1, CA 92648 NDOt, NAN•_5,` J MILLAGE STL'yE A S:=;LV . . EF'RA CESAR 1823 !in~iSHALLF_ELD L. . 1808 i8 H;_jN' 1 N I N ; i 6 B i-ii_tMDAL_L_ {i S I,_,R H v =+ 's `. HE , FR 'tAt eLME I•= 6 ER G I L !'AM S ABELARD i U 266_ CAROL AVE 18142 LAKEh-O I N i L_N 2040 W MIN RVA AV E 10AHU FALLS, I0 .0401 11,T N INGTON B H, CA 92647 r=tNAHEIM, CA 92804 ..._ n '_HAHt"fNDEH AM I i`•'. Hy TR ABRAt�:=ON WESLEY ,. GRILL •t St_i I•;T ,�f' t JEr ems+,N I'EL TR ANGi''- PETROLEUM CORP W I LE Y TERRENCE ' • _ �_Er i ELF C`Fi_ _s_ _ #Ir. C =_ i=ii': ti 1l C;IE,r T !�I { L N ...`'t_R i =�CH 1 92660 G 1L` EN, CO tip_+40 i H�_N� i{ttGT N i==CH t CA '_-�, tic'8 JESSE R ELEROING CHARLES E .i R Ei•iP H I:. Ar'AR•It•{s...NT•_ LTC 718 N OAKHURST _ FR P i_i Bi_3.. 2200' 201! = NEW BR I I A I N LN GE;i'f" '°L Y HILLS, 902.-_' GARDEN,.._°EN GROVE, L•, . 32642 `•{UN; ;NGT N B'•_H 1 CA 92646 r PO ORE i WILLIAM M ELEROING CHARLES E •)R ET rkt_WMAN C•{AR ELLA 24766 6 _i_;NSET _N = e BOX 220C; 1403 DELAWARE ST EL T i_{RO CA _2_ _'_' GARDEN GROVE, CA 92642 HUNTINGTON E+CH, CA 92648 f H' U JAr`*1i.�°_ _ SMITH WALTER J PEACE KAY M Z_ _ i 1 WEt __f Wi_li_iF: 12162 r; SE;_I Cat-N I Ti- 11461 C 1_6 T H ST #1 0? LAGUNA it ,3U=_ , _, . 92677 L _ =ii_i- i i i =_ L. , 90720. .,._ As`;.TLSI: , CA 90701 ice. :;`_3i:i9 02509310 02509311 i='E ' R>_L I S PETER TE =: G _:Lr•i••:•.-• , 3--;_i_iy D ~i i•ERL N=i Gjt 1GLAS :T 401 _i ='_;NP CIR P i_{ BOX 16 i 18351 BEACH BL riD SUITE H i t;r N i Ti N BC H, A 92647 HUN s i NGT#_'`; BCH , CA 92647 HU I { I NGTON E_=i`:H, CA 92648 MERLIN{_ CO_:G._ y:_ _ v::i 1ii=H1 CLFi•_:D,_ H SLUPE RICHARD T 18351 BEACH BLV i SUITE H 7721__ s:l LGA wL AVE 01 PORTLAND i:IR `tsN'INGT— _ _. _ _, . 26 _ Ws_._,TMiNS • t=:':• _i• 12683 HUNTlt`=tL7TOi4 BCH, Ct-} 92648 BISSISSO MAHER HOOKER PAULINE t' BEn_•;-i =I_ • •_ACiE:=+ ROGER _ 19202 =;i-ERBi_ir+NL L#� 353 r_tF'TLAtJD C: ' t, 8406 =WEETWATEF: C I R _ t'�:Ji�l I I NG i{1N Sv t, CA 12 •4r-- ii{_'!'?I L�' °.:t T{_{N 8' �1 i:lei `:-32 : 1 ;iUNT I NG T{.N E%CH; CA `:�. 646 EUROS PAMELA RIDDLE CHRISTIAN ALVAREZ ALFRED R 1616 RIYERVIEW CIR 306 17TH ST APT A 421 PORTL AND CIR HUNTI ilia TON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 02509409 02509410 02509411 RICHARDS LARRY W MONTGOMERY ARNOLD L FEDERWITZ RAND ALL A C 173SI ANNA CIR 9392 NANTUCKET DR 412 PORTLAND CIR HUNT I hill TON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02509413 02509414 02SO940 DENK ROBERT A SMITH ;'tit NALD A TR O' CONNELL DONNA G 352 PORTLAND CIR 8633 —EIS PORTOLA CT 4009 CARSON ST III NTINGTN BCH, CA 92603 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 TORRANCE, CA 02509416 02509417 02509418 C113 ALFRED C KILLAM ARVID R HOLDER DON I.'. 6263 S ROUNDHILL DR 5018 SUNNINGDALE CT 105 jOEY CT WHITTIER, CA 90601 CHARLOTTE, NC 28226 GRASS VALLEY, CA 95949 02509419 02509420 02509421 DUFFY WILLIAM T FOSTER DENNIS 6 TR KLOPIEN LOIS -ED 18732 MAPLEWOOD CIR 10481 RAINBOW CIR 343 OS!WE GO AVE HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92646 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 FvJN"TINGTF-;,N SCH, CA 92S4..--• 02509422 0250942*:-: 02505424 0 SAVAT DHONGCHAI 5 GEERS CHARLES !3- Hill,! !-::. NORM AN GLENN 1 LANDFALL OR 1009 13TH ST 8242 FO RELL E DR _ HUNTINGTNCH B , C UN A 92S46 HTINGT ON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, WH 0250942S 02509426 02509427 WEAVER DONALD M THOMAS ADLY H HERMANSEN CHARLES TR 3638 COUNTRY CLUB DR 8282 MICHAEL OR 4952 WARNER C318 LONG BCH, CA 90807 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 02509434 0260950----1! 02609504 VILLA ST CROIX HOMEOWNERS lk*HAI FgHi")IIll. TUAll'i 911 STUDEBAKER RD STE 280 9413 HONEYSUCKLE AVE 740 WAYNE LONG BCH, CA 90815 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 9270.'-:,' CORRY, PA 16407 MANNING WILLIAM D GREEN BERT H D-0AI.N., LAWRENCE IF, T 601-Z PgINT LOMA DR 18822 CAPENSE S11' 27495 VIA VALOR HUNTINUTN BCH, C14 92647. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 9170;:-: CAPISTRANO BCH, CA 92624 02509610 02509511 02503512 KIM ALBERT W LEE CHIEN-DA S CHINN DANIEL WEEMON TR 15604 NEWHAMPTON ST 10 SUNRISE 3652 BAYONNE DR HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 9174S IRVINE, CA 9271S HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648, LABELS COMPLETED 156 LABELS PRINTED 02512101 02512102 0 2 6 12 10 FIZETA NADY BOULES LEE jACK 2706-162 MC KASSON RICHARD K 620 YORKTOWN AVE P 0 BOX 2283 LA LINDA CT HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 NEWPORT BCH, CA 92650 02512104 02512105 02512106 1 RGRAVE CHARLES R ZAKARIAN CROSSY C-i DONAS MARIkill 1?132 ERWIN LN 13211 CHERRY ST 7621 ALBERTA DR HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 920541 WESTMINSTER, CA 92603 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02512107 02512108 02512109 CHANG KANG J HANSEN RICHARD D HARMON LUCILLE P 0 BOX 34724 2283 LA LINDA CT 9582 HAMILTON AVE #34*.--! LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 NEWPOR-1 BCH, C14 9260-D, 11HUNTINGTOIN' F3K---'f-4j CA -:32646 02512110 02512111 02512112 BURKE HUGH D Q NABAHANI OMAR KIRKLAND ROBERT L 15701 SUNFLOWER LN 19 WARMSPRING 2217 FLORIDA ST #A HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 IRVINE, CA 92714 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 02512113 14 walk.r...E.'TROM THOMAS L YOMTOUBIAN NERIA HERI-4i I.NiDE—Z' MIGUELL 20S , 5 , D HS RP 6 T 522 2205 FLORIA CA 192HUNOTN 9264 UNINGTON BC INGT 6C 648 02512116 02512118 025121 !'—D LITTLE jOHNNY L MOORE RICHARD L SHEN PETER LI 00 K MING 500ELN 40 9092 MEDITERRANEAN OR 15671 SUNBURST LN WEST GERMANY HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 02512122 02512123 02512124 MACAYAN FLORENTINO F LE LAC VAN ROMBERG GARLAND F R761 CRECENT DR 9224 BUTTERCUP AVE 1854 PORT MANLEIGH PL 111UNTINGTON `CH, CA 92646 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 NEWPORT BCH, CA 92660 02512125 02512126 02512127 KING BERNARD LEE KAHN T MACLACHLAN DAVID CO Tifq." 8771 SAILPORT DR 2810 WAL LING FORD RD 10161 BROADVIEW PL HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 SAN MARINO, CA SANTA ANA, CA 92705 02512128 02612129 02512102 MACLACHLAN DAVID 0 TR MAC LACHLAN DAVID 13 ET A DE PROSPERIS PETER M jR 10161 BROAD VIEW PL 10161 BROADVIEW PL 20151 S NEW BRITAIN LN SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 02512133 02512134 02512136 VAN YUNG HSIN RONALD C FH !S0lN HOPE P 0 BOX 6094 16372 DUCHESS LN 205 UTICA AVE HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON _CH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 02512137 02512144. 02512145 ZEHNDER LOWELL D MAGANA ANGELA H MAHAFFEY DOROTHY A 206 15TH ST BX 135 2316 DELAWARE ST HUNTINGTON tit_H, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH... CA 02512146 02612147 02512148 MAHAFFEY PATRICK KERRY MAHAFFEY DANIEL M SCHULZ GEORGE 2316 DELAWARE 2820 COLLINGWOOD 4376 W 134TH ST APT A HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S48 RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 HAWTHORNE, CA 922SO 02511149 0 2 S 12 Hf LL ' I I RD HARLES TR SFASHEARS EARL L --- FR.ICHAR ; A HERNANSEN Ct 21652 PANAKAI LN 1200 QUAIL ST #280 4982 WARNER AVE SUITE 318 HUN`T'IjGTON BCH, CA 92646 NEWPORT BCH, CA 92660 HUNTING? -. ' BCH, CA 92649 02512152 025121 S*--: 025121 SE- -- DEERING TEUNIS J PH AM CAO VAN 505 UTICA STREET INC RETI+ 9682 HAMILTON AVE 434-3 17692 BEACH BLVD STE 303 114 EL PORTAL. HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 PISMO BCH, CA 93449 02512156 025121S7 02512158 COOK HOLMAN D VAN STANLEY TSAI-HWUA HERMANSEN CHARLES TR 8165 DARTMOOR DR 11319 E RIDGEGATE DR 4952 WARNER AVE SUITE 318 III UNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 WHITTIER, CA 90601 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 02512169 0251312*--': 02513124 HERMANSEN CHARLES TR EATON PAMELA KIRK MARY lll---"�AY 4952 WARNER AVE SUITE 318 602 UTICA AVE 604 UTICA AVE HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 52649 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 0251312S 02513126 02513127 TOMITA SHINJI GUIZMAN NELSON AR,,iANI-'ji---,, CRAFT JAMES 614 UTICA AVE 24952 VIA DEL RIO 618 UTICA AVE • HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 EL TORO, CA 92630 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513128 02513123 0013131 1 RAFT JAMES L HARRIS NORMA L :3ALEH !:-.-ABRY A 118 UTICA AVE 1215 BRENTWOOD WAY 7101 SLATER AVE HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HEMET, CA 9234:3 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 02513132 0251313*----' 02513134 BISHOP EC,IL E HUNTER JAC(-I�:UE-S T MASTERS JAMES A ET AL 15692 SUNFLOWER LN 1915 FLORIDA ST 19861 OCEAN BLUFF CIR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 1--fUl'T71-INGTON 1-13--i-'ri., CA *•32648 02513135 02513136 02513138 BESSHO MASAYOSHI CRAFT JAMES L PEKALA EDWARD P-1 1911 FLORIDA ST 16292 SERENADE LN 1905 FLORIDA ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 9260-3. HiGHTOWER FLORENCE PATRI UE11R."'I" --TUNHIN' C LINNEMAN MICHELLE 2116QCUPAR LN 1901 FLORIDA ST 1829 FLORIDA S-ri' HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513142 0251310-'; 02513144 FOWLER HOOPER L ESTRADA ROBERT MARTIN SHARSHAN GEORGE M 1827 FLORIDA ST 1819 FLORIDA ST 1817 FLORIDA ST HUNTINGTON BC , CA 9264::-:; HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264.-: Hs_NTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513145 02513146 02513147 GIORGETTI JOHN P A STACY CESARE VINCENT F MUELLER BRUCE: LL 1818 ALSUNA LN 1e-D20 ALSUlt-41A LN 4160 VIEW PARK DR UG C TING BCHA6 : NA 9606l O , UN , C 924 O D C 02513148 02S13149 02512150 MC VEY JOANNE L STRICKLIN DOROTHY M MARTIN STEVE 1626 ALSUNA LN 1828 ALSUNA LhN LIP HUNT IIINGTON BCH, CA 9264.8- HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 BCH, CA. 02513151 02513IS2 025131 ZITKO K DEAN HENDERSON BRIAN 0 BRANDT MARK DONALD 16332 MAGELLAN LN 4733 SPENCER ST AL--':';f.JiNA LN HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 TORRANCE, CA HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02SISIS4 02513155 02513156 1 HANG FRANK K SIMMONS DANIEL P.*.' WEE 11 DOUGLAS G Es 908 ALSUNA LN 20871 COLIMA LN ' *---;'12 ALS'UNA LN HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513157 02513158 02513153 RABOLD DIANE A BRAULT CA Ti'ERINE 1- OSWALT STANLEY G 1914 ALSUNA LN 1916 ALSUNA LN 1318 ALSUNA LN HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513160 02513161 02513162 DRESONER ALLAN B NEWMA N MAUREEN M - LAMMERS WILLIAM T 1920 AL._,! LN 1922 ALSUNA LN 19081 FLAGSHIP CIR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA HUNTINGTON BCH, CA HUNT I-NIG TON BCH, CA 92640 k02-513163 02513164 02513165 HRZELR16G ALAN C BURNS JEFFREY R MORiOSEPH MICHAEL R ET A 21141 MIRAMAR LN 610 E UTICA AVE 1823 FLORIDA ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S46 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGT{phi BCH, CA 92648 02513166 02513231 02513232 CISSELL CARL M TR ET AL DEMPSEY DANNY i TR ROWDEN MARGIE A 1826 FLORIDA ST 1720 ALSUNA LN 1724 AL SUNA LN HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92643' HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 9264;:-:! HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 0251323.,--.: 02513234 02513235 IIIALL KRISTINE ANN ABRAMSON RICHARD L JACK DONALD T 1802 AL St LN 133 E 21ST ST 1806 ALSUNA LN HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92S48 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 HUNT INGTN BCH, CA 92648 02513236 02513237 026132'"3*8 BOYCE FLORENCE M MEGENS DAVID E HECK WILLIAM M 1808 ALSUNA LN 1810 ALSUNA LIN 1812 ALSUNA LN HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 HUNTING TON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92603 02513239 02513240 02513241 PIERCE M WENDELL LIN MICHAEL LASSLEY ELLEN 1811 FLORIDA Sil 1809 FLORIDA ST 1807 FLORIDA ST HU T NTINGO C N BCH, A 926 :4-'-:: HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92640 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 1112513242 02513203 02513244 CARDINAS RENE jAC-,:.. LAMBERT H B LOVELACE V I R G I L A 1805 FLORIDA ST 8052 CATHERINE AVE 1801 FLORIDA ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92=3 STANTON, CA 90600 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02SI3245 02513246 02513247 CRABTREE DOUGLAS FRED MUSHEN XMES: GHOBRIAL_ MOHSEN A 1723 FLORIDA ST 1719 FLORIDA ST 619 ARIANA CIR H UNTINGTON BCH, CA 92603 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513248 0251324S 02513250 FASSNACHT PETER J TjOMSLAND IRVING MOHAMED OTHMAPN 617 ARIANA 615 ARIANA CIR 613 ARIANA CIR WHNTTNQTnN Pt . CA 92EA;-:. HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264;--: HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92648 025132SI 02513262 02S!3253 HURD KATHLEEN SEELY MICHAEL K GERMAIN ARTHUR L 611 ARIANA CIR 609 ARIANA CIR 519 ARIANA CIR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513254 02SIS215 02613256 SILMAN GARY T YUAN ENCHUAIN LINNEMANN MARY i 0512 P MO D R`ALE 15101 E KUORY DR 513 ARIANA CIR HUNTINGTON BC , CA 92646 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91746 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513257 02513258 02513269 111WRIAL AYYAD R CRITCHFIELD E jEFFREY MO----;EMAN LYNN CAROL 8412 NORTHPORT DR 607 ARIANA CIR 2870 LEE IGH CT IN.- CH 96f:- N B ONE 920HUNT B CA 24 : HUNTINGTOCH, CA92603 CED , CA56 02513260 02613261 02513262 SQUIRES jOHN A STROH HARRY UTMAN TERI L 10412 OXSORO LN 20 DELAWARE ST 1724 DEL AWARE ST H UNTINGT ON BCH C, A 92648 17 HUNTI NGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 0251326.---': 02513264 0261326S O' HAGAN CHARLES 13 AMATO jOSEPH F BOYER PETER A 1804 DELAWARE S-111' 1804 DELAWARE 1806 DELAWARE ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9260--'; HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264--':-:.- HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 11151326E. 02513267 0251326a WEBSTER RAYMOND T KELLER CAROL SIMENSON DAVID P 1808 DELAWARE ST 1810 DELAWARE ST 1812 DELAWARE ST HUNTINGTON BC. , CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92603 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02513269 02513270 02513271 ZITKO K DEAN AUGUST FRANK ET AL SHAFER MILDRED A 16332 MAGELLAN LhN 400 PROSPECT ST 1818 DELAWARE ST HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92647 NEWPORT BCH, CA 9260-3 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92648 02513272 0251327,.-; 02513274 PSAROS GEORGE W MOSEMAN _Ti KUBOTA EDWIN J TR 3531 VENTURE DR 4 ARGENT C I R 5162 VERNER DR HHNTINGTnN DCH . CA 92601 IRVINE , CA 92714. LA PALMA, CA 9062:3, _ _. ....-._ r -.e;r, ��"fi r#' -'^.`�-.� -'�-._ S-�_-�-.- _.:-.ry w' -J+i._ .� xve-._�:r-.�_..-...�'>�+r...n=nn �� r.»�-.e- ..---.-�.+_�.e•.--ac•,-¢ai•--s+a._is:__ __-_ __ _ .__...__-- ____- __.._.__--.. ___-_..-.__. _.- -_. _..- l MAGEE EDWARD _ ,.-::'BL I N HELEN AS BURY Y IRIS 1826 AL::UNA LN 17251 TAURUS LN 1819 AL_;1,MA .LPd H•.1 !1 NC, IjN BCH, _, . 92648 HUNTINGTON BC_: i, L:t=-t 92647 HUNTINGTON B H, 1A r4<< G I LBERT = - _° 'N MC GAUGHE Y M I C:HAEL H IRIME ALAN M . 3 K I i BERLY 1017 r-•➢__S'+•_!j•.ir-"•: LN _ 1.S i;L:=i lNA LN 1813 AL SUNA LN € HUN T I i`GTi N i=';_H CA -.y.;_� `:__ UN f I NG i�N ;.B H , A 92643 �'i�N i i NG i��N BC i, CAY RICHARD kv, DRYDEN THELMA F 1'•._L_L!' •ONN H !N•T I�•G'i !N BCH, CA 92643 `7 Ui i?I G i O •{ ,`.NCH, CA 92643 4 DAf`•A POINT, {_, . 926.::9 02513284 i j:.. _ _.a._ .. 02513286 DON.ALD -j NORDSTROM GORDON L ET AL BUSH DALE _ t AL*._,-;N : L14 24331 PEACOCK•__•K S f 6581_+i MORNING TIDE Lail r ;-a' : i iNG TOI' B_H, -, • 92S48 EL T1_•`•i'`O CA 92630 HUNTING T 1 N ciCH, CA 9+ S4=_t ADAi'S TERRY L HILL G O ;CAE R & C:A T HLt:.EN CRAFT JAMES L `371 FOLKSTONE CiR. 1719 A=_SUNA LN 16292 92 SERENADE LN �HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTONa i it :71 _+d BL•H. CA 92647 i WELLS FRANK � _ Ht'}NN I LOIS _i OANNE BEN JAM I N FRANKL I N °�AV ASS RTUGAS I IRR ` CE- n -:e i- UN t. •r O BC i s 92 U �+� O ,C s-3 T_ ..:A,�:__ , �_�; _ _ _ _ _ �•_i T I :��� _��� _•:r-i, .•A _ _:�_ 'si:�iTIil�'T•_ia E= r-f, .;-, f DICKEY ;..:ALE D T AC KHOU�`=t�E KEi`;NETi� W _PE�'R I�'G +f't••I i PERT 1°_41 MANOR POINT _IR 1'9•.41 MANOR POINT CIR 510 E iljlti,A AVE H•_ s INGTN ,.f •+ ,. .:A 92603, -I:NT i aG : N D=:r(, CA 92648_ HUid7lNGij 3i, GC:H, CA 92648 i i�1NN LYNI� E WILLIS _SAME S rill MAGNER .j AMES C::,l_?:_: r `}! I! `AVEGviA .vy 50 E 1_+ i ICA AVE 502 Ui ICA AVE ' 'iUN 1 IIVQ ON , V+{ •ai t 2=48 HUN 1 INGTOill BC.H, CA 92648 HUN II`GTON EACH, CA 9264 02513 -2- 02513326 02 1:_3327 -- =TE VENS A_F i E= i : ri A 3 _ CONSOLE CLAUDIA } ' - i Z . NOBLE W1Lr;EC I'I JR Ht N i I}"GT!N BCH, _A HUN i IN j'i iN BC-I, _. . _i_ r'_; HUNT ING .ON E_CH, CA 92648 BALDW I N DA;;V I D = GLA:=SER CLYDE �1 STACK DAN I EL R 1918 � ELi—i+:;rt-!�?�_ ST 9594 NIGHTINGALE AVE _ 1914 DELAWAR ST }aUN T I NGTO BCH, CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, {: '�"2 A 708 HUNT I Nei•}t N BCH, CA 9264 I - - -' i 02513332 02513333 —_:.t1_. TERRENCE M E=fii `REi?A AL7;_ISTItV :i OM .Ti I}yi'"j _-12 i%----I-�[li•�t-R _ 1910 DELI=AWARE { _908 DELAWARE ST }, i_tN I=';'w,r'_i:, _C H CA. 92=0— H N i I NGT!N BCH, CA `_'.mot 0- HUNT i NG I i IN BCH, CA 92648 ELL I �►N HAROL.D f-i SWHARTZ I TZHf=1K MA'=SEY W I LL I A�i R JR 1909 �1E LAWARE ST 21254 1BEAC BLVD 42 1902 DELAWARE ST}s�_NI—I NGTl_IN BCH . _:A 9 _:�;.;, HUN i I t`GTi tN B H, CA 92648 HUN T I i`G T ON BCH, CA `_ �"2 48 ;~I T CHEY I I ALA F BROWN •►EANET T E L : C:HRAMM R BER T D 1901 ALSUNA LN 1903 AL_;i lN A LN 1905 AL SUNA LN HUNT i NG T ON BC:H, .:A 92603 H��N"i I NGTi=►N DC H, CA 9264.= H!,N•i I NGTi N BCH, CA 9264 8 P U} EWAL Si 1}-..':HDEV = M I FELL DORIS M •!I ANG FON TR 9126 = CONTOUR DR 1909 AL S 1NA LN 1911 AL=_UNA LN BATONROUGE, LA 70009 HUNTINGTON Bi_:}-I : _i"t 92648 }-Ii'}il'iNt=Tt{[v E,vH .A 92648 H;iRR D D R I A z BUSS N��RBERT in I LL I AM T R WAKEHAt i DOLL I E H 1913 ►�L'=MINA LN 1915 ALSUNA LN _ 1917 AL_UNA Lh }IRiN T I i3"i N ��iC'}a C_ ;i �• G i N .CH 92648 H iN :'r_ t_t C ( ':'S:::�:'I8 � _iv il�l,J : _�V : }j_t '•. I , � i _i`4 L""� - _H _i+1 l.id�� E {'•� ����H, A 1._ i A;'34iSH fib?GH f 1 O lLEY BILLY { ' YOUNG S•1NE iA C 1919 ALSt_NA LN 17382 CAS-'ER _I R 1-:-:j 2.: AL )MA LN :_,�•-::- = U ; •..;- - i {: :i ce� <_ ;pig,• NG N Spy CA 9:: 48 }•iUtVT,IiV(7{U�t i.it..�i"i, L.fi .�..+:'�1•y� HVI+: ` - •Ti.::�i U=�-�! � _ _ , r , 4 i)_-:_,1 4'_r)1 02514202 i): S14203 ==TAHL C:HR I ST!PHER C REES i7AE1+'f L WILLIS_ Di�NALD E JR _ W filyA t.t.. , _ . y•_ _ PLAZA r.E, M__ _�A 1613 R I VE.;•,J I EW C•I R LONG G E,CH, CA 90813 LAKE H:aVASU CITY, AZ 8640:= ��U dT I NGTON BCH, CA 92E48 BALLOU Ri E EC iT ? C•iA?` N Di iL!ORES L YAMASH I TA =TEVE N �i 1611 RIVER VIEW _IR 1609 RIVERVIEW C:IR 1607 F+IVERVIEW CIF'{ HUNT I NGT►=N B H, CA _260 H NT I NGT!N BC H, CA 9260 HUNT I NGTj N BCH, CA 92648 02514207 02514309 02514310 �1� �AD Y R BERT jOSEPH Y!MTO B I AN NER I A HENRICKSEN j =HN L TR ET i,. T I �y _,� t_,•'.~1 '•-1'.'i— H r I t T � '"' 2 HUT ,! T X / i t H'-•_i ! i� -�T7E;�� Lv3-!, _�_��__ •.IVT •�,� l�fl'v E=s_H, C.� _ _�i� ';s.r'., , ! ..0f !•_ GEE ``t=1UL i t •�: 0-!I !'1! ii ! •IAN N.riL t.hi:= .}t !: tN =19 !_lCE NH I LL Erg° =:17 i!s:EANH I LL OR 815 OC•EANH I LL DE HUN•E I NGTON BCH, CA _4::-: HUNT I NGTON BCH, CA 926483_:4 ;;UNT l NGTON BCH, Chi 926 E f CLOSE GU '} ;.'L - -,; D - � HER R �'_ -'ELL DAVISON _:I i;'-'.i_� R •J E 1-RE 7 BL.;��•`E i, i.:L_ =�E a•_Y L•: lit . — — —;.i=:. !� s. - - OC:E NH I Li_ OR 809 O C EA NH I LL DR 807 OCEANH I LL DR _ _ i'I<<�`�f: 1i'•;=:5 f}ACV %:••_i., CA _2_—, _ -ii_'�� i Ij�_e•_•'-! i:� ._ _•.`-t, CA .---=`F=' .�_'s�I's I,t..:i!��+I l.r'ti, CA `��i�� 1 likSI4317 02514318 02514319 - Gr=RD►``{ER STUART !a=_'I Tim PH I L I` €'i BUTLER :=�!+N M _i0 !_lL.:c�t-)�vH I L__ DR :. 01 OC:E ANH I L L DR r !_! BOX 742 H j I!'+ Ti N t=:LH i':.s �:i'8 H � E+1G i !i, .0 � —2 — .1:- }•1!!NTING!f N L�'•,H , CA 9264_; f r t•_1V i ,•ate i _ •_i : _� i.•_-i'`% i l,•..� ! `•1 i=+-_r'1• •_r� =<�,_ • 2514322 s - i P _ BOX 2413 715 !CE_ANr- I L j-_ DR 713 OCti:'NH 1 LL DR i UN I i'`•GTON BCH, _,A 92S4 H'_iN l NG i ON BCH, CA HUN I NGT;N BCH, CA 92648 ei — —'�E t, {_ , _ —=i`;i�=C LfH��I 1 � BELLOWS ROGER_ _r:._r� L_-• v - - � 1 _ : 'r_E^!�! iii"—_—_ _. . 705 OCEAN HILL —. ._ �_f_.. _�>=rif" 11�i4E L•dr`, { -i-I+.�(v 1 1(d;aTi�t� !A`r�('�� '�t1 .. .k;l :: r 'r-I•.�t`u i '11'4•_. ! i_j`; i.:�.�,�, ..•f=i .:'i;;��J. H�.'I'••i i li l7 i t l; , ;�;-lr� 02514329 02SI4330 02514331 AUSTIN DENNIS K MAR SHALL DONALD E VILLEGAS RICHARD -j 619 OCEAN HILL DR 1604 HILLCREST CIR 5831 MIDWAY HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTING ON BCH, CA 92648 HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92646 02514332 02514133 02514334 HOPKINS TIMOTHY WOMACK CARL W RANSON jOE H 1608 HILLCREST CIR 1610 HILLCREST CIR 1612 HILLCREST CIR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92e4G HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9260:3 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 0251433S 02514336 02514401 411RAIN STEVEN S & MARY 0 MURRAY jOHN R HOLMES KATHLEEN A 1614 HILL-REST 01 1616 HILLCREST CIR 502 OCEANHILL DR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264:3 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 02614402 0261440-1; 02514404 COLLINS MICHAEL H HOLMES KEITH ALFRED MADONNA SALVATORE P 0 BOX 12SE: 1701 PINE ST P 0 BOX 3659 EL TO 26 -, UNGTON BCH NTING BH, CA 905OR 0D HTIN 26 02S1440S 02514406 02514407 SORES! jOSEPH SHOTWELL PHYLLIS J SCHWARTZ ERIC R 510 OCEAN HILL DR 512 OCEANHILL DR 614 OCEANHILL OR HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92603 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 1161440c". 02514409 02514410 PICKFORD BRUCE J* KELTER RICHARD in POSTEN DAVID -j 516 OCEAN HILL DR 16566 GRAHAM ST 602 OCEANHILL DR HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 9264;:-; HUNTING TON BCH, CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 02514411 02514412 0251441.---: SCHEID LEONARD A BALENT BRUCE 11F CASTANON RICHARD G 604 OCEAN HILL DR 3725 SEBREN AVE- 17752 BEACH BLVD #325 HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92643 LONG BC H, CA 90803'" HUNT INGTON BCH, CA 92647 02514414 02514415 02514416 1! DALE jOSEPH WILKERSON 3R BALENT BRUCE F HARRI S RITit 610 OCEANHILL DR 3725 SEBREN AVE 614 OCEANHILL OR LQN43 BCH, CA 90000 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 owl. • � WRIGHT Cs;=A I D ANTHONY N Y _'! H M I SHALi_iF D 1V I D C B's=t'•-tND N DALE E 616 O L:ANH I L_L DR 11636 Mi_EN S ANA AVE4108 161 Ai`3NA LsN H4¢ -#I: =_L r•i L - n �_�,_-4;i`� (,t�V; T T L ! i ;'a `'-'10 4 L N i r N T I ' C=��_P i {A `�;_h,,1��_ :�� �i`••�i•.3 T 4� i�•_i".; •_r: - - - - -`Q i''- _=�-' • `_r. - - - L'i•_� s; .3 i _I'••i � ;'ice- CABE E=I TH M O' BRIEN W I•:_L I A I T !_Ll-a`i!O;?.(E - I C.G�"[�•�RD D k ' 1516 ,� i`,ij=A L., i=` L L BOX 6057 -,'- - 1510 ? L�iE'�A L!1 ARER _''Hi?{E T BURGESS `;'•:;=-lt?!K ;'!1 C i sAE_ WILSON e1i='7 Mi ijliD ri 'i�F.v T I¢?�G O�? B ' (; 92648 N.ti E N 't�•H j�A :-1.- - _ � _ tl•_ii� E _f•i .Y�� _ ;-!�_'�+I I I `l;E_i t_?_ ;f �_ -r_ MINDEN, •,`•�iC- =;`_i=1'�: B.l._•i'i •.,._!_'NL i OBi_R I v G_OV_N f-iU i_ PN ,?vi•f'tl?F R i..i BEi? i j AMBER t•=t.%=, AMBERr•,t'td AMBER DR516 e•ti'r_.•w.° !J`: `iU!`T INGT_'N BCH , A -�.: _ H_Ni i1`i::7i { a `---i'2- - ! ;?j•TIi?it jj`L 1= C 9 6t, , �1=:T- ii TL=Cu cis=ri, �i _ __=�_: H•_t. 1,1aT L?, ��Li7, _� .� �:__ i 2S!4t4y`� 028144130 02514431 1 WEBB STEPHENS C OL_c Y R I'•.:tiARD D B►;;_r-:: DA`J I D J • 614 AMBER DR 512 AMBER Doi 510 AMBER DR 1 ' I i- ' ?` C= r CA 92648 H'NT I NG I ON EJ'•_H- CA 9 _ HUNT I NG i►N BCC, CA 9264:= All144:32 0 2 5 14 4 3:4; 02514434 L+ti 1B ARD i CHARLE°_ LEE COONS;NS GEX B FLE ':Kt=NSTE IN _TAv'K H TR PATOS HUN T I NGTON B'•_H , CA 92603 HUN T I P•G T N BCH, CA 92648 HUNT I NGTi N BCH f CA 9264= ! 02514435 02514437 02814438 _. _BIN •.LEYr EL�i�i�R! i E=-`=i vt NA BROWN l�A C , �j-•-7 AMBER OR c 1~ AMBER R DR 5; : AMBER DR t-UN T I 'G TON BCH, CA 92648, H'_iN I NGTON B H , CA `_±,__:hi— HUNT I l+li.7 1 ON BC_H, CA 92648 0251443„ s?M,:., I4}dtdi.;! 02514441 3 ' H+L�'_:L_N THL_'•il:i°= - DiUBEL .; EPH ; G I LL I LANDi R i Y NEWTON S19 AMBER DR 605 AMBER DR 609 AMBER DR HUN T INGTON EaCH, INta�,"� -�-i. - `�.����;= .�► �'�I II�UTI�id �Cf�, CAS 92 4t •t 02514442 02514443 02814444 FA ;IN ALA i Ht�r;A -3 PEAKE JUDY LA C{ESTA RACQUET CLUB B Ht i 611 AMBER BER DR 61:= AMBER DR 1234 4_ E ±'+i�:R ANDY PL HUN T I NG T i iN BCH {`IUN T I NG i i N BCH� �_A `_a'2648 =AN A ANA, CA 92705 02 1 4445 02514446 02614447 I C:h':.I`••IE_L KURT C jOHA�a'=='=ON PER G i t�►RR I S BOBB I E :T 7i 2 OC:EANH I Lf_ DR 6882 VIA CART DNA DR 706 OCEANH I LL CAR Ht ajij';I N ::TON BCH MCA Ht N T I NGTON RC:H, CA `_2647 HUNT I NGTON BCH, CA 92648 02514448 02514449 0251445C) 0—DWELL r L!iYD G -ill =:TRi•_M `FER WAL T ER M BLEY MARY LOU P 0 BOX 1234 1509 j _r,Cr•.BAY C:I R 1507 BA :E::BriY C I R Hi fit{T I tliG #N B H +'_:A 9264; HUNT I i GTi N BC:H, CA °s 264a s UNT I NG T ON B :H, CA 9264 2514451 02514452 02 14453 DES'T OF VET: AFFAIRS OF _ �'RENDER DAN I EL =:C�tPELL I TE DENNIS JOHN 1505 BAC:KB A`, C:_'R 1503 BAC:KBAY C:I R 1501 BAC:KBAY C I R H; NT 11•G T E l�� BCH, CA 92648 Hi lNT I NG T ON BCH, CA 92648 Ht 1NT I NG T ON BC.:H, CA 92648 02514454 02614455 02514456 i _ Ks iEPP INERRIL IPM DOWNING DEAN H SHAFT R I CHARD D 1602 BACK BAY C:I ° 1504 BACK BAY C:I R _ 1506 BA_G�:BAY C:I R _ _ HUNT I NGT�_'I` DC:H, CA 9264, HUNT l i'ltaTON B H, A `"-�2648 HUN i I NG T ON E.s.:H, CA 92646 02*514457 02514458 0_i 144 S19 BAR T HEL i_HR I-=:i i`HER KERN FISHER HER D I=:I E LEE FE I N M I C-HAEL 1508 BAC:KBAY C:I R 1510 BACK BAY C:I R 714 OC:EANH I LL DR '(�`s N �fly 't C' '=2 .;i= H �,}- �•i O�� BC �_. 92 � t i 'C C '_-#26 l3_�#TI �,�T �s C: -H, -A _ _ t;•_I-. IN:�� _l. •H, 'A _ 4=; H:_NTiNGT�lv E�,.H, 1A � 48 -r 0 14460 0251446 i �=2514462 ! E-,-jM11B:ER.- ! OMA ' ' GAGN EN PETER M DICKEY MARC: 716 ;jC:EANH I LL DR 718 i aCEANH I LL DR 802 OCEAN HILL _ HUN i I NGT}N B H CA -2i•0 t'1!_N T I NAG i l N t;i:'r 1 . CA 9264 H!ANT I NG T ON C:CH CA 92648 02514463 02514464 02514467 i! ;ANDi AL .;OHN R° i P GERGEN COMPANY INC KENDR I C:�: T EVENt 1515 LAKESIDE LN __-_ N iiY_1c P_Eri i AVE 1605 LAKESIDE Ltd 4 i �,r. _ �d`�,�r !; - _ ANT NGTON rCH, CA 264 : i r.� . _, u- _. L �,i_`5 1 44 GE 02514469 WOOD DONALD EWAR D J NE:_ BROOKS 3K 1__LI_YD , ETTLER W I LL I Ai 1 E 1503 LAKESIDE LN 4866 W 13=.TH ST 05 AMBER DR HU N TON .t {-A +•7'.,_t= - HAW THORNE,;I•i�' E CA °�?}.-(o HUNTING ON BCH CA 9 648 OGA•TA MARL?°+N �' HARRIS VERN s CEPU�:i:H 14 I V I R;a I N I.A RAE 1=14 LAKESIDE LN 1612 LAKESIDE_ LN 1510 LAKESIDE LN _ i-�U:T r'�GTON ��CH, ��.•, . `�'2�+4 'r-UNT I NG i�N BCH, CA H NT I NG T�N BCH, CA 9264'= 41IRKMAN L}i_iUGLA:= HAM I LTON ==TEVEN PATR I CK R I GHE I MER jAMES M 1500 LAKESIDE A 1506 LAKESIDE LN 10101 SLATER AVE #102 riUN! I NGT!N B H, CA 92643 i UN 1 I NGT!N B!_:H, CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA `2708 - 020a.._07 0e5 14601 02614602 R I GHE I t ER -4 AMES N B 1RO'_: HENRY t i W I L 1j EN RA`!'M fit'D G ET AL .` 1 i1 1 SLATER AVE #1 2 1616 RIVER VIEW CIR P f BOX 309 t UNTA I N VALLEY, CA 92708 Ji= HUNT I NGTl N Bi_zs, CA 926 MINDEN, NV 89423 CANSECO CARL?S M G I TE PH I L I P R . DEKREEK •fir i:_.EPHE i •;�±YCE 1612 RI ER IEW CIR 1610 RI aERVIEW CIR 1606 RIVERVIEW CIR HUNT I NG•Ti iN B H, CA 92648 HU ;i I NG•TO N ,B H, A 92648 HUN•T I NG i i N BCH, CA 92648 t SENE SE DANTE M KR_TAt'C +=;ONjA =ROWELL GREGOR Y B & SHAR I 4902 =EA I SNL CIR 1604 RI J_R I EW C I R 1605 HILLCRc__+ HUNT I N T 1_N B': • CA 92649_4`_ H'•_N i 1 I`•1'•t TI_N B`:H, CA 92643 ':`UNT I NG T i=N BCH, CA SCOTT _ i !,__+_r_. =+I-�__Lt�'� Ht=;=L BLAINE :'I LLB:; .•= ANTHONY 1607 tom: IN I j. -i-i N BC-, CA 92640 , ., I i G i:N BCH,BC, CA 92-;1:_ `i!_°NT L I e(+N B H ..:A 92648 t =._=i•_ ,-=i•-K1 R tt'•i _=i:_!_ ,witj _I= PETROLEUM__t_!• CORP 1613 !i L---l-•REST Cl - Z B iL-A i f T- SUITE 210 VQ41I NG 1 1.N t}t.H{ ke'1- - - ;:. --..:.. +}-iY i ;1%6 i.+.� y. ,:}'Lra TiCe Notes Office of the City CCerk tington Beach, CaCifornia r l o - sue, vo z e Ye-/ - p S�P- /h 9z -/ . - AW,6-11�5 R RECEIVED ORIGINAL CITY el.Ftra C!Ty OF HHUNTIkt-i :F�:i,CALIF. K-1R 09 169 BEFORE THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN THE MATTER OF THE : ) PUBLIC HEARING - ) APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION' S ) APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. ) 88- 11 /USE PERMIT NO. 88-25/ ) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ) IMPACT REPORT NO. 88- 1 ) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ) NO. 86- 1 . ) SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT ) DATE AND TIME : NOVEMBER 21 , 1988 , 7:00 P.M. PLACE : HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA REPORTER: LUCIE PREECE HEARING REPORTER farrixferx- r56orh57 cermzce 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 2 APPEARANCES MAYOR JOHN ERSKINE MAYOR PRO TEM TOM MAYS COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN PETER GREEN COUNCILWOMAN RUTH FINLEY COUNCILWOMAN GRACE WINCHELL COUNCILMAN WES BANNISTER CITY ADMINISTRATOR PAUL COOK CITY ATTORNEY GAIL HUTTON FIRE CHIEF RAY PICARD ACTING DIRECTOR MIKE ADAMS SENIOR PLANNER SCOTT HESS ASSISTANT PLANNER KELLY MAIN farraferer 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z .5ervZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 �J • 3 INDEX OF SPEAKERS FROM THE PUBLIC NAME PAGE SPENCER SHELDON 16 , 108 , 125 , 131 JOHN FLYNN 20 ROGER FAIN 23 KELLY TRINKL 23 DONNA KLEIN 24 DON GRISWOLD 26 JOHN CARTER 28 MICKEY SHAFER 29 KATHY WALKER 33 KLAUS GOEDECKE 34 BOB BIDDLE 39 TOM VAN TUYL 40 MARCIA WARD 41 JOHN MURDOCK 45 JOHN WESTERMEIR 52 DENNSE DE VINES 55 PAT HOLLANDER 58 ARNOLD ALVAREZ 58 MICHAEL CRAIG 60 MARK PORTER 64 JOHN J . VAN HOUTEN 67 JEAN MELIOUS 68 WESLEY ABRAMSON 71 SUSAN COUNTS 72 EDD SCHOFIELD 75 GEORGE CORRY 77 MARK HARTMANN 80 DAVID GAUTSCHY 80 PAT DAVIS 83 DENNIS ALLEN 84 LEON FILES 86 DONALD PHIPPS 88 fa,rns.fers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r��r Zr1� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� • 4 ED MARTELL 89 JOHN ROHRIG 90 GEORGE BRAYTON 92 KEVIN G. WILLIAMS 92 PATRICIA WEST 93 JOHN MOSEMAN 94 NANCY KOOGLER 95 TODD HARTMANN 96 MARY M. PARRISH 97 LYNN MOSEMAN 99 RICHARD ABRAMSON 102 JOHN CARMICHAEL 105 ANITA YOUNG 108 LUCILLE HARMON 108 farnace,rs- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Zrlr/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 5 1 NOVEMBER 21 , 1988 2 3 MAYOR ERSKINE : ITEM F-2 , APPEAL TO PLANNING 4 COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 88- 11 /USE PERMIT 5 88-25/SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88- 1 6 AND EIR 86- 1 . THIS IS THE ANGUS OIL SPRINGFIELD OIL 7 RECOVERY PROJECT, APPEALED BY COUNCILWOMAN GRACE WINCHELL 8 AND CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, TO THE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 88- 11 , 10 USE PERMIT 88-25 , SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 88- 1 AND THE 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 86- 1 . 12 STAFF , DO WE HAVE A REPORT? 13 MR. COOK: I ' D LIKE TO START OUT BY STATING THAT 14 WITH THE 59 CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS 15 PROJECT, THE STAFF IS VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT. WE FEEL 16 IT' S A GOOD PROJECT AND BENEFIT TO THE ENTIRE CITY . AND 17 1 WOULD LIKE , PRIOR TO MR. ADAMS BEING ABLE TO ANSWER ANY 18 TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE , TO ASK OUR FIRE CHIEF, 19 WHO IS IN CHARGE OF OIL - - OIL ENFORCEMENT IN THE CITY, 20 TO COMMENT WHAT HE MAY FEEL ABOUT THIS PROJECT ' S 21 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES . 22 MR . PICARD: MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL , THE FIRE 23 DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY RECOMMENDS THE PROJECT. FROM A FIRE 24 PROTECTION AND SAFETY BENEFIT STANDPOINT, IT WILL CORRECT 25 MANY CURRENT BLIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS. AND, OF farrafer�- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z721/ &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c� 6 1 COURSE , WE ' LL BE ELIMINATING 16 EXISTING SCATTERED WELLS 2 AND TANK SETTINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY NEXT TO MANY 3 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES , OF COURSE , WITH THAT, THOSE 22 4 ACTUAL WELLS . 5 ALSO MAKES ANGUS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER 6 EXISTING ABANDONED OIL WELLS IN THE AREA. AND, OF 7 COURSE , THE PROJECT WILL HAVE EXISTING STATE-OF-THE-ART 8 FIRE PROTECTION AND SAFETY MEASURES. THE EIR WORST-CASE 9 SCENARIO, IN MY MIND. IS NOT REALISTIC AND IT ' S GREATLY 10 OVERSTATED. AND, OF COURSE , THERE WILL ONLY BE THREE 11 TANK SETTING SITES ON THERE WHICH WILL ACTUALLY HOUSE THE 12 CRUDE OIL. 13 WITH ALL THE FIRE SUPPRESSION MEASURES 14 REQUIRED WILL BE AUTOMATIC, CAUSES ANGUS TO BE 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE ZONE AREA. AND, OF COURSE , 16 THIS A IS VERY DESIREABLE OBJECTIVE FOR THE CITY, GIVEN 17 OUR CURRENT METHANE GAS AND ABANDONED OIL PROBLEMS . AND 18 MOST OF ALL , IT WILL BRING ABOUT OIL WELL AND OIL STORAGE 19 TANK CONSOLIDATION, WITH ALL SHIPPING TO BE DONE THROUGH 20 UNDERGROUND PIPELINES AND, HOPEFULLY, THIS PROJECT WILL 21 LEAD OTHERS TO CONSOLIDATE , PARTICULARLY, IN THE DOWNTOWN 22 AREA AND IN THE GARFIELD AREA, AND, OF COURSE , WHICH WILL 23 FURTHER ELIMINATE OIL HAZARDS AND BLIGHT PROBLEMS 24 THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 25 AGAIN, FROM A COMMUNITY AREA AND A PUBLIC 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z72Q xermice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 7 1 STANDPOINT, THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH LOCAL IMPACTS . 2 MAYOR ERSKINE : THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT. 3 MR. ADAMS : I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER SOME 4 HIGHLIGHTS OF HOW THIS REPORT - - THIS PROJECT IS SLIGHTLY 5 DIFFERENT THAN THE FORMER PROJECT, AND SCOTT HESS IS HERE 6 THIS EVENING TO DO THAT. IN ADDITION, KELLY MAIN IS HERE 7 THIS EVENING TO ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 9 MR . HESS : PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST IS 10 SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS REQUEST AS TO ADD 01 SUFFIX TO 11 THE SOUTHERLY BLOCK OF THE TWO-BLOCK PROJECT. THE 01 12 ZONING WILL ALLOW THE DRILLING UP TO 45 WELLS ON THE 13 SITE . THE PREVIOUS PROJECT WAS A REQUEST FOR UP TO 60 14 WELLS ON THE SITE . THE TANK FARM AND PUMPING FACILITIES 15 WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY BLOCK . THE USE PERMIT 16 IS TO ALLOW THE OIL DRILLING AND A REDUCTION IN EXTERIOR 17 SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE SCREENING WALL FROM A REQUIRED 18 10 FEET TO 7 FEET ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF BOTH 19 BLOCKS . 20 THE PROPOSED WELLS WILL BE DRILLED 24 HOURS A 21 DAY FOR A MAXIMUM OF 24 MONTHS, UTILIZING ONE DRILLING 22 RIG OPERATING AT ANY ONE TIME . THERE ARE PHOTOS AND 23 DRAWINGS ON THE WALL BEHIND YOU. THE DRAWING RIGHT NEXT 24 TO THE DESIGNATION BEHIND MAYOR ERSKINE , I THINK F-2 , IS 25 AN OUTLINE OF EXISTING 01 PARCELS WITHIN THE VICINITY. Aa-rrh5: ers' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Zr1Q service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 8 1 AND JUST TO THE RIGHT IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SCREENING 2 OF THE TWO BLOCKS . THE TWO DRAWINGS BEHIND COUNCILMAN 3 MAYS IS A DRAWING OF THE SCREEN WALL WITH LANDSCAPING AND 4 THEN THE BELOW DRAWING INCLUDES THE 30-FOOT HIGH 5 ACCOUSTIC BLANKET WALL , WHICH WILL BE THE INTERIM 6 MITIGATION FOR NOISE MEASURE FOR THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD. 7 AND THEN TO THE RIGHT IS A PROGRESSIVE 8 LANDSCAPING GROWTH PLAN AND THEN A SECTION DRAWING OF THE 9 TANKS , HOW THEY ARE SEMI -SUBSURFACE TO REDUCE THEIR 10 VISUAL IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING PARCELS . 11 A COUPLE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT IS THAT IT 12 WOULD BE LESS INTENSE IN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 13 THE TWO SITES , WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 38 UNITS ON EACH 14 BLOCK; AND, ALSO, APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT RESULTS IN 15 APPROVAL OF OLD WELLS AND TANKS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE 16 AREA. 17 THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S ACTION ON OCTOBER 18 18TH WAS TO APPROVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ZONE CHANGE AND 19 USE PERMIT WITH A VOTE OF FOUR TO TWO, WITH ONE 20 ABSTENTION. THE MINUTES OF THAT ACTION ARE INCLUDED AS 21 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE REPORT. 22 ALSO, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, 23 THERE WAS A PETITION SUBMITTED, SIGNED BY OVER 200 24 RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING THE REQUEST. 25 THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 60 CITIZENS - - I 'M SORRY - - 30 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1(/ &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 l C�/ . 9 1 CITIZENS THAT SPOKE AT THE MEETING, BASICALLY, 50 PERCENT 2 IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND 50 PERCENT AGAINST. 3 STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST 4 AND APPROVAL OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR WITH A FINDING AND 5 CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT . THERE HAVE - - THERE 6 IS ALSO A REQUEST TO ACCEPT MODIFICATIONS TO THREE OF THE 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OUTLINED ON PAGE 2 OF THE RCA. 8 AND NOW I ' LL TURN OVER TO KELLY MAIN TO 9 PRESENT DETAILS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE FOR THE 10 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR. 11 MS. MAIN: STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 88- 1 AND EIR 86- 1 12 COVER APPROXIMATELY 13 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF IMPACTS 13 FROM THE ANGUS PROJECT. WITH THE OVER 50 MITIGATION 14 MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE EIR - - THE TWO EIR ' S , MOST OF 15 THOSE IMPACTS CAN BE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF 16 INSIGNIFICANCE . HOWEVER, THERE IS THREE IMPACTS WHICH 17 CANNOT BE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE , AND THEY 18 ARE SEISMIC IMPACTS IN THE EVENT - - AND THAT WOULD BE IN 19 THE EVENT OF AN EARTHQUAKE OF 8. 0 OR GREATER MAGNITUDE . 20 AESTHETIC IMPACTS , AND THAT WOULD BE FROM THE 21 165-FOOT RIGS, DRILLING RIGS, WHICH WILL BE THERE FOR 22 APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS ON THE SITE AND A 30-FOOT HIGH 23 SOUND BARRIER, WHICH WILL BE USED TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE 24 NOISE IMPACT. AND, IN ADDITION, TANKS WILL BE VISIBLE 25 ABOVE THE 8-FOOT HIGH PERIMETER WALL . AND SO THOSE - - Aa-r,r.lxfe,r,r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA92701 r�cr Z721/ x'er ce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� CJ 10 1 OBVIOUSLY, IMPACTS FROM THOSE CANNOT BE ELIMINATED 2 COMPLETELY. AND THEN THE THIRD SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS 3 FROM THE RISK OF UPSET OR RADIANT HEAT FIRE . 4 TEN DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES WERE DISCUSSED IN 5 THE EIR ' S . AMONG THEM WAS THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE , 6 TWO REVISIONS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT, A REDUCED 7 INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE , AND A MORE INTENSE ALTERNATIVE . 8 FOUR ALTERNATE SITES WERE LOOKED AT. THE ABANDONMENT OF 9 OIL PRODUCTION IN THAT AREA WAS LOOKED AT, AND THE 10 DEVELOPMENT OF A MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 11 THE SITE WAS LOOKED AT. 12 BASICALLY , TO SUMMARIZE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE 13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES, THE NO 14 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE , THE REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE , 15 THE MORE INTENSE DRILLING PROGRAM, PARCEL 1 , PARCEL 4 , 16 AND MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WERE FOUND TO BE 17 NOT EVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR TO THE PROJECT. PARCEL 1 , 18 DEVELOPMENT ONLY, PARCEL 2 AND PARCEL 3 WERE NEITHER 19 FOUND TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR NOR INFERIOR TO THE 20 PROJECT. THEY WOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME KIND OF 21 IMPACTS AS THE PROJECT. 22 THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS FOUND TO BE 23 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR WAS THE ABANDONMENT OF ALL OIL 24 PRODUCTION SITES IN THE AREA. 25 AND CEOA - - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY �arrzs'.fers' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 cJ 11 1 ACT - - DOES REQUIRE THAT YOU IDENTIFY AT LEAST ONE 2 ALTERNATIVE THAT IS SUPERIOR TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 3 THERE IS A VERY GOOD ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY OF THE 4 IMPACTS FROM THE ALTERNATIVES ON PAGES 10 THROUGH 18 OF 5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED. 6 FINALLY, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 7 ACT REQUIRES THAT TO APPROVE A PROJECT WHERE AN EIR HAS 8 BEEN DONE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS HAVE BEEN ASSESSED, 9 THAT THE CITY HAS TO MAKE ONE OR MORE WRITTEN FINDINGS 10 FOR EACH OF THOSE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. AND YOU' LL FIND 11 APPROXIMATELY - - WELL OVER 40 PAGES OF FINDINGS WITHIN 12 THE GREEN DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKAGE . AND I ' D 13 LIKE TO TURN TO THOSE NOW FOR A FEW CORRECTIONS. 14 IT ' S ATTACHMENT 4 WITHIN THAT GREEN DOCUMENT. 15 IT ' S TOWARDS THE END OF THE DOCUMENT. 16 HAS EVERYBODY FOUND THE FINDINGS? 17 ON PAGE 2 OF THE FINDINGS SECTION, THE PAGE 18 STARTS , "THIS FINDING SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS FINDING 3 . " 19 TOWARDS THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH, YOU ' LL SEE A SENTENCE 20 THAT STARTS WITH SECTION 4 . IT SAYS , "SECTION 4 CONSISTS 21 OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . " THAT 22 SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THESE FINDINGS BECAUSE IT' S - - 23 THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IS A SEPARATE 24 DOCUMENT FROM THESE FINDINGS , AND IT' S FOUND WITHIN YOUR 25 PACKET, BUT NOT WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. farrafercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 12 1 MAYOR ERSKINE : COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? 2 MS . MAIN: IT SAYS - - THE SENTENCE SAYS: "SECTION 3 4 CONSISTS OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4 WHICH SETS FORTH THE CITY ' S SPECIFIC REASONS FOR FINDING 5 THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT OUTWEIGH ITS UNAVOIDABLE 6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . " 7 HAS EVERYBODY LOCATED THAT SENTENCE? THAT 8 SHOULD BE STRICKEN. IT ' S REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF 9 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AS THOUGH IT ' S PART OF THESE 10 FINDINGS . IT ' S NOT; IT ' S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. THIS IS 11 REALLY A TECHNICALITY. 12 ON PAGE 6 WE ' RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL FACT IN 13 SUPPORT OF THE FINDING. AFTER SECTION D, BETWEEN 14 SECTIONS D - - AND THEN THERE ' S A PARAGRAPH E . WE HAVE A 15 NEW PARAGRAPH E AND THIS IS THE LONGEST CORRECTION, SO 1 16 APOLOGIZE FOR ITS LENGTH. 17 1 NEED TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD. 18 SECTION E SHOULD SAY: 19 "THE PROJECT WILL ELIMINATE 20 22 EXISTING WELLS AND SEVEN 21 TANK BATTERIES . NONE OF THE 22 BATTERIES HAS MORE THAN 23 RUDIMENTARY FIRE-FIGHTING 24 EQUIPMENT AND THE WELLS ALL 25 HAVE SOME LEAKS AROUND THE 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Zn� �S'er�JZce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ • 13 1 STUFFING BOXES . BOTH THE 2 EXISTING WELLS AND TANK 3 BATTERIES ARE LOCATED IN CLOSE 4 PROXIMITY TO RESIDENCES . 5 UNLIKE THE PROJECT, THEY ARE NOT 6 SURROUNDED BY BLOCK WALLS WITH 7 WELLS LOCATED UNDERGROUND AND 8 TRENCH CELLARS. THE PROJECT ' S 9 DESIGN WILL ENSURE THAT OIL 10 LEAKS RESULTING FROM A MAJOR 11 EARTHQUAKE WOULD NOT ESCAPE 12 BEYOND THE CONFINES OF THE 13 PROJECT WHILE EXISTING WELLS 14 AND TANK BATTERIES CREATE 15 NUMEROUS RISKS OF LEAKAGE 16 AND OTHER POTENTIAL HAZARDS 17 IN THE EVENT OF A MINOR - - 18 I 'M SORRY - - A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE . 19 IN ADDITION, ALL EXISTING WELLS 20 ARE CONNECTED TO THEIR TANK 21 BATTERIES BY MEANS OF BURIED 22 PIPELINES . MANY OF THESE LINES 23 ARE OLD AND THEIR EXACT LOCATION 24 ARE NOT KNOWN. APPROXIMATELY 25 18 , 000 FEET OF PIPELINE WILL BE �arrZ��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z .ervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ • 14 1 ABANDONED BY THE PROJECT, WHICH 2 WILL REPLACE THE PIPELINE WITH 3 PIPELINES THAT ARE IN CONDUITS 4 UNDER THE CORNER OF SPRINGFIELD 5 AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON STREET OR 6 HUNG ON THE CELLAR WALLS WHERE 7 LEAKS CAN BE FOUND AND REPAIRED 8 QUICKLY. THIS WILL RESULT IN A 9 SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE 10 IMPACTS OF RUPTURES AND LEAKS 11 IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE . " 12 MAYOR ERSKINE : THAT SENTENCE YOU JUST READ IS 13 REFERRING TO THE SCATTERED WELLS THAT ARE BEING 14 CONSOLIDATED? 15 MS. MAIN: RIGHT. 16 MAYOR ERSKINE : I THINK IT ' S JUST A TECHNICALITY. 17 1 THINK YOU SAID THE PROJECT WILL ELIMINATE , ET CETERA, 18 ET CETERA, WELLS THAT ARE NOT SURROUNDED BY BLOCK WALLS. 19 YOU MIGHT SAY NOT SURROUNDED COMPLETELY BY BLOCK WALLS 20 BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE PARTIALLY SURROUNDED BY BLOCK 21 WALLS. 22 MS . MAIN: YEAH, WE CAN ADD THAT. 23 NEXT CORRECTION IS ON PAGE 22 . IN SECTION A, 24 ABOUT MIDWAY DOWN IN SECTION A, THE SENTENCE STARTING 25 "ENTRANCES TO THE SITE" SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ENTRANCES TO �arrZ��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr � wrivice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 • 15 1 THE SITE SHALL OCCUR ONLY ON DELAWARE STREET, SPRINGFIELD 2 AVENUE, AND CALIFORNIA STREET, INSTEAD OF JUST 3 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE AND CALIFORNIA STREET. 4 NEXT CORRECTION IS ON PAGE 23 . 5 FOR SECTION C THERE , IT SHOULD - - INSTEAD OF 6 THE PARAGRAPH THAT ' S THERE , IT SHOULD SAY : "DURING THE 7 PREDRILLING CONSTRUCTION PHASE , TRUCK ROUTES , AS APPROVED 8 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SHOWN IN THE 9 CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, SHALL BE USED. " 10 AND LET' S SEE , OUR LAST ONE , PAGE 31 . 11 THIS IS A SHORTER PARAGRAPH TO READ INTO THE 12 RECORD. "THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN THE ABANDONMENT OF 13 APPROXIMATELY - - 14 COUNCILMAN KELLY: EXCUSE ME . WOULD YOU I .D. THE 15 PARAGRAPH THAT YOU' RE REFERRING TO? 16 MS . MAIN: YEAH. IT' S IN SECTION 210 . 3 , AND 17 THERE ' S A, B, AND C AND THIS SHOULD BE PARAGRAPH D. 18 AND IT SHOULD READ: "THE PROJECT WILL RESULT 19 IN THE ABANDONMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 18 , 000 FEET OF 20 EXISTING PIPELINE . MANY OF THESE LINES ARE OLD AND THEIR 21 EXACT LOCATIONS ARE UNKNOWN. THE ABANDONMENT OF THIS 22 PIPELINE WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE 23 POTENTIAL OF PIPELINE LEAKS . " 24 SO THOSE ARE THE CORRECTIONS. AND THEN YOU 25 SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED BEFORE THE MEETING A SECTION OF 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr ZZ7� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 16 1 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE HOUSING - - DISCUSSION 2 ON HOUSING. 3 1 GUESS THE FINAL POINT TO MAKE IS THAT 4 BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH 5 CAN'T BE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF IN - - AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 6 EIR , IT REQUIRES THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF 7 PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS WICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT YOU FIND 8 THAT THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM THE PROJECT 9 OUTWEIGH THE ADVERSE - - POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS 10 IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR . AND THAT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 11 CONSIDERATIONS IS IN THE WHITE SECTION OF YOUR - - THE 12 FIRST WHITE SECTION OF YOUR PACKET TONIGHT. 13 MAYOR ERSKINE : DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? 14 COUNCIL , ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ADDITIONAL 15 STAFF? 16 MR. ADAMS: THAT ' S THE EXTENT OF THE STAFF 17 PRESENTATION. WE 'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS . 18 MAYOR ERSKINE : ON PAGE 66 OF THE EIR ' S , THERE ' S A 19 STATEMENT ABOUT COMPARISON OF GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS , 20 BASICALLY, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ABANDONMENT OF THE 21 22 - - I GUESS SCATTERED OIL WELLS , WOULD GENERATE 22 APPROXIMATELY 57 UNITS AND THAT THE NO PROJECT 23 ALTERNATIVE , IF NOTHING IS APPROVED, THE SPRINGFIELD 24 SITE , THAT THAT WILL GENERATE 108 UNITS UNDER CURRENT 25 ZONING. ARE YOU TAKING THE MIDPOINT OF THE DENSITY, OR farnl.�.fercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z �ervZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 17 1 WHAT CALCULATION IS USED TO COME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS? 2 PAGE 66 . 3 MS. MAIN: THE HIGHEST DENSITY. 4 MAYOR ERSKINE : IN EACH CASE? 5 MS . MAIN: IN THE CASE OF THE 108 UNITS . IS THAT 6 WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? 7 MAYOR ERSKINE: THAT AND THE 57 . YOU'RE SAYING 8 THAT IF YOU CONSOLIDATE THIS , THERE WILL BE 57 NEW UNITS 9 BUILT WHERE THE SCATTERED OIL WELLS USED TO BE . I 'M 10 CURIOUS AS TO WHERE YOU CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER . 11 MR. ADAMS: WE 'RE CONFIRMING THAT CALCULATION. 1 12 BELIEVE IT IS - - THOSE WOULD BE THE INFIELD PROPS AND 1 13 BELIEVE THOSE WERE CALCULATED THE HIGHEST IN DENSITY . 14 WE ' LL DOUBLE-CHECK THAT IN A SECOND. 15 MAYOR ERSKINE : COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER 16 QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? 17 PROCEED NOW TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 18 (WHEREUPON THE PROCEEDINGS WERE OPENED FOR 19 PUBLIC COMMENTS . ) 20 MR. SHELDON: GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR , MEMBERS OF 21 THE CITY COUNCIL . 22 I 'M SPENCER SHELDON, AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT 23 REPRESENTING ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION, THE APPLICANT 24 FOR THE SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT BEFORE YOU THIS 25 EVENING. IT' S BEEN A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS SINCE WE WERE 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z �er�ZGe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ I 18 1 BEFORE THIS BODY, AND WE 'RE GLAD WE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY 2 FOR YOU TO RECONSIDER THIS PROJECT. 3 THE SPRINGFIELD PROJECT BEFORE YOU THIS 4 EVENING IS A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF THE SIMILAR PROJECT 5 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 1986 . THE BASIC CHANGE HAS 6 BEEN TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WELLS TO BE DRILLED 7 FROM 60 TO 45 . 8 ADDITIONALLY , THE WATER HANDLING SYSTEM HAS 9 NOW BEEN ENGINEERED TO AVOID, IN ALL BUT THE RAREST 10 INSTANCES, THE NEED TO DISCHARGE PRODUCED BRINE WATER TO 11 EITHER SANITARY SEWERS OR TO THE STORM DRAINS . FURTHER, 12 TANK PROFILES HAVE BEEN REDUCED, BOTH BY LOWERING THE 13 ELEVATION OF THE OIL TANK AREA AND BY USING LOWER PROFILE 14 TANKS FOR WATER STORAGE . 15 AND I THINK THAT DRAWING ABOVE COUNCILMAN 16 BANNISTER ' S HEAD SHOWS THAT THE VERY - - JUST THE VERY 17 TOPS OF THE TANKS WILL BE SEEN OVER THE WALLS, GENERALLY 18 WILL BE HIDDEN BY THE LANDSCAPING THAT WILL BE USED IN 19 THESE LANDSCAPED SETBACK AREAS . 20 MR. BOB KAISER , PRESIDENT OF ANGUS PETROLEUM 21 CORPORATION, RECOGNIZED FROM THE OUTSET THAT WHILE THIS 22 PROJECT IS RATHER ROUTINE FROM AN OIL PERSPECTIVE , THE 23 PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSED SITES TO HOMES WOULD REQUIRE 24 THAT THE PROJECT BE PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT WITH SPECIAL 25 CONCERN FOR AREA RESIDENTS. THAT SPECIAL CONCERN HAS 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 �er3lZLe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 19 1 RESULTED IN THE INCLUSION FROM THE VERY OUTSET OF PROJECT 2 PLANNING OF MANY UNIQUE AND EXTRAORDINARY FEATURES . 3 THOSE FEATURES HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED INTO A LIST OF SOME 4 59 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHED TO THE USE PERMIT FOR 5 THE PROJECT. 6 ANGUS PETROLEUM AGREES TO CONSTRUCT THEIR 7 PROJECT AND CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS IN CONFORMANCE WITH 8 THOSE CONDITIONS. 9 PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT, UNLIKE THE NORMAL 10 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT , CITY CONTROL OF AN OIL DRILLING 11 PROJECT DOES NOT END WITH THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL . OUR 12 ABILITY TO PULL EACH SUCCESSIVE DRILLING PERMIT WILL 13 DEPEND UPON OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE CONDITIONS OF 14 APPROVAL ON AN ONGOING BASIS . THAT, IN ITSELF , IS AMPLE 15 INCENTIVE TO RESOLVE ANY SMALL PROBLEMS WHICH MIGHT ARISE 16 IN A TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE MANNER. 17 THIS PROJECT GENERATES ITS MOST SIGNIFICANT 18 BENEFITS IN THE AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS , AIR 19 QUALITY BENEFITS PROBABLY BEING MOST IMPORTANT; BUT THE 20 PROJECT ALSO PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS FOR AREA 21 RESIDENTS BY CLEANING UP UNSIGHTLY WELLS SCATTERED 22 THROUGHOUT THE AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO CREATES COMMUNITY 23 BENEFITS BY PROVIDING THE MODEL AND STANDARDS FOR 24 ADDITIONAL OIL WELL CONSOLIDATION IN OTHER AREAS OF THE 25 CITY , MOST IMPORTANTLY IN THE DOWNTOWN AND TOWN LOT I farrafe,rx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr 2 �Ser�lZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 C� 20 1 AREAS. 2 AND, LASTLY, THE PROJECT PROVIDES FOR SOME 3 REAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO THE CITY AND TO THE 4 APPROXIMATELY 250 MINERAL RIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS , SOME OF 5 WHOM YOU WILL HEAR FROM TONIGHT, WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD 6 UNIT AREA. 7 FRANKLY, THIS PROJECT IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY 8 SUPERIOR SOLUTION TO A LONG-STANDING PROBLEM IN 9 HUNTINGTON BEACH. THE CONCERNED CITIZENS DON'T OPPOSE 10 CONSOLIDATION. THEY JUST WANT IT TO BE DONE SOMEWHERE 11 ELSE . FRANKLY , I THINK THEY ' D PREFER IT TO BE DONE 12 ANYWHERE ELSE BUT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 13 THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PROPOSED SITE IS THE 14 ONLY AVAILABLE , SINGLE SITE FROM WHICH ALL WELL BOTTOM 15 LOCATIONS CAN BE REACHED. ANY OTHER CONFIGURATION, AND 16 WE LOOKED AT ALL THAT WE COULD THINK OF IN THE - - 17 INVOLVED TWO DRILL SITES WITH IMPACTS ON TWO SEPARATE 18 NEIGHBORHOODS. THERE SHOULD BE NO QUESTION AS TO WHETHER 19 THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE DONE . AND, IN MY MIND, THERE IS 20 NO QUESTION WHERE IT SHOULD BE DONE . THE ONLY QUESTION 21 THAT EVER REALLY NEEDED TO BE INVOLVED WAS HOW THE 22 PROJECT WAS TO BE DONE . 23 THE 59 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHOULD ANSWER 24 THAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, THE NEIGHBORS, AND THE 25 CITY COUNCIL . IF YOU WANT THIS CITY TO TRANSITION farra.fe,rcr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z�ZI/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 .� 21 1 GRACEFULLY INTO A NEW ERA WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTION 2 OF ITS REMAINING OIL RESERVES , THEN THIS PROJECT SHOULD 3 BE SUPPORTED. 4 IF YOU WANT THE OLD OIL FACILITIES TO BECOME A 5 ROADBLOCK TO THE FUTURE , THE FUTURE WE ALL WANT FOR 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH, THEN YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND UPHOLD THE 7 APPEAL. 8 FRANKLY , I THINK THIS PROJECT AND THIS COMPANY 9 DESERVES YOUR SUPPORT . AND IF I MAY SAY , ON A PERSONAL 10 NOTE , IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO ON THE LEFT SIDE , 11 THERE IS AN OIL ISLAND THAT IS - - THAT WHOLE AREA HAS THE 12 HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF OIL ISLANDS WITHIN THE CITY - - 13 OF SEACLIFF AND BEACHWALK AREAS . AND WITHOUT WALKING 14 OVER THERE , THERE IS AN OIL ISLAND APPROXIMATELY 110 FEET 15 FROM MY HOUSE , THAT ONE IS ZONED 01 ; AND WITHOUT ANY 16 FURTHER PUBLIC NOTICE OR PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMPANY WHO 17 CONTROLS THE RIGHTS OF THAT WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO, 18 WHILE MEETING OIL CODE AND NOISE ORDINANCES , DRILL 19 TOMORROW. AND SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING THAT HAS 20 NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CITY NUMEROUS TIMES . 21 AND AS THAT ADDITIONAL MAP SHOWS YOU, ABOVE 22 F-2 , THERE ARE 52 SEPARATE PARCELS ZONED 01 IN THIS CITY. 23 FRANKLY , OIL HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM IN THIS CITY . IT IS 24 NOT SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL HAS SPENT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT 25 OF TIME WORKING ON. AND YET IT HAS BROUGHT TREMENDOUS farrisferer 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rcr Z Aervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 22 1 RESOURCES AND BENEFITS TO THIS CITY. AND IT CAN CONTINUE 2 TO DO SO. 1 THINK THIS COUNCIL JUST SIMPLY NEEDS TO HAVE 3 THE FORESIGHT AND COURAGE TO SUPPORT THEIR PLANNING 4 COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. AND 1 URGE YOUR 5 SUPPORT OF THE EIR, THE ZONE CHANGE , AND THE USE PERMIT. 6 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF 7 THE COUNCIL. 8 MR . FLYNN: MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MAYOR ERSKINE , 9 MY NAME IS JOHN FLYNN. I 'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM 10 OF NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER , KNOX & ELLIOTT, THE ATTORNEYS FOR 11 ANGUS PETROLEUM, THE PROJECT APPLICANT. 12 OUR JOB HAS BEEN TO PROVIDE ADVICE ON THE 13 LEGALITY AND ADEQUACY OF THE CEQA PROCESS FOR THIS 14 PROJECT. THE PROCESS HAS , IN FACT, BEEN LENGTHY AND VERY 15 THOROUGH, AND CITY STAFF HAS DONE AN EXEMPLARY JOB. 16 ALTHOUGH INFORMATION IN THE FIRST DRAFTS OF 17 DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED BY ANGUS , CITY STAFF REVIEWED 18 EVERYTHING IN DETAIL AND REQUIRED NUMEROUS CHANGES , 19 ADDITIONS , AND DELETIONS SO THAT THE NECESSARY 20 DOCUMENTATION MET CITY STANDARDS. 21 THE DRAFT EIR WAS SENT OUT FOR A 45-DAY 22 CIRCULATION PERIOD. VERY, VERY FEW COMMENTS WERE 23 RECEIVED IN RESPONSE , THE FACT WHICH TESTIFIES TO THE 24 COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE EIR 25 IN FACT, THE ONLY COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE FROM 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rcr Z �Ser�lZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 • 23 1 THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE 2 CHAMBERS GROUP, WHICH IS A PAID CONSULTANT HIRED BY THE 3 CONCERNED CITIZENS ' GROUP TO CRITICIZE THE EIR. 4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE STATE DIVISION OF OIL 5 AND GAS , THE AGENCY THAT HAS PRIMARY AUTHORITY OVER OIL 6 OPERATIONS, DID NOT HAVE SO MUCH AS A SINGLE QUESTION OR 7 COMMENT ON THE EIR. IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO RECEIVE SO 8 FEW COMMENTS ON A PROJECT THAT HAS ATTRACTED AS MUCH 9 PUBLICITY AS THIS ONE HAS . 10 THE CITY CONTINUED ITS VERY THOROUGH REVIEW 11 PROCESS IN RESPONDING TO COMMENTS BY THE CONCERNED 12 CITIZENS ' GROUP . CITY STAFF PREPARED A COMPREHENSIVE 13 RESPONSE TO ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED. THE CHAMBERS GROUP 14 THEN SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE CITY ' S 15 RESPONSES . THE CITY THEN EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO RESPOND 16 TO THE COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSES . 17 THE CITY HAS BY NOW FULLY ADDRESSED ALL 18 CONCERNS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE 19 ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS 20 PROJECT. 21 NOW, GIVEN PAST EXPERIENCE , I ' D BE VERY 22 SURPRISED, BUT NOT TERRIBLY DISAPPOINTED IF THE CHAMBERS 23 GROUP DIDN'T GET UP TONIGHT AND CRITICIZE THE CITY ' S 24 RESPONSE TO THEIR COMMENTS ON THE CITY ' S RESPONSE TO 25 THEIR COMMENT. farra.fercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z &rpice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ • 24 1 THERE PROBABLY ARE STILL A FEW LITTLE THINGS 2 ABOUT THE EIR THAT OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT DON'T LIKE , 3 BUT CEQA DOES NOT REQUIRE PERFECTION. PERFECTION IS 4 IMPOSSIBLE . PEOPLE KNOW THAT AND THE COURTS KNOW THAT. 5 IN FACT, THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED REPEATEDLY 6 THAT NO AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT, QUOTE , HOWEVER OBJECTIVE , 7 HOWEVER SINCERE , HOWEVER WELL-STAFFED, AND HOWEVER 8 WELL-FINANCED, COULD COME UP WITH A PERFECT ENVIRONMENTAL 9 IMPACT REPORT. 10 THE CITY HAS PREPARED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 11 REPORT WHICH PROVIDES FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL POTENTIAL 12 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT, DESCRIBES MITIGATION MEASURES TO 13 REDUCE THESE IMPACTS TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE , AND 14 EVALUATES TEN ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT. THIS EIR 15 MEETS AND EXCEEDS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW. 16 THANK YOU. 17 MAYOR ERSKINE : NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . ARE THERE 18 ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS? THERE ' S A LONG LINE OVER THERE . 19 MR. FAIN: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, I 'M ROGER FAIN. 20 1 LIVE AT 1908 CALIFORNIA STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE 21 STREET FROM THE PROPOSED HOLDING SITE . 22 I 'M FOR THE PROJECT. AND I THINK THIS SHOULD 23 GO AHEAD SO WE CAN GET THIS BLIGHT CLEANED UP ACROSS THE 24 STREET FROM US AND CONSIDER, ALSO, THE REVENUE THAT WOULD 25 BE BROUGHT IN FROM THE PROJECT. farrishers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1�/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 25 1 THANK YOU. 2 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 3 MS. TRINKL : GOOD EVENING. MY NAME A KELLY TRINKL . 4 MY HUSBAND AND I ARE HOMEOWNERS AT THE CORNER OF 5 SPRINGFIELD AND 1901 DELAWARE . BILL HAS BEEN A RESIDENT 6 IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA SINCE 1962 . WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT 7 WHAT HAPPENS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH 8 FEEL THAT THE CONSOLIDATION OF OIL WELLS WILL BENEFIT 9 HUNTINGTON BEACH AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE IN THE IMMEDIATE 10 AREA. 11 MY HUSBAND, A PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTER FOR 14 12 YEARS , HAS ASSURED ME OF THE MINIMUM DANGER OF FIRE DUE 13 TO ALL OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT NOW AVAILABLE . 14 AND AS FOR THE INCONVENIENCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE , 15 WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE OF A MINIMUM, CONSIDERING THE 16 INCONVENIENCE WE NOW MUST ENDURE . THE INCONVENIENCE IS A 17 DIRT ROAD AND DIRT FIELD IN FRONT OF OUR HOME . DUE TO 18 THE CARS DRIVING ON THE DIRT ROAD, DAY AND NIGHT, KICKING 19 UP CLOUDS OF DUST, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO OPEN OUR 20 WINDOWS . 21 THE PROSPECT OF A NICELY LANDSCAPED, WALLED 22 PROJECT IS WELCOMED BY US. THE ALTERNATIVE , I ASSUME , IS 23 MEDIUM- TO HIGH-DENSITY CONDOS THAT WOULD BRING IN MORE 24 NOISY TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION THAN THE ANGUS PROJECT WOULD 25 EVER PRODUCE . MY HUSBAND AND I ARE ALSO CONCERNED Aa_r,rixfe,rx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z �Ser�lZce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 26 1 CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN 2 IMMEDIATE GO-AHEAD WITH THE ANGUS CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM. 3 THEREFORE , WE URGE YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, TO GIVE THIS 4 WORTHY PROJECT THE GREEN LIGHT. 5 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 6 MS . KLEIN: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DONNA KLEIN 7 AND I SPEAK TONIGHT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF HUNTINGTON 8 BEACH TOMORROW, A CONCERNED CITIZENS ORGANIZATION, 9 NUMBERING 1 , 000 MEMBERS AND GROWING. 10 THE FOLLOWING IS A POSITION STATEMENT FROM 11 THIS ORGANIZATION. AND, IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE 12 YOU A COPY OF OUR POSITION. 13 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW IS STRONGLY OPPOSED 14 TO THE PROPOSED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OIL DRILLING, KNOWN AS 15 ANGUS OIL CONSOLIDATION. THE REASONS FOR THAT OPPOSITION 16 ARE : NUMBER ONE SUBJECT, MASTER PLAN FOR OIL 17 CONSOLIDATION. 18 IN A 1982 STUDY ON RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, IT 19 WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, NEEDED A 20 MASTER PLAN TO CAP AND RELOCATE EXISTING OIL PRODUCTION 21 SITES . IT APPEARS PREMATURE THAT THE CONSOLIDATION 22 PROJECT BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED, ESPECIALLY IN A 23 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WITHOUT THAT MASTER PLAN. 24 H.B.T. ' S QUESTION IS WITHOUT A MASTER PLAN, 25 HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE ANGUS SITE IS THE ONLY SITE TO fanra.ferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z� �wrvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c� 27 1 PLACE A PROPOSED PROJECT. THERE HAS TO BE A LOCATION IN 2 OUR COMMUNITY THAT IT IS NOT LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF A 3 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE NEED TO PROTECT ALL 4 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 5 NUMBER TWO SUBJECT, HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW 6 GENERAL PLAN. 7 LET ME QUOTE FROM THE PLAN' S INTRODUCTION. 8 QUOTE , " IT IS IN EFFECT A CONSTITUTION FOR THE PHYSICAL 9 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, " END QUOTE. QUOTE , "THAT THE 10 GENERAL PLAN REFLECT THE DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY , " END 11 QUOTE . 12 OUR CITY ' S CONSTITUTION STATES ON PAGE 88 , 13 " INDUSTRIAL USES NEED TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO 14 COMPATIBLE LAND USES , " END QUOTE . 15 ON PAGE 97 , RESIDENTIAL IS NOT LISTED AS A 16 COMPATIBLE USE . 17 PAGE 109 CLEARLY STATES, RESOURCE PRODUCTION, 18 OIL DRILLING, REQUIRES 20 OR MORE ACRES . OUR CITY ' S 19 CONSTITUTION CLEARLY IS WRITTEN TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL 20 AREAS FROM PROJECTS SUCH AS ANGUS . 21 NUMBER THREE SUBJECT, PROPERTY RIGHTS. 22 INDIVIDUALS PURCHASE THEIR PROPERTIES SURROUNDING THE 23 ANGUS SITE IN THE LATE 1960S TO THE PRESENT, KNOWING THE 24 INVESTMENT IN THEIR HOMES WAS PROTECTED BY ZONING AND THE 25 CITY ' S GENERAL PLAN. ANGUS PETROLEUM, HOWEVER, PURCHASED Aa-rra.fers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z�ZQ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 cl 28 1 THEIR PROPERTY IN THE 1980S , FULLY UNDERSTANDING NEW OIL 2 DRILLING WAS NOT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTED ZONING. WHOSE 3 PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT? 4 WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL DECISION, PLEASE 5 CONSIDER THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT 6 OWNERS . THESE ARE HOMES . THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE IS BEING 7 THREATENED BY THE MAJOR OIL PRODUCTION PROJECT. 8 MITIGATING MEASURES WILL NEVER HIDE THE FACT THAT THE 9 PROJECT IS A HEAVY PRODUCTION OIL DRILLING SITE . 10 YOUR ACTION THIS EVENING MUST, THEREFORE , BE 11 TO DENY THE ZONE CHANGE AND THE PROJECT. IF YOU APPROVE , 12 YOU WILL BE SETTING THE PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS TO 13 BE BUILT IN ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 14 THANK YOU. 15 MR. GRISWOLD: CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, MY NAME IS DON 16 GRISWOLD. I LIVE AT 1906 CALIFORNIA STREET. THAT' S 17 ADJACENT BOTH TO THE DRILLING AND THE PRODUCTION SITE . I 18 AM A PROPERTY OWNER, NOT A RENTAL. 19 A LARGE AMOUNT OF OIL UNDER THE CITY OF 20 HUNTINGTON BEACH IS IN A FORM OF HEAVY TAR. THIS OIL WAS 21 IMPRACTICAL TO BRING TO THE SURFACE UNDER THE OLD 22 TECHNOLOGY OF 1920S AND 1930S . 23 THIS IS 1988 , WITH MODERN ENGINEERING. 24 HUNTINGTON BEACH CAN GAIN A TREMENDOUS REVENUE FROM THIS 25 EXISTING OIL. OIL HAS KEPT HUNTINGTON BEACH ONE OF THE farrafe,rs- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re� 2 cr 0 service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 29 1 LOWEST PROPERTY TAX AREAS IN ORANGE COUNTY, AND IT CAN 2 CONTINUE TO DO SO WITH THE HELP OF THE CITY COUNCIL . 3 THE OIL ISSUE IS NOT A FEW HOUSES SURROUNDING 4 THE DRILLING SITE , BUT ALL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THAT CAN 5 BENEFIT FROM THE REVENUE . 6 THE DRILLING AND THE RECOVERY OF THIS OIL OVER 7 THE NEXT 25 YEARS WILL ALSO BE DONE ELECTRICAL , AND THE 8 CITY WILL ALSO RECEIVE A PERCENTAGE OF THE ELECTRIC BILL. 9 THE CITY NEEDS , FOR ALL ITS FUTURE PLANS - - THE CITY 10 NEEDS FOR ALL ITS FUTURE PLANS A - - THE OIL FIELD FOR THE 11 NEXT 25 YEARS . BEING EMPTY FIELDS WILL NOT BRING 12 REVENUE . ANGUS OIL COMPANY IS A FORERUNNER THAT COULD 13 MEAN A NEW OIL BOOM TO HUNTINGTON BEACH. 14 YOU CAN BE SURE THAT CHEVRON, SHELL , AND ALL 15 THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES IN HUNTINGTON BEACH ARE WATCHING 16 THIS WITH TREMENDOUS INTERESTS. THEY WILL SURELY FOLLOW 17 SUIT IF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 18 WILL ALLOW ANGUS TO PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT. 19 THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS . 20 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU, SIR. 21 MR . CARTER : MR . MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY 22 COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JOHN CARTER. I 'M A RESIDENT AND 23 HOMEOWNER IN HUNTINGTON BEACH AND HAVE BEEN FOR A NUMBER 24 OF YEARS NOW. 25 1 LIVE IN AN AREA THAT IS SURROUNDED BY OIL �arrz��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrll/ Service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 30 1 TANKS , OIL WELLS ; NAMELY, THE SEACLIFF AREA, AND HAVE NOT 2 EXPERIENCED ANY UNDUE NOISE , DUST PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER DUE 3 TO THE NORMAL ROUTINE RIG ACTIVITY THAT ' S REQUIRED ON THE 4 WELLS LOCATED IN THAT AREA. 5 ANY - - 1 'VE DRIVEN BY THE PROPOSED SITE FOR 6 ANGUS , THIS SPRINGFIELD PROJECT, A NUMBER OF TIMES AND 7 CANNOT SEE WHY ANYONE WOULD ACTUALLY OPPOSE THE 8 IMPROVEMENT THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BRING TO THIS AREA. 9 IT WOULD CERTAINLY DRESS UP THE AREA. AND 10 KNOWING HOW ATTRACTIVE THE AREA IN SEACLIFF IS , AND OTHER 11 PROJECTS, BEVERLY HILLS OIL PROJECT, CURRENTLY WAINOCO 12 OIL, CHEVRON PROJECT UP IN THE L.A. SITES, IT APPEARS TO 13 ME TO BE AN EXTREMELY WELL-THOUGHT OUT PROJECT, WHICH 14 BASICALLY COVERS ALL THE BASES , GIVES US AS MUCH 15 PROTECTION AS IS POSSIBLE . AND, SIMPLY , I ' D LIKE TO 16 POINT OUT, AS A RESIDENT AND A HOMEOWNER , I FEEL WITH THE 17 BEST INTEREST FOR OUR CITY AND IMPROVEMENT OF OUR CITY, 1 18 THINK THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED. 19 THANK YOU. 20 MS. SHAFER: GOOD EVENING TO ANYONE WHO IS STILL 21 LISTENING. MY NAME IS MICKEY SHAFER. I LIVE AT 1818 22 DELAWARE STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE DRILL SITE . 23 I 'M AN ORIGINAL OWNER THERE . I BOUGHT THAT 24 HOME IN 1973. MY COMMISSIONER ' S PUBLIC REPORT TOLD ME 25 THAT I WAS PURCHASING A HOME LOCATED WITHIN THE fa,r,rzj:fe,rj,- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z cSer�lZce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 31 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD. 1 DON 'T BELIEVE IT CHANGED, 2 SO I KIND OF TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE 3 TELLING US TONIGHT THAT THEY'RE PUTTING AN OIL FIELD IN 4 THE RESIDENTIAL TRACT. OUR ENTHUSIASM AND OUR BUILDING 5 BOOM IN THE ' 70S ALLOWED US TO BUILD HOMES IN AN OIL 6 FIELD. IT ' S ALWAYS BEEN AN OIL FIELD. I 'VE KNOWN THIS 7 OIL FIELD - - EVEN THOUGH I ONLY MOVED HERE IN ' 73 , I 'VE 8 KNOWN THE OIL FIELD OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR OVER 40 9 YEARS. ONE TIME I WAS A LITTLE BIT INVOLVED IN IT. 10 SO I MADE IT MY BUSINESS TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS 11 GOING ON AND WHAT COULD GO ON. AS MUCH AS IF I WOULD BUY 12 A HOME NEAR AN AIRPORT, I 'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO STOP THE 13 PLANES FROM FLYING IN AND OUT. I 'M ALSO A REAL ESTATE 14 BROKER BY PROFESSION, HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS , 15 AND HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS BEEN GOOD TO ME . AND I DO A LOT 16 OF WORK IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITH THE RESALES IN THE LA 17 CUESTA VILLAS AND ALL THE OTHER HOMES AROUND THERE . 18 WE HAVE HAD A TREMENDOUS ESCALATION IN THE 19 PRICE OF OUR HOMES IN THE WHOLE CITY. THAT AREA, EVEN 20 THOUGH PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THE CONFLICT THAT ' S GOING ON 21 THERE , HAS KEPT UP WITH THE REST OF IT. 22 1 SUBMIT TO YOU THAT LESS THAN A YEAR AGO THE 23 LITTLE LA CUESTA VILLAS , WHICH ARE THE HOMES - - THE 24 COMMON-WALL HOMES BUILT BY ARRIS 15 YEARS AGO, THOSE 25 HOMES WERE SELLING FOR 140 , 000 LESS THAN A YEAR AGO. THE farrisfers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z servzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ _ I • 32 I 1 LAST TWO THAT SOLD IN THAT AREA SOLD FOR 190 . THERE ARE 2 TWO ON THE MARKET RIGHT NOW, ONE FOR 192 AND ONE FOR 199 , 3 AND I STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT THEY ' LL BE SELLING VERY SOON. 4 SO YOU SEE , EVEN THE PROSPECT OF THIS CONFLICT 5 OF THE DRILL SITE HAS NOT HURT OUR RESALE VALUES 6 WHATSOEVER. I DEFINITELY WOULD RATHER SEE OIL WELLS OVER 7 THERE THAN A LOT MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE DELAWARE IS PRETTY 8 HEAVILY TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW. 9 1 LIVED WITH ALL THE DUST, THE OPEN FIELDS 10 WHEN THE KIDS TOOK THEIR MOTORCYCLES OR PICKUP TRUCKS AND 11 THEIR DUNE BUGGIES OVER THERE AND DID CIRCLES AND O' S ALL 12 EVENING LONG. I THINK THE OIL FIELD WOULD BE A VERY 13 FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR. 14 WHEN I 'M SELLING PROPERTY IN THE AREA, I FULLY 15 DISCLOSE WHAT' S HAPPENING, WHAT THE PROJECT IS TO BE 16 BUILT. I HAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 17 IMPACT REPORT. YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTION 18 WHATSOEVER, I HAND THAT TO MY PROSPECTIVE BUYERS , AND 1 19 SAY , "YOU CAN READ IT. IF THERE ' S ANYTHING YOU DON'T 20 UNDERSTAND, IF I CAN 'T CLARIFY IT, I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN. " 21 I 'VE HAD MANY OTHER BROKERS COME TO ME AND ASK 22 WHAT THE INFORMATION IS ON THAT PROJECT. 1 TELL THEM TO 23 EITHER GET JOHN CARMICHAEL 'S LETTER OUT OF OUR MLS BOOK 24 OR COME TO ME AND I WILL GIVE THEM ALL THE INFORMATION, 25 AND I HAVE TO MANY PEOPLE . farrafe.rcr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z &rwce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ • 33 1 1 KEPT ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROJECT 2 FROM THE VERY TIME IT STARTED. AND I 'M STILL NOT AFRAID 3 OF IT. 1 DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SALES, AND 1 4 DON'T KNOW ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS. 5 I 'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY THEY WERE NOT INFORMED; 6 BUT IF THEY WEREN'T, THEY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN BRAINS. 7 SO LET' S JUST GET THIS PROJECT ON THE JOB AND 8 GET IT GOING. I DON 'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO TO THE FAR EAST 9 TO GET OIL . 10 THANK YOU. 11 MAYOR ERSKINE : I JUST HAD A QUESTION. 12 MS . SHAFER : YES , SIR. 13 MAYOR ERSKINE : THE BROKER DISCLOSURE LAWS WERE 14 AMENDED, I BELIEVE , A COUPLE YEARS AGO - - 15 MS . SHAFER : UH-HUH. 16 MAYOR ERSKINE : - - THAT REQUIRED NOTICE OF ALL - - 17 MS . SHAFER: EVERYTHING. 18 MAYOR ERSKINE : - - SURROUNDING INFLUENCES . 19 MS . SHAFER: YES, SIR. 20 MAYOR ERSKINE : HOW LONG HAVE THESE DISCLOSURES 21 BEEN MADE? GOING BACK WHAT, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS? 22 DISCLOSURES THAT YOU REFER TO THAT YOU'VE BEEN MAKING AND 23 OTHER BROKERS HAVE BEEN MAKING? 24 MS . SHAFER: FROM THE VERY TIME THAT 1 KNEW OF 25 ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PROJECT, 1 GOT ONE OF THE FIRST EIR 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z wrvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 Cf f34 1 REPORTS THAT CAME OUT BECAUSE I DO LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS 2 THE STREET FROM THERE AND I WANTED TO KNOW - - 3 MAYOR ERSKINE : WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE PERIOD; 4 HOW LONG? 5 MS. SHAFER: OH, IT' S BEEN TWO YEARS SINCE WE 6 STARTED THIS . ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS, I GUESS , SINCE 7 THE FIRST INFORMATION CAME DOWN. 8 MAYOR ERSKINE : YOUR INFORMATION THAT ALL OTHER 9 BROKERS ARE AWARE AND ARE - - 10 MS. SHAFER: IF THEY AREN'T, THEY SHOULD BE BECAUSE 11 A BROKER CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR WHAT THEY KNOW OR SHOULD 12 HAVE KNOWN. 13 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 14 MS. SHAFER: OKAY? 15 MAYOR ERSKINE : NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . 16 COULD THE SPEAKERS WHO WANT TO TESTIFY PLEASE 17 COME UP AND BE READY TO SPEAK. WE 'RE TAKING A LONG TIME 18 WALKING UP . THERE ' S ROOM OVER HERE , ON-DECK CIRCLE . 19 MS . WALKER: I 'M KATHY WALKER, AND I ' D LIKE TO SAY 20 SOMETHING IF I MAY. 21 ANGUS PROJECT HAS LAGGED IN EXCESS OF TWO 22 YEARS AS THE ATTORNEYS RACK IN THEIR LEGAL FEES , OF WHICH 23 WE ALL ULTIMATELY PAY DOWN THE ROAD. AS ONE WATCHES AND 24 THEN PASS - - ONE , PETROLEUM IMPORTS ARE NOW IN THE HIGH 25 40 PERCENT FOR OUR COUNTRY. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS WHO oarraferx" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z �er�ZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 35 1 HAVE ALLOWED OURSELVES TO BECOME A DEBTER NATION DUE TO 2 NOT KEEPING OUR COUNTRY ON COURSE . AS WE SHOVE AMERICAN 3 WELLS IN ABANDONMENT, I AM SURE EACH MOTHER, FATHER 4 SURELY WANTS SONS AND DAUGHTERS OR MEMBERS OF THEIR 5 FAMILY TO HAVE THE CONVENIENCE OF A GOOD AND SATISFACTORY 6 LIFE - - EXCUSE ME - - OF WHICH THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY HAS 7 SO AMPLY PROVIDED FOR OUR COMFORTS. 8 MANY TRIBUTARY ITEMS FROM PETROLEUM WE DAILY 9 USE, CLOTHING, FOR INSTANCE , PANTYHOSE , HOUSEHOLD 10 PRODUCTS , SUCH AS CARPETS , DRAPES, AND SUPPLIES FOR OUR 11 ARMED SERVICES , ALL ARE DERIVATIVES OF THE PETROLEUM 12 INDUSTRY. NOT TO MENTION THE LUXURY OF DRIVING OUR CARS 13 ON SMOOTH MACADAMIZE PAVEMENT, WHICH ARE DERIVATIVES OF 14 PETROLEUM AND AMALGAMATION WITH RUBBER PRODUCTS , LONG 15 LASTING AND SMOOTH RIDING TIRES . A GIFT FROM PETROLEUM 16 TO OUR MUSIC IN TAPES AND RECORDS FOR OUR LISTENING 17 PLEASURE . 18 1 ASK EACH ONE OF YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THIS 19 IMPORTANT PROJECT AND THIS POSITIVE ENDEAVOR TO GO 20 FORWARD AS THIS IS A VITAL PROJECT FOR ALL OF US AND 21 ALLOW ANGUS PETROLEUM TO PROCEED WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY 22 AND KEEP AMERICA STRONG. 23 THANK YOU, AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 24 MS . BROCK: MR . MAYOR , MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , MY 25 NAME IS MARTHA BROCK . I 'M WITH THE FIRM OF OMNIBUS farra.fers' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrll/ &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C�J • 36 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES . WE 'VE BEEN RETAINED BY ANGUS TO 2 CONDUCT SOME AIR QUALITY ANALYSES FOR THE PROJECT. 3 I 'D LIKE TO START OFF BY NOTING THAT THE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , WHICH YOU FIND IN THE 5 PACKAGES TODAY, THAT ARE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, 6 GROSSLY ERRORED IN SUMARIZING WHAT I HAD TO SAY BEFORE 7 THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE OCTOBER 18TH MEETING. 8 ON PAGE 17 IT STATES THAT WE FOUND MAJOR AIR 9 POLLUTANTS ; AND, TO THE CONTRARY , WE FOUND THAT, IN FACT, 10 THERE WERE MAJOR AIR DUALITY BENEFITS . AND I THINK THE 11 REST OF MY PREPARED SPEECH WILL CLARIFY THAT POSITION. 12 AND I WILL SUBMIT A LETTER TO CORRECT THE MINUTES AT A 13 LATER DAY . 14 WE WERE INITIALLY RETAINED BY ANGUS IN 1986 TO 15 CONDUCT SOME ADDITIONAL AIR DUALITY ANALYSES THAT HAD 16 BEEN OMITTED IN THE INITIAL EIR FOR THE PROJECT. 17 SPECIFICALLY, THE ANALYSIS FOCUSES UPON THE EMISSIONS 18 INCREASES AND DECREASES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONS 19 PHASE OF THE PROJECT. 20 AT THAT TIME WE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS AN 21 OVERWHELMING AIR QUALITY BENEFIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE 22 OPERATIONS. PRIMARILY, BECAUSE THE EXISTING UNCONTROLLED 23 SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION WOULD BE REMOVED FROM SERVICE AS 24 THE RESULT OF THE PROJECT AND BE REPLACED WITH FEWER 25 TANKS , ALL EQUIPPED WITH THE BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r��r Z7ZQ &rwce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 37 1 TECHNOLOGY, OR BACT, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. 3 WE WERE ONCE AGAIN RETAINED BY ANGUS TO 4 CONDUCT SIMILAR AIR DUALITY ANALYSES BASED UPON THE 5 MODIFIED PROJECT AT THE TIME . 6 BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, LET ME JUST EXPLAIN THAT 7 THE MAJOR AIR POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH THE ANALYSES WERE 8 CONDUCTED WERE REACTIVE ORGANIC GASES OR ROG' S . IN 9 FACILITIES SUCH AS THE ONE PROPOSED BY ANGUS , THESE 10 EMISSIONS CAN BE EMITTED FROM TANKS WHICH INCLUDE OIL AND 11 WATER SOURCES . 12 THERE ARE 16 EXISTING TANKS SCATTERED 13 THROUGHOUT THE GENERAL VICINITY WHICH WILL BE REMOVED BY 14 ANGUS . THESE TANKS ARE CURRENTLY EMITTING APPROXIMATELY 15 24 , 000 POUNDS PER YEAR OF ROG' S . THE REPLACEMENT OF 16 THESE TANKS BY ANGUS WITH TANKS EQUIPPED WITH THE BACT 17 WILL RESULT IN A NET DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 21 , 000 18 POUNDS PER YEAR OF ROG' S . THIS REPRESENTS AN 87 PERCENT 19 REDUCTION IN ROG EMMISSIONS IN THE AREA. 20 THE CONTROL OF ROG EMISSIONS IS IMPORTANT 21 BECAUSE ROG'S ARE THOSE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS WHICH ARE 22 CONSIDERED TO BE PHOTOCHEMICALLY REACTIVE AND, THEREFORE , 23 ARE A DIRECT CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FORMATION OF OZONE . 24 IN ADDITION TO THE ROG EMISSION ANALYSIS , 25 ANGUS ALSO REQUESTED THAT WE CALCULATE THE POTENTIAL farra.fen�- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�Gr Zr1l/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Admbk 38 1 BENZINE EMISSIONS WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE PROJECT. 2 BENZINE WAS SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT IS A KNOWN 3 CARCINOGENIC AIR CONTAMINANT AND IS A POLLUTANT WHICH MAY 4 RESULT FROM OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES . 5 IN CONDUCTING THIS EVALUATION, WE UTILIZED THE 6 PARAMETERS SET FORTH IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 7 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 'S PROPOSED RULES 223 FOR AIR QUALITY 8 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED RULE 1401 FOR NEW SOURCE 9 REVIEW OF NONSUSPECTED CARCINOGENS . 10 THESE RULES HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADOPTED AND, 11 THEREFORE , ARE NOT CURRENTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT. 12 HOWEVER, THESE PROPOSED STANDARDS AND SCREENED 13 CALCULATIONS PROVIDE A METHOD BY WHICH THE POTENTIAL 14 IMPACTS FROM BENZINE EMISSIONS FOR THIS PROJECT MAY BE 15 QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED. SAMPLES OF THE NATURAL GAS AND 16 CRUDE OIL WERE TAKEN AND ANALYZED TO PROVIDE INPUT 17 INFORMATION. THE CALCULATION UTILIZED WAS THAT REQUIRED 18 UNDER PROPOSED RULE 223 . 19 THE RESULTS OF THE CALCULATION WERE THEN 20 COMPARED TO THE RULE ' S ALLOWABLE CARCINOGENIC SOURCE 21 STRENGTH OR CSS FOR THIS AREA. 22 THE APPLICABLE CSS FOR ORANGE COUNTY ARE 23 0 . 0043 CUBIC METERS PER SECOND AND 0 . 0056 CUBIC METERS 24 PER SECOND, DEPENDING UPON THE RELEASE TYPE . 25 THE CALCULATED CSS FOR THE SPRINGFIELD AREA 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA AN&CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z721/ wrmce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� 39 1 WATER-FRONT PROJECT IS 0 . 00057 CUBIC METERS PER SECOND, 2 WHICH IS EIGHT TO TEN TIMES BELOW THE LIMITS SET BY THE 3 PROPOSED RULES FOR THEIR ANALYSIS . 4 1 WOULD LIKE TO ADD HERE THAT, WHILE WE DID 5 NOT CALCULATE THE EXISTING BENZINE EMISSIONS FROM THE 6 TANKS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT IN THE GENERAL AREA, IT 7 STANDS TO REASON, AS IT DID FOR THE ROG' S, THAT THE 8 REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING UNCONTROLLED EQUIPMENT WOULD 9 RESULT IN A NET REDUCTION OF BENZINE EMISSIONS AS WELL AS 10 THOSE OF ROG' S . 11 THANK YOU. 12 MR . GOEDECKE : MAYOR ERSKINE , MEMBERS OF THE CITY 13 COUNCIL , I 'M KLAUS GOEDECKE . I LIVE AT 9632 OLYMPIC 14 DRIVE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I 'VE BEEN A CITIZEN OF 15 HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR 17 YEARS . I 'M HERE THIS EVENING 16 REPRESENTING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE . 17 SINCE 1986 , THE CHAMBER HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED 18 THE SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT PROPOSED BY THE 19 ANGUS PETROLEUM COMPANY. I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER JUST 20 THREE OF THE POSITIVE POINTS THAT WE , AS A CHAMBER, FEEL 21 ARE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY 22 ATTRACTIVE SOLUTION TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE MANY 23 SCATTERED OIL WELLS , SOME 45 IN NUMBER , IN THE AREA. 24 CONSOLIDATION WILL DISPOSE OF UNSIGHTLY WELLS , FREEING 25 LOTS AND ALLOWING NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE FINISHED IN AN .Garrz�'�er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 I AIL 40 1 AESTHETICALLY PLEASING MANNER . 2 ECONOMICALLY, THE CITY WILL BENEFIT 3 SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE INCREASE IN TAX AND FEES ESTIMATED 4 TO BE 2 . 1 MILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE . THE INCREASE IN 5 OIL PRODUCTION FROM 150 BARRELS A DAY TO 2700 BARRELS A 6 DAY WOULD MAKE UP SOME OF THAT REVENUE . 7 THIRDLY, ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 8 WILL ALSO BE DERIVED IN EMPLOYMENT AND THE SAFETY FACTOR 9 CONSOLIDATION WILL ENSURE . HOWEVER , THE MOST IMPORTANT 10 FACTOR OF ALL IS THAT THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE THE MODEL 11 AND FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLUTION OF OIL WELL RELATED PROBLEMS 12 IN OUR DOWNTOWN, TOWN LOT AREAS THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE 13 REDEVELOPMENT PLANS TO MOVE AHEAD. 14 IN CLOSING, THE SPRINGFIELD SITE IS A LOGICAL 15 SITE FOR OIL WELL CONSOLIDATION BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION 16 AND PROJECT SIZE . AND IT PROVIDES AN EXCELLENT 17 OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO BENEFIT FROM THIS 18 PRECEDENT SETTING MODEL FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. 19 WE COMPLIMENT ANGUS FOR AGREEING TO MEET THE 20 58 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL , AND WE URGE YOUR APPROVAL OF 21 THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTIONS SO THAT PROJECT CAN MOVE 22 FORWARD. 23 MAYOR ERSKINE , I HAVE A COPY OF A LETTER OF 24 OUR POSITION AND I ' LL LEAVE IT WITH THE CLERK. 25 MAYOR ERSKINE : SURE . Aw-rra.fer.r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zn� &rmlce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 41 1 KLAUS GOEDECKE : THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 2 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU, KLAUS. 3 MR. BIDDLE : GOOD EVENING. MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF 4 THE CITY COUNCIL , MY NAME IS BOB BIDDLE . I LIVE ABOUT 5 THREE BLOCKS WEST OF THE PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD RECOVERY 6 PROJECT. 7 I 'M GLAD THAT I LIVE FAR ENOUGH AWAY BECAUSE I 8 DON'T HAVE TO BE BOTHERED BY THE LARGE TRUCKS THAT WILL 9 BE COMING AND GOING. I WON'T HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE MY 10 WINDOW AND SEE A 30-FOOT FORTRESS ACROSS FROM MY HOME , 11 AND I WON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE 24-HOUR A DAY DRILLING. 12 I 'M BASICALLY WORRIED THAT IF THIS PROJECT AND 13 ZONING CHANGED IS APPROVED, THIS WILL BECOME A PRECEDENT 14 AND RESIDENCES LIKE MYSELF CAN HAVE THIS 15 INDUSTRIALIZATION FORCED ON US IN THE FUTURE . THIS OIL 16 CONSOLIDATION PROJECT IS GOOD ONLY IF IT IS KEPT AWAY 17 FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS . YOU CANNOT ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO 18 BE PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD BE 19 DIFFERENT IF THE PROJECT WERE HERE FIRST, BUT THIS IS NOT 20 THE CASE . IT IS NOT FAIR TO THE PRESENT RESIDENTS , 21 WHETHER OR NOT THEY RENT OR OWN PROPERTY, TO HAVE THIS 22 PROJECT FORCED ON THEM. 23 TWO YEARS AGO, MR. ERSKINE , YOU RAN FOR CITY 24 COUNCIL ON THE PLATFORM THAT YOU WERE AGAINST THIS 25 PROJECT. HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND OR CAN THE RESIDENTS 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r vcr '57 service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 42 1 OF THIS AREA STILL COUNT ON YOU TONIGHT? 2 THE ZONE RIGHT NOW FOR THE AREA SURROUNDING IT 3 IS R-2 . 1 URGE YOU TO KEEP IT THAT WAY AND NOT ALLOW 4 ANGUS TO CONTINUE WITH THIS PROJECT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL 5 AREA. 6 THANK YOU. 7 MR . VAN TUYL : MR . MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS , I AM 8 TOM VAN TUYL . I RESIDE AT 1722 PARK STREET, HUNTINGTON 9 BEACH, AND I 'M A HUNTINGTON BEACH REALTOR. 10 1 SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ANGUS PETROLEUM 11 CONSOLIDATION PROJECT. REAL ESTATE SALES IN THE AREA 12 OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS HAVE SHOWN CONSISTENT INCREASES 13 IN PRICES. A LETTER OF DISCLOSURE INFORMATION REGARDING 14 THE PROJECT IS AND HAS BEEN PRINTED IN EACH AND EVERY 15 PUBLICATION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH, FOUNTAIN VALLEY 16 MULTIPLE LISTING BOOK. 17 1 BELIEVE THE COMPLETED PROJECT WITH COMPLETED 18 STREET, WALLS, SIDEWALKS , AND LANDSCAPING IS A MUCH 19 NEEDED IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA, AND IT WILL HAVE A 20 POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO ON REAL 21 ESTATE VALUES . 22 THANK YOU. 23 MS. WARD: GOOD EVENING. I 'M MARCIA WARD. I 'M A 24 RESIDENT AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 25 VILLA ST. CROIX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. fa.rrafe.r.r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrlc/ &rmce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CC�J 43 1 OUR CONDOS ARE LOCATED ON ADAMS AVENUE BETWEEN 2 HUNTINGTON STREET AND DELAWARE STREET. WE HAVE SEVERAL 3 ABOVE-GROUND OIL WELLS ON OUR PROPERTY. 4 WHEN I FIRST BOUGHT THERE , I WAS QUITE 5 CONCERNED ABOUT THESE WELLS , BUT BEING ASSURED THAT THEY 6 WERE QUIET AND PAINTED TO MATCH OUR ARCHITECTURE , THEY 7 DIDN'T SEEM TO BOTHER ME MUCH. 8 IF OLD JOHNSON NO. 6 OCCASIONALLY SQUEAKED, 9 WITH A (QUICK CALL TO ANGUS PETROLEUM, USUALLY THE PROBLEM 10 WAS FIXED THE NEXT DAY. AND SINCE THIS ONLY OCCURRED 11 ABOUT ONCE A YEAR , IT WASN'T THAT BIG OF A DEAL. SO 1 12 GOT USED TO HAVING THE OIL WELLS AROUND AND PRETTY SOON 13 FORGOT THEY WERE EVEN THERE . 14 THEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT VILLA ST. CROIX , 15 WHICH WILL NEVER LET ME FORGET WE HAVE THOSE ABOVE-GROUND 16 OIL WELLS . A FIVE-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS KILLED, 12 FEET FROM 17 MY BEDROOM, IN JOHNSON NO. 6 . 18 SO IT IS WITH DEEP URGENCY THAT I REQUEST YOU 19 PLEASE GIVE THIS ANGUS PETROLEUM PROJECT THE GO-AHEAD. 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND CITY 21 COUNCIL MEMBERS . 22 I 'VE COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AS PRESIDENT 23 OF CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH TO ADDRESS THE 24 ANGUS PETROLEUM PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT 25 AND TO REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL DENY APPROVAL OF ZONE 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�CJr 2721/ Aervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 .� cJ 44 1 CHANGE 88- 11 , USE PERMIT 88-25 , AND EIR 86- 1 AND THE 2 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR . 3 BEFORE I BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE 4 COUNCIL FOR ITS PATIENCE IN RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS AND 5 THOSE EFFORTS WHICH BENEFIT THE CITIZENS OF THIS 6 COMMUNITY. MORE PARTICULARLY, I WISH TO EXPRESS MY 7 PERSONAL AND MY ORGANIZATION ' S SINCERE APPRECIATION TO 8 COUNCILWOMAN RUTH FINLEY FOR HER DEDICATION - - DEDICATED 9 AND CONSCIENTIOUS SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY . HER PRESENCE 10 WILL BE MISSED ON THE NEW COUNCIL . THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 11 MRS . FINLEY, FOR YOUR JOB WELL DONE . 12 AND ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OTHER 13 MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , I 'M AFRAID I WON 'T HAVE ENOUGH 14 TIME TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND, MEANING THE 15 SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY PROJECT. 16 1 FEEL THAT OUR CITY GOVERNMENT IS OBVIOUSLY A 17 FUNDAMENTAL AND ESSENTIAL COMPONENT IN OUR DEMOCRATIC 18 POLITICAL STRUCTURE ; AND, AS SUCH, IT EXISTS TO SERVE THE 19 PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY AS THE WHOLE , NOT JUST THE BEST 20 OF INTERESTS OR THE BIG MONEY INTEREST. I FEEL COUNCIL 21 MEMBERS MUST BE ADVOCATES OF THE PEOPLE . 22 ALL THIS RELATES TO THE ITEM UNDER SUGGESTION 23 BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A LARGE CORPORATE STRUCTURE , A 24 SUBSIDIARY OF PJE , ANGUS PETROLEUM, WHICH WANTS TO DRILL 25 FOR OIL WHEREVER IT DETERMINES IT' S TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE farrisfers 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z servzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 45 1 AND ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS , WITH 2 LITTLE OR NO CONCERN FOR THE IMPACT OF ITS OPERATIONS ON 3 THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE PROJECT AREA. THIS PLACES THE 4 LITTLE GUY, SUCH AS MYSELF AND OTHER RESIDENTS OF THE 5 AREA, AT A DECIDED DISADVANTAGE SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE THE 6 FINANCIAL RESOURCES OR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OR TIME THAT 7 ANGUS HAS TO DEVOTE TO THIS ENTERPRISE . S SINCE WE FEEL THAT OUR HOMES AND QUALITY OF 9 LIFE ARE THREATENED BY THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE BEEN FORCED 10 TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL 11 EXPERTISE NECESSARY TO COUNTER THIS THREAT. 12 THIS IS UNFAIR IN THE SENSE THAT THE 13 RESIDENTS , THE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT, LOST 14 CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY ' S WILLINGNESS TO REPRESENT THEIR 15 INTEREST AND WELFARE . 16 CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS 17 SUBMITTED A PACKET TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THEIR 18 REVIEW. IN ADDITION, THE PACKET THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, 19 WE HAVE ALSO REQUESTED OUR ATTORNEY , MR . JOHN B. MURDOCK, 20 AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT, MR. JOHN WESTERMEIER OF 21 CHAMBERS GROUP , TO MAKE PRESENTATIONS . 22 THE ISSUES I 'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE 23 INCOMPATABILITY AND DEBILITATING EFFECTS THE PROJECT WILL 24 HAVE ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 25 THIS PROJECT IS HIGH INDUSTRIAL USE IN A 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA AN&CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1Q service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 46 1 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, 24-HOUR-A-DAY OIL DRILLING 2 OPERATIONS FOR TWO YEARS SOLID, FOLLOWED BY -ANOTHER 20 3 YEARS OF OIL PRODUCTION ACTIVITY, APPROXIMATELY 47 TO 48 4 DAYS PER YEAR. 5 ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENTS - - A THIRD CONCERN IS 6 THE RESIDENTS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT I REPRESENT 7 ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BECAUSE OF ITS 8 LOCATION. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF 9 CONSOLIDATION. I ALSO FEEL THAT THE EIR AND SEIR 10 CONTAINS SERIOUS FLAWS AND ARE DEFICIENT AND SHOULD BE 11 REJECTED. A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION WILL BE PRESENTED 12 BY MR. WESTERMEIER. 13 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS 14 PROJECT BEFORE YOU. 15 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND 16 CONSIDERATION. 17 MR. MURDOCK: GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS 18 OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JOHN MURDOCK. 1 'M AN 19 ATTORNEY FROM SANTA MONICA. 1 'VE BEEN RETAINED TO 20 REPRESENT THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. 21 WE 'VE HAD SOME PRIOR EXPERIENCE ON THIS 22 PROJECT, AND WE 'RE GETTING TO A POINT NOW WHERE WE ARE 23 REFINING THE ISSUES . I ' D LIKE TO DESCRIBE MAYBE FIVE 24 DISCRETE LEGAL ISSUES THAT I SEE IN THIS PROJECT THAT 25 STILL REMAIN AFTER ALL THE LITIGATION AND THEN ONE I 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrl� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 47 1 PRACTICAL ISSUE - - IT' S MORE OF A POLITICAL ISSUE . 2 BUT AS FAR AS THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE CONCERNED, 3 1 THINK THAT YOUR PRIMARY ISSUE AS FAR AS ANALYSIS OF 4 CITY LAW AND DOCUMENTS IS THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. 5 IF YOU READ THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, IT STATES IN 6 THERE , AND I ' LL JUST QUOTE FROM THE REPORT ITSELF , IN 7 DESCRIBING THE GENERAL PLAN. 8 IT SAYS: "THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA IS 9 DESIGNATED AS MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE GENERAL 10 PLAN. THE GENERAL PLAN DEFINES DESIGNATION AS MEDIUM 11 DENSITY. " 12 IT GOES ON TO SAY: " IF THE INTENSITY OF THE 13 OIL OPERATION IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE , IT DOES NOT CONFORM 14 WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. " 15 AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY: "THE OIL DISTRICT 16 EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS DRILLING. " SO, THEREFORE , THEY ARE 17 IMPLYING THAT AN 0- 1 , WHICH IS A CHANGE OF ZONE , WOULD 18 SOMEHOW BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 19 MAYOR ERSKINE : WHAT PAGE ARE YOU READING FROM? 20 MR. MURDOCK: THIS IS FROM THE ORIGINAL EIR AND 21 THESE COMMENTS ARE FOUND ON PAGE 4- 18 . 22 NOW, THE STAFF HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION 23 THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN BY LOOKING 24 AT THE MATRIX THAT YOU HAVE AT THE END OF YOUR GENERAL 25 PLAN. THAT MATRIX IS A - - JUST A TABLE , THAT GIVES YOU A 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 Val- Z>2� �er�ZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 48 1 CROSS REFERENCE FOR ALL ZONES AND ALL USES . AND 0- 1 ON 2 THAT MATRIX IS SAID TO BE CONSISTENT ANYWHERE YOU LIKE IN 3 THE CITY. 4 NOW, I WILL CONTEND THAT THAT MATRIX DOES 5 NOT - - CANNOT REALLY OVERRIDE THE TEXT OF YOUR PLAN. 6 THAT' S SIMPLY A TABLE THAT SOMEONE DREW UP, AND I 'M NOT 7 SURE THAT YOU CAN USE THAT AS THE BE ALL AND END ALL OF 8 CONSISTENCY FOR YOUR GENERAL PLAN BECAUSE , IN PRACTICAL 9 EFFECT, WE KNOW THAT AN INDUSTRIAL USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE 10 WITH A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 11 AND THAT ' S WHAT THE EIR STATES AND THAT 12 ADMISSION WAS MADE , OF COURSE , BEFORE THE LITIGATION 13 ENSUED. SO NOW THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR TENDS TO TRY TO 14 AVOID THAT. BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT AND 15 THAT YOU WILL BE VIOLATING YOUR GENERAL PLAN, I BELIEVE , 16 IF YOU GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS AGAIN. AND IF YOU 17 REALIZE THAT YOUR GENERAL PLAN, AT PAGE 141 , IT SAYS - - is IT QUOTES FROM THE GOVERNMENT CODE , STATE LAW, SECTION 19 65860 , AND SAYS THAT THE COUNTY OR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE 20 SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 21 SO, YOU KNOW, BY YOUR OWN GENERAL PLAN, YOU'VE 22 GOT TO MAKE YOUR ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. 1 23 DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS CONSISTENT. 24 NOW, ASIDE FROM THAT, AND IF ANY OF YOU ARE 25 SORT OF OLD-TIME PLANNERS , BEFORE WE HAD GENERAL PLANS , farra.fer�- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�JGr Zr1Q (er ice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 �J 49 1 THERE WAS A SORT OF A WAY OF ZONING THINGS THAT CAME TO 2 BE KNOWN AS SPOT ZONING. AND, IN FACT, GENERAL PLANS 3 WERE ADOPTED TO ELIMINATE THIS VERY PROBLEM, WHICH IS 4 THAT SOME CITY FATHERS WOULD TAKE AND ADOPT ZONING ON 5 SPECIFIC SMALL DISCRETE PARCELS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A LAND 6 OWNER, BUT THAT ZONING USE WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 7 REST OF THE AREA AND THAT WAS RULED ILLEGAL IN MANY CASES 8 BY THE COURTS AS SPOT ZONING. 9 AND WE STILL SEE INSTANCES OF IT COMING UP 10 NOW. AND THIS IS , IN FACT, A SPOT ZONING. YOU'RE TAKING 11 A VERY SMALL PARCEL IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND PUTTING AN 12 INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER ON IT. AND JUST SAYING, WELL, 13 BECAUSE WE HAVE A MATRIX , IT MUST BE CONSISTENT. BUT YOU 14 CAN TELL - - I MEAN, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF WHAT YOU'RE 15 DOING HERE IS TO PUT 45 WELLS , SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL 16 USES, AND IF YOU HAVE A BLOWOUT THERE , YOU'VE GOT A VERY 17 GOOD PROBLEM. SO THAT WOULD BE A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE . 18 OBVIOUSLY, THE THIRD ISSUE I 'D LIKE TO BRING 19 TO YOUR ATTENTION WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF 20 CEQA. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE CHAMBERS GROUP IS HERE , A 21 REPRESENTATIVE , JOHN WESTERMEIER, WILL GO INTO MORE 22 DETAILS, SO I ' LL LEAVE THAT TO HIM. 23 BUT JUST BASICALLY ON THE LEGAL ISSUE , YOU 24 KNOW THAT THE EIR HAS GOT TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS IN GOOD 25 FAITH AND REALLY RESPOND TO THEM, AND I AGREE WITH MR. 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrlr/ xer-vZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C�J 50 1 WESTERMEIER THAT THE STAFF HAS GLOSSED OVER THE CENTRAL 2 COMMENT OF REALLY WHAT CAN YOU DO AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO 3 THIS PROBLEM. 4 1 THINK THEY 'RE JUST ACCEPTING THE ANGUS 5 POSITION THAT THERE ' S NO PLACE ELSE TO DO THIS. MR . 6 WESTERMEIER CAN TELL YOU SOME OTHER THINGS ABOUT THAT. 7 THE FIRM HAS EXPERIENCE WITH 30 PROJECTS OF STATE OIL AND 8 GAS PROJECTS, OF WHICH THEY WROTE EIR 'S . SO THEY HAVE A 9 GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE ON THAT. 10 FOURTH ISSUE THAT IS STILL ALIVE AND KICKING 11 IS THE ISSUE OF THE CC&R' S . AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PRIOR 12 TWO COURT ACTIONS . THAT ISSUE WAS NEVER LITIGATED 13 BECAUSE WE HAD SETTLED OUT BEFORE WE EVER REACHED IT. 14 THE CC&R ' S FOR THIS PROPERTY ABSOLUTELY 15 PROHIBIT THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY . AND THE RESIDENTS IN 16 THAT AREA ARE ENTITLED TO RELY ON THOSE CC&R ' S . THEY 'RE 17 ALL RECORDED IN PROPER FORM. AND ANGUS IS JUST SIMPLY 18 STONEWALLING IT AS OF NOW. THEY HAD TRIED IN ONE OF 19 THOSE COURT ACTIONS, BY TECHNICAL, LEGAL MANEUVER, WE 20 CALL IT DEMURRER, TO BRING IT TO THE COURT ' S ATTENTION 21 THAT THEY HAD PREDATED OIL MINERAL RIGHTS THAT GO BY 22 CHAIN OF TITLE BACK TO THE ' 30S. 23 BUT THAT DID NOT SATISFY THE COURT AND IT 24 HASN'T SATISFIED ME AND IT STILL DOESN 'T MAKE THEIR 25 RIGHTS OVERRIDE THE CC&R ' S . 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr �iervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 51 1 SO 1 THINK THAT - - WELL, IN CONSIDERING THE 2 WHOLE BALL OF WAX HERE , WHILE YOU, AS THE CITY, ARE NOT 3 THE PROPER GUARDIAN OF CC&R 'S, NEVERTHELESS, IN THE 4 OVERALL SCHEME OF THINGS , YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN 5 YOU'RE CONSIDERING CONSISTENCY WITH A RESIDENTIAL USE, 6 AND YOU'VE GOT A RESIDENTIAL USE , THEY ' LL ACTUALLY HAVE 7 CC&R' S THAT PROHIBIT THIS ACTIVITY. I MEAN, HOW CAN YOU 8 AVOID THE FACT THAT IT ' S INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE 9 RESIDENTIAL USES? REALLY, IT' S VERY PLAIN TO ME . 10 THE FINAL ISSUE THAT I ' D LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR 11 ATTENTION, UNDER THE U. S . CONSTITUTION, THE 14TH 12 AMENDMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION, YOU'RE ABOUT TO ADOPT, IF 13 YOU DO WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS, A SET OF OVERRIDING 14 CONSIDERATIONS. AND ONE OF THOSE OVERRIDING 15 CONSIDERATIONS TELLS YOU THAT THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROJECT 16 IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE PULLING INCOMPATIBLE USES FROM 17 AROUND THE CITY AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND LOCATING 18 THEM IN ONE CONSOLIDATED PROJECT. 19 AND THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA. IT'S - - 20 WHAT THE CITY IS SAYING WE 'RE DOING FOR THE FUTURE , THIS 21 IS THE HARBINGER FOR THE FUTURE . THAT ' S FINE IF YOU DO 22 IT IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA; BUT IF YOU TAKE IT FROM 16 OR 23 30 OR WHATEVER WELLS AROUND THE CITY AND PLOP THEM ALL IN 24 THE MIDDLE OF A SMALL RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHAT YOU'VE DONE 25 IS TAKE ALL THOSE MISERIES AWAY FROM THE REST OF THOSE , 7ar .fers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr 272Service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CCIJ 52 1 AREAS AND PUT THEM ON THESE RESIDENTS HERE . THAT IS 2 EXTREMELY UNFAIR. 3 THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT ALL CITIZENS SHALL 4 HAVE THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS . 5 WELL, THESE CITIZENS ARE NOT GETTING THE EQUAL 6 PROTECTION OF THE LAWS . THEY 'RE GETTING THE BRUNT OF AN 7 INDUSTRIAL USE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET SO THAT OTHER S PEOPLE WON'T HAVE AN UNSIGHTLY OIL WELL ACROSS THE STREET 9 FROM THEM. 10 1 WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSE CONSOLIDATION. IT' S 11 A GREAT IDEA, BUT YOU HAVE TO FIND A GOOD PLACE TO DO IT. 12 AND, REALLY, IT ' S NOT APPROPRIATE HERE . IT ' S ABSOLUTELY 13 NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE . 14 THEN THE FINAL ISSUE THAT - - JUST ON A 15 PRACTICAL LEVEL, I JUST HAPPENED TO COME LAST NIGHT FROM 16 A - - WHAT WAS A VERY HAPPY, JOYOUS VICTORY PARTY FOR THE 17 PEOPLE UP IN PACIFIC PALISADES. THEY WERE CELEBRATING 18 THE FACT THAT THE CITIZENS OF LOS ANGELES HAD VOTED TO 19 REPEAL THE OIL DRILLING ORDINANCES OF OCCIDENTAL 20 PETROLEUM. AND I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THIS SIGN HERE . 21 IT' S KIND OF GRAPHIC, BUT THERE WERE TWO ORDINANCES - - 22 WELL , THERE WAS ONE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED OIL DRILLING, 23 60 WELLS ON A SMALL TWO-ACRE PARCEL , ALMOST IDENTICAL TO 24 WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE , AND IT WAS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD 25 THAT HAD HOUSES AROUND IT. IT WAS CLOSE TO THE BEACH AND 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c� 53 1 THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT, AND THERE HAD BEEN LEGAL 2 BATTLES GOING BACK FOR OVER 20 YEARS ON THIS . AND, 3 FINALLY, THE CITIZENS GOT TOGETHER AND ENACTED A PETITION 4 TO JUST REPEAL THOSE , TAKE IT OUT OF THE CITY'S HANDS , 5 BECAUSE THEY HAD ENOUGH OF IT. 6 SO OCCIDENTAL WENT AND GOT PETITIONS AND 7 SIGNATURES FOR A COMPETING INITIATIVE WHICH WOULD 8 ABSOLUTELY CONFIRM THEIR DRILLING RIGHTS . 9 SO THEY HAD PROPOSITION 0 TO REPEAL THE 10 ORDINANCE , THAT WAS THE CITIZEN ISSUE , AND PROPOSITION P 11 WAS FUNDED STRICTLY BY OCCIDENTAL, AND IT WAS A HEAVY 12 CAMPAIGN THAT OCCIDENTAL FORCES SPENT $8 MILLION IN 13 ADVERTISING ADS THAT MANY FELT WERE FALSE AND MISLEADING, 14 THAT TOLD THE CITIZENS THAT THAT DRILL SITE WAS GOING TO 15 BE A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE CITY BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING IN 16 $60 MILLION OF REVENUE AND IT WOULD PAY FOR POLICE AND 17 PARKS AND GREAT CITY, YOU KNOW, BENEFITS . AND THIS WAS 18 TARGETED, ESPECIALLY TO THE PEOPLE IN EAST L .A. AND 19 ELSEWHERE . THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY THAT PEOPLE IN THAT 20 AREA WERE ELITES - - I SEE THAT MY TIME IS JUST ABOUT UP. 21 MAYOR ERSKINE : YEAH. I THINK WE LOST OUR BUZZER 22 THERE . DID I MISS IT OR DID IT NOT GO OFF? 23 MR . MURDOCK: WELL , I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT, 24 AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE CITIZENS SAW THROUGH THE 25 ADVERTISING AND REJECTED THE PROPOSAL AND REJECTED THE 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�Gr Z sermice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 54 1 NOTION THAT THE OIL DRILLING WOULD BRING THEM ALL THOSE 2 GREAT BENEFITS WHEN THEY SAW, REALLY, THAT IT WOULD RUIN 3 THE ENVIRONMENT. AND I REALLY THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO 4 LISTEN TO THE WISDOM OF THE CITIZENS ON A CASE LIKE THIS 5 AND VOTE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTAL USES THAT ARE ALREADY 6 EXISTING IN THE AREA. 7 THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. 8 MR . WESTERMEIER: MY NAME IS JOHN WESTMERMEIER. 9 I 'M VICE PRESIDENT OF CHAMBERS GROUP, INCORPORATED, AN 10 ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING FIRM LOCATED IN SANTA ANA AT 2933 11 B, PULLMAN STREET. OUR FIRM HAS BEEN RETAINED BY THE 12 CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO REVIEW THE 13 ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 14 WE BELIEVE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 15 REPORT PRESENTED BEFORE YOU FOR CERTIFICATION IS 16 SERIOUSLY FLAWED. IT ' S CLEARLY INADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT 17 BE CERTIFIED. WE HAVE DOCUMENTED THESE INADEQUACIES ON 18 SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND HAVE SUMMARIZED OUR CONCERNS IN A 19 LETTER I 'M SUBMITTING TO YOU TONIGHT. 20 1 REQUEST THAT THIS LETTER BE PLACED IN THE 21 OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR THIS PROJECT. DUE TO TIME 22 CONSTRAINTS , I WILL LIMIT MY PRESENTATION TO THE ISSUE OF 23 SYSTEM SAFETY. ASSUMING THAT YOU CERTIFY THE EIR AND 24 APPROVE THE PROJECT, YOU' LL BE ASKED TO - - YOU' LL BE 25 ASKED TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . Aa-rrafer,r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r5oorhw &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 55 1 ONE OF THE AREAS OF THIS STATEMENT IS THE SYSTEMS SAFETY 2 IMPACTS TO ADJACENT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FIRE IN THE 3 PROPOSED STORAGE TANKS . 4 THE EIR DISMISSES THIS IMPACT AS RARE AND AN 5 ACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE CITY, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW OF AT 6 LEAST FOUR SIMILAR FIRES IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE 7 LAST YEAR. S SINCE THE EIR DOES NOT TELL YOU, I WILL TELL 9 YOU THE IMPACTS OF A FIRE IN THE STORAGE TANKS ON THESE 10 RESIDENTS . THOSE REMAINING WITHIN THE RADIANT HEAT 11 FOOTPRINT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WOULD EXPERIENCE 12 FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE BURNS . 13 INJURED, DISABLED, OR THE VERY YOUNG COULD 14 EXPERIENCE FATAL BURNS IF THEY COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA 15 IMMEDIATELY . 16 PAINT ON AUTOMOBILES AND THE SIDES OF 17 BUILDINGS WOULD BLISTER AND FLAMMABLE OBJECTS WOULD CATCH 18 FIRE AND COULD IGNITE THE HOUSES . 19 THE EIR ALSO DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT 20 ANY RESIDENTS MUST FLEE THEIR HOME IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE 21 THROUGH THE RADIANT HEAT FOOTPRINT. IN OTHER WORDS , THEY 22 HAVE TO RUN OUT INTO THE WORST PART OF THE IMPACTED AREA 23 IN ORDER TO GET AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES . 24 THE EIR DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY MITIGATION 25 MEASURES OTHER THAN THE USE OF A FIRE SUPPRESSANT SYSTEM 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrl!/ &rwce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 56 1 THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO FAIL. NOTHING IS PERFECT. IT 2 DOES NOT PROVIDE MITIGATION FOR THOSE RESIDENTS WHOSE 3 ONLY EVACUATION ROUTE IS TOWARD THE RADIANT HEAT SOURCE . 4 THE EIR DOES NOT ADDRESS KEY ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD 5 REDUCE THIS IMPACT TO NONSIGNIFICANT LEVELS. 6 THESE ALTERNATIVES WOULD INCLUDE EITHER NO OIL 7 STORAGE OR PLACEMENT OF OIL STORAGE TANKS IN OTHER 8 LOCATIONS FURTHER FROM HOMES. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY 9 REQUESTED THAT THESE ALTERNATIVES BE CONSIDERED. AND IT 10 MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THESE IMPACTS COULD BE REDUCED TO 11 INSIGNIFICANCE AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO ADOPT THIS 12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION. 13 YET WE 'VE BEEN IGNORED AND WHITEWASHED DOWN 14 THE LINE . AND THIS IS A CLEARLY ACCEPTABLE OIL 15 TECHNOLOGY USE IN THIS QUANTITY OF MATERIAL BASIS AS FAR 16 AS THIS HEAT SOURCE . AND THEY MADE NO ATTEMPT TO 17 REDESIGN THE SYSTEM TO TRY TO ELIMINATE THIS IMPACT. 18 SHOULD YOU CERTIFY THE EIR AND APPROVE THE 19 PROJECT TONIGHT, AND A FIRE OCCURS AT THE FACILITY, 20 INJURING OR KILLING THE RESIDENTS NEAR THE PROJECT, 1 21 HOPE THAT YOU ' LL THINK BACK TO MY PRESENTATION TONIGHT 22 AND REALIZE THAT THIS EIR DID NOT GIVE YOU THE TRUE 23 IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT AND YOU COULD HAVE ADOPTED 24 ADDITIONAL MEASURES OR ALTERNATIVES TO MAKE THE PROJECT 25 SAFER. farrafnrx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 rebGr Z �Ser�Zce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 l CJ • 57 1 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 2 MS. DE VINES: HI , I 'M DENISE DEVINES . I OWN AND 3 LIVE AT 1811 CALIFORNIA STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE 4 PROJECT. 5 TO CLARIFY, WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY , 1 6 WAS LED TO BELIEVE THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 20 WELLS . 1 7 DID KNOW IT WAS A TWO-YEAR PROJECT. I WAS SHOWN THE 8 PICTURE IN THE CENTER UP THERE AND WHAT' S MISSING WITH 9 THAT PICTURE , 1 REALIZE NOW, IS MINOR DETAIL, A 150-FOOT 10 PLATFORM, THE LOVELY PLASTIC GREEN SOUND WALL THAT WE HAD 11 UP FOR A WHILE , AND ABOUT 12 YEARS OF TREE GROWTH. SO 12 JUST TO CLARIFY. 13 AND THAT I DO HAVE IN WRITING ABOUT THE 20 14 WELLS, AND I 'M GOING TO GO HOME AND LOOK FOR IT, YOU CAN 15 BE SURE . I 'M A WRITER. I DO A GREAT DEAL OF MY WORK AT 16 HOME AND I LIKE SERENITY. I ALSO HAVE A 10-YEAR-OLD 17 DAUGHTER AND MY ROOMMATE HAS A THREE-YEAR-OLD SON. I 'M 18 CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. I 'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT 19 STRANGERS , NOTHING AGAINST OIL PEOPLE , ALL RIGHT; BUT 20 IT' S JUST A MATTER OF HAVING PEOPLE THAT I DON'T KNOW 21 WORKING ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME AND KNOWING THE COMINGS 22 AND GOINGS OF MY YOUNG DAUGHTER, WHO WILL ALSO BE GROWING 23 INTO THE TEENAGEHOOD, THEN KNOWING WHAT SHE ' S DOING 24 24 HOURS A DAY AND MYSELF IS NOT REAL PLEASANT. 25 1 WAS ALSO APPALLED TO BE OUT IN THE LOBBY A 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rZcr 7 &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 58 1 LITTLE EARLIER HEARING PEOPLE - - IT WAS AN ANGUS REP , WHO 2 1 ' LL LEAVE NAMELESS - - DISCUSS ABOUT HOME VALUES . 1 3 DIDN'T CHOOSE MY HOME BECAUSE OF ITS PROJECTED REVENUE 4 INCREASE . YES , IT IS , PER SE , AN INVESTMENT IN OUR 5 FUTURE , MY DAUGHTER ' S AND MYSELF, BUT 1 BOUGHT IT BECAUSE 6 IT ' S COMFORTABLE . I LIKED HOW IT LOOKED. AND AS FAR AS 7 THAT ' S THE VALUE TO ME . 8 SO WHAT ABOUT VALUE OF LIFE? WHAT ABOUT 9 24-HOUR NOISE FACTOR? 10 TO QUOTE THE LITTLE GIRL SPEAKING DURING THE 11 FLAG CEREMONY , I REALLY LIKED WHAT SHE SAID, AND OF 12 COURSE , IT ' S A FORMALITY , BUT IT REALLY RUNG HOME . "OUR 13 FREEDOM AFFORDS US RIGHTS. " REAL SIMPLE , OUR FREEDOM 14 AFFORDS US RIGHTS. SHE ALSO PLACED THE RESPONSIBILITY 15 FOR PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS ON YOU, THE COUNCIL . SHE 16 PROBABLY BELIEVES, LIKE MY DAUGHTER, THAT YOUR PRIMARY 17 CONCERN IS TO KEEP HUNTINGTON BEACH A SAFE , PLEASANT, 18 NICE PLACE TO LIVE . IT ' S HARD FOR A KID TO UNDERSTAND 19 SELLING OUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE TO GENERATE REVENUES FOR 20 CITY BUDGETS . AND QUITE FRANKLY, NEITHER DO I . 21 I 'M PROUD OF MY HOME . IT' S VERY, VERY PRETTY. 22 IT' S ONE OF THE ENGLISH TUDOR HOMES . AND I 'M REAL PROUD 23 TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET INTO THAT HOME . AND I WORKED 24 HARD. 1 LITERALLY GO OUT THERE AND MOW MY LAWN AND PLANT 25 THE FLOWERS AND TRY TO DECORATE THE BEST I CAN. I WOULD Aa-,rr.lxferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z72� xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� cJ 59 1 INVITE ANY OF YOU TO COME AND SEE MY HOME BECAUSE I 'M 2 PROUD OF IT. 3 WHAT I ' D ALSO LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT IS THE VIEW 4 ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A MESS . 5 I 'M TIRED OF IT. I 'M ALSO TIRED OF LATE NIGHT MEETINGS 6 WHERE I HAVE TO PUT MY DAUGHTER SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH ONE 7 OF MY FRIENDS ON A SCHOOL NIGHT. I 'M ALSO TIRED OF 8 PEOPLE WHO COME IN FROM THE OUTSIDE TO TRY TO BUILD A 9 GOOD IMAGE FOR THE PARTIES IN QUESTION HERE . AND 1 'M 10 TIRED OF REHASHING THE OBVIOUS , WHICH IS A LARGE-SIZE 11 DRILLING PROJECT THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN A RESIDENTIAL 12 NEIGHBORHOOD. 13 I 'M NOT AT ALL OPPOSED TO HAVING A FEW 14 DRILLING SITES AROUND. I THINK THAT GIVES HUNTINGTON 15 BEACH ITS VERY SPECIAL PERSONALITY. 16 THANK YOU. 17 MS. HOLLANDER : GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE 18 COUNCIL. I 'M PAT HOLLANDER, AND I LIVE AT 213 VIA DIJON 19 IN NEWPORT BEACH. MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED THE 20 PROPERTY AT 1714 HUNTINGTON STREET IN THE VICINITY OF THE 21 ANGUS OIL PROJECT AT THE END OF MARCH 1987 . WE WERE TOLD 22 NOTHING ABOUT ANY MAJOR OIL WELL PROJECTS AND STORAGE 23 UNITS PROPOSED TO BE PUT THERE . AT THE TIME WE THOUGHT 24 IT WAS A SAFE INVESTMENT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS IN AN 25 AREA WHICH IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL . NEVER IN OUR WILDEST �arrz��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 60 1 DREAMS, WHEN WE WERE INVESTING OUR MONEY, DID WE THINK 2 THAT ANYONE MOULD SUGGEST, AND CERTAINLY THAT THE COUNCIL 3 WOULD CONSIDER, ALLOWING SUCH A PROPOSAL AS THIS. 4 TO CHANGE THE ZONING NOW IS ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR 5 TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ANTICIPATED THAT THE PROPERTY 6 WOULD BE KEPT RESIDENTIAL . TO ALLOW OIL WELLS , OIL 7 STORAGE , AND INCREASED THREATS TO THE HEALTH OF RESIDENTS 8 IS INAPPROPRIATE COUNCIL ACTION. 9 1 URGE YOU TO REJECT ANGUS OIL ' S PROPOSAL, THE 10 PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE , THE USE PERMIT, AND THE 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 12 THANK YOU. 13 MR. ALVAREZ: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR ERSKINE AND 14 COUNCIL MEMBERS . HELLO, MY NAME IS ARNOLD ALVAREZ . 1 15 OWN THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF HUNTINGTON STREET AND 16 TORONTO. 17 IN AUGUST 1975 , 1 CHOSE TO BUY THIS BUILDING 18 OVER OTHERS , WHILE PAYING MORE MONEY , BECAUSE OF ITS 19 LOCATION AWAY FROM EXISTING OIL WELLS. I KNEW THE AREA 20 WAS AN ABANDONED OIL FIELD OF TIMES PAST. NOW, 13 YEARS 21 LATER, IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING REGRESSING. WE 22 CURRENTLY HEAR TALK ABOUT HUNTINGTON BEACH TODAY, 23 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW, BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE PERTAINS 24 TO HUNTINGTON BEACH YESTERDAY. THE IDEA OF 45 OIL WELLS , 25 MANY HUGE OIL TANKS , 24 HOURS OF NOISE FROM DRILLING, farraferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1r/ xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C5l 61 1 SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, MANY FOUR-TON TRUCKS COMING AND GOING 2 THROUGH OUR ALREADY CONGESTED CITY STREETS , BUT MOST 3 IMPORTANT, AS HAS BEEN UNDERSCORED BY TENANT' S CONCERNS, 4 THE POSSIBILITIES OF DANGER DUE TO AN OIL WELL EXPLOSION 5 ARE ALARMING. 6 JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO IN THE CITY OF 7 VENTURA CITIZENS WERE IN TURMOIL BECAUSE OIL LINES HAD 8 ERUPTED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS . AND IN SANTA 9 BARBARA OIL WELLS EXPLODED. 10 IN A CITY LIKE HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHERE THERE 11 ARE SEVERAL RIOTED NEIGHBORHOODS, OURS WILL HAVE THE 12 POTENTIAL OF JOINING THEIR RANKS BECAUSE GOOD TENANTS ARE 13 GOING TO MOVE AND PEOPLE OF QUESTIONABLE CHARACTER WILL 14 REPLACE THEM. 15 IF YOU HAD A CHOICE , WOULD YOU LIVE 50 FEET 16 FROM AN OIL FIELD? 17 IF THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED TONIGHT, THIS ISSUE 18 WILL NOT REST AND WILL ULTIMATELY BE SETTLED IN THE 19 COURTS. THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO LIVE FROM DANGER, 20 NOISE AND POLLUTION MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE 21 PROPERTY RIGHTS OF AN OUT-OF-PLACE OIL COMPANY . 22 IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE 23 MANNER BY WHICH ANGUS SECURED MY OIL RIGHTS FRINGED ON 24 THE BORDERLINE OF FRAUD. I WAS NEVER INFORMED, NOR LED 25 TO BELIEVE , THAT THEY HAD PLANS OF ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr ZrIQ er�JZce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 62 1 ACROSS FROM MINE WITH PLANS OF INSTALLING AN OIL FIELD OF 2 SUCH MAGNITUDE . IT JUST DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR 3 NEIGHBORHOOD NOR ANYBODY ELSE ' S. THERE ARE OTHER 4 UNINHABITED AREAS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RIGHT HERE . 5 THANK YOU. 6 MR. CRAIG: MAYOR ERSKINE , CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS , MY 7 NAME IS MICHAEL CRAIG. UP UNTIL ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO 1 8 RESIDED AT 1807 CALIFORNIA STREET. I LIVED THERE FOR 9 NINE HAPPY YEARS . I LOVED IT HERE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 10 1 ATE MUNCHIES PIZZA, I BOUGHT MY PARKING PERMIT HERE , 11 HUNG OUT ON THE BEACH, I LOVE IT HERE . ALL MY FRIENDS 12 ARE HERE , MY CHURCH IS HERE , EVERYTHING WAS HERE . 13 1 WANT TO TELL A LITTLE BIT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT 14 STORY THAN YOU'VE BEEN HEARING. I KNOW YOUR EYES ARE 15 ROLLING BACK IN YOUR HEAD, AND YOU'RE SAYING HERE ' S JUST 16 ANOTHER REMARK. 17 1 ACTUALLY SOLD MY HOUSE . I LIVED RIGHT 18 ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT SITE. DIRECTLY 19 ACROSS , 1807 CALIFORNIA STREET. I LIVED THERE FOR NINE 20 YEARS ; I DIDN'T WANT TO SELL . 1 WANTED TO LIVE THERE . 21 SO A COUPLE OF THE PEOPLE ON MY STREET DID SELL; 1 DID 22 NOT. THEY SOLD BEFORE THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BEGAN; 1 23 DID NOT. I LINGERED ON. I FOUGHT AS LONG AS I COULD AND 24 1 FINALLY DID SELL . 25 1 WOULD LIKE TO RELATE ABOUT FOUR ITEMS THAT fams.fers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA AN&CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1Q set-vice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cf 63 1 OCCURRED AS I WAS TRYING TO SELL MY PROPERTY: FIRST OFF, 2 I ' D LIKE TO SHOW YOU - - I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THIS 3 VERY WELL. IT' S ABOUT TWO INCHES THICK OF CARDS, THE 4 CARDS THAT REAL ESTATE AGENTS LEAVE WHEN THEY VISIT YOUR 5 PROPERTY WHEN THEY BRING A CLIENT BY . I COUNTED THEM 6 EARLIER. I HAD 101 SEPARATE VISITS. I COULD NOT SELL MY 7 PROPERTY . 8 IT TOOK THREE TO FOUR MONTHS OF CONSTANT OPEN 9 HOUSE AND VISITS . YOU CAN COUNT THEM IF YOU WANT. 1 10 DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME . THAT ' S A LOT OF 11 VISITS. THEY COULD NOT SELL IT. AND I FINALLY ASKED MY 12 REAL ESTATE AGENT WHY. AND HE SAID BECAUSE OF THE OIL 13 PROJECT. 14 THE AGENTS HAVE A PRACTICE OF WHAT THEY CALL A 15 DRIVE BY, WHERE THEY GIVE A LIST OF POTENTIAL PROPERTIES 16 TO THE PEOPLE WHO'D LIKE TO BUY A NEW HOUSE AND THEY 17 DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY. IF THEY 'RE INTERESTED, THEY 18 CONTACT THE AGENT AND THEY COME BACK AND THEY TAKE THEM 19 INSIDE THE HOUSE . 20 THEY STOPPED THE PRACTICE OF DRIVING PAST MY 21 PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WOULD LOOK ON ONE SIDE AND 22 SEE A NICE LOVELY HOUSE , LOOK ON THE OTHER SIDE AND SEE 23 THIS PROJECT. NOT ONE OF THEM WANTED TO GO BACK AND LOOK 24 IN MY HOUSE . I ASKED MY REAL ESTATE AGENT POINT BLANK , 25 AND HE SAID WE STOPPED IT BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD COME IN farrz�ferx" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z xeruzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 64 1 WHEN THEY SAW THE PROJECT. 2 1 CAN GET - - MR . O' REILLY - - I CAN GET HIM TO 3 COME AND HE CAN ADDRESS YOU AND TELL YOU THAT HAPPENED. 4 1 CAN CALL HIM IF YOU DON 'T BELIEVE ME THAT IT REALLY DID 5 HAPPEN. 6 THIRDLY, WHEN IT FINALLY DID SELL , BECAUSE 1 7 HAD HESITATED AND WAITED, ATTEMPTING TO FIGHT THIS OUT, 8 IT SOLD DRASTICALLY UNDER WHAT THE OTHER PLACES WERE 9 GOING. 10 NOW, WE HAD THE NICE LADY TELL YOU THAT, YOU 11 KNOW, PROPERTY VALUES HAVE SKYROCKETED IN THE PAST COUPLE 12 OF YEARS . THEY 'VE GONE EVERYWHERE . THEY DID NOT 13 SKYROCKET BECAUSE THE RUMOR GOT OUT THAT THEY WERE GOING 14 TO PUT A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OIL PROJECT IN YOUR 15 NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY GOT UP BECAUSE HOUSES WERE GOING UP 16 EVERYWHERE . SO THAT' S A MISNOMER; THAT ' S A FALLACY. 17 PROPERTY VALUES ARE STILL HIGH. ARE THEY STILL HIGH 18 BECAUSE OF THE OIL PROJECT? NO. THEY 'RE HIGH IN SPITE 19 OF THE OIL PROJECT . 20 1 ASK - - WHEN THE PRICE WAS - - LOOKED AT AS 21 DANGEROUSLY HIGH BY MY AGENT, I ASKED HIM AGAIN POINT 22 BLANK, AND HE SAYS , WE CAN'T GO MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE OF 23 THE OIL PROJECT. 24 THESE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AT, WHAT, TWO YEARS 25 AGO NOW, THAT STOOD UP AND SAID, "YOUR PROPERTY VALUES �arrZ��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rG/✓Gr Z72Q �er�ZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 �C/l 65 1 WILL JUST SHOOT UP THE RICHTER SCALE BECAUSE OF THIS 2 PROJECT, " AND ALL THESE GUYS WITH THE COWBOY HATS, YOU 3 KNOW, WHO CAME IN AND SAID THIS WERE WRONG. EITHER THEY 4 WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH OR THEY WERE GROSSLY IN ERROR . 5 ONE LAST POINT, TWO FACTS THAT 1 KNOW 6 FIRSTHAND. I KNOW BECAUSE I EXPERIENCED THEM. THE 7 PEOPLE THAT FINALLY DID PURCHASE HOMES ON MY STREET 8 FACING THE OIL PROJECT, I SPOKE TO THEM AT LENGTH, AND 9 PEOPLE EVEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET WERE FLATLY 10 NOT TOLD THE TRUTH. I MUST ASSUME IT WAS BECAUSE THE 11 AGENTS DID NOT TELL THEM THE TRUTH. 12 THEY WERE QUESTIONED BY ME , PERSONALLY, AT 13 LENGTH AND THEY HAD NO CONCEPT. I REMEMBER ONE NICE LADY 14 WAS TOLD, WELL , THERE ' S GOING TO BE A COUPLE OIL WELLS 15 AND THEY ' LL PUT A FENCE AROUND IT AND THAT IS THE EXTENT 16 OF THE INFORMATION SHE WAS GIVEN. 17 THERE WAS DELIBERATE DECEPTION ON THE PART OF 18 THE AGENTS . PEOPLE NEVER WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THERE . 1 19 TALKED TO THEM PERSONALLY , AND AFTERWARDS THEY SAID, " I 20 DIDN'T KNOW THAT. IF 1 WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT, I WOULDN'T 21 HAVE BOUGHT THERE . " 22 1 HAVE IN MY POSSESSION ONE LAST THING, AND 23 1 ' LL THANK YOU FOR YOUR GRACIOUS INDULGENCE . ONE FINAL 24 ITEM, I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME , I APOLOGIZE , BUT I DO HAVE 25 IN MY POSSESSION, IN MY FILES AT HOME , A LETTER FROM MY farrafercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z wrvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 66 1 INSURANCE AGENT . AND THE LETTER STATES PLAINLY, IF THE 2 PROJECT GOES IN, I WOULD HAVE TO FACE AN INSURANCE RATE 3 INCREASE . IT ' S A DANGEROUS , DANGEROUS PROJECT TO PUT IN. 4 AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY REASON BEING IN THE MIDST OF THIS 5 RESIDENTIAL AREA. 6 1 URGE YOU, PLEASE , PLEASE , DON'T PUT THIS IN. 7 IT IS MORE THAN MAKING BUCKS FOR AN OIL COMPANY. IT' S 8 MORE THAN CONSOLIDATING A FEW ISOLATED WELLS INTO ONE 9 MASS PROJECT. ' THE DETRIMENTS FAR OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS. 10 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME . 11 MR. PORTER: MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY 12 COUNCIL, MY NAME IS MARK PORTER . 13 1 SPENT, PRIOR TO THE END OF 1986 , 14 APPROXIMATELY 13 YEARS ON THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. 15 1 ENJOYED IT. I CONSIDERED IT A GREAT HONOR TO BE ABLE 16 TO SERVE THE CITY, AND I ALSO GOT A LOT OF FIRSTHAND 17 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN THE COMMUNITY . 18 IN THAT FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE , I GUESS I WOULD 19 SAY THAT THIS PROJECT STANDS OUT AS BEING UNIQUE IN THAT 20 THERE ' S NEVER BEEN A CONSOLIDATION PROJECT IN HUNTINGTON 21 BEACH EVEN REMOTELY CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA OF 22 THIS MAGNITUDE . 23 THERE HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATION PROJECTS , SURE , 24 AND I 'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THEM. THERE WAS THE SIGNAL 25 PROJECT THAT WAS DOWN ON COAST HIGHWAY LONG BEFORE farrixfe,rx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z xervZce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 67 1 DEVELOPMENT REACHED OUT THERE , HAD A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER 2 OF SUBTERRANEAN WELLS PUT IN. 3 THE HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY SEACLIFF PROJECT 4 HAS GOT OIL ISLANDS SCATTERED ALL OVER IT, ALL INSTALLED 5 WELL BEFORE THE PROJECT - - THE HOUSING PROJECTS WERE 6 BUILT. IN FACT, I CAN REMEMBER GOING TO THE FIRST 7 SEACLIFF OPEN HOUSE THAT THE DEVELOPER HELD, AND WE 8 WALKED UPSTAIRS AND LOOKED OUT THE BACK WINDOW OF ONE OF 9 THE HOMES AND WE WERE LOOKING RIGHT INTO THE YARD OF A 10 CONSOLIDATION PROJECT. 11 BUT YOU KNEW WHEN YOU WALKED INTO THAT 12 PROJECT, IF YOU BOUGHT THAT HOME , THAT ' S WHAT YOU WERE 13 FACING. 1 THINK THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME HERE TONIGHT 14 HAVE ACCURATELY DEPICTED FOR YOU THE FACT THAT THEY 15 DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCEPT THAT THEY WERE FACING THIS TYPE 16 OF PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE WHEN THEY BOUGHT OR RENTED 17 IN THAT AREA. 18 NOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT DEAL. I DON'T 19 HAVE ANY - - I DON'T HAVE ANY QUARREL WITH THE ECONOMICS 20 OR THE FACT THAT CONSOLIDATION IS A GOOD - - IS A GOOD 21 THING. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT' S PROBABLY THE TWO 22 OUTSTANDING FEATURES IN ITS FAVOR . BUT I DO RECALL THAT 23 BACK WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT 24 WE SPENT MANY , MANY HOURS ON IT AND, UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS 25 OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS THE NIGHT THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 • 68 1 VOTED SIX TO ZERO AGAINST THE PROJECT. AND, 2 UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T THERE TO SWELL THEIR NUMBERS AND 3 MAKE IT UNANIMOUS . 4 BUT I DO THINK THAT ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES 5 HERE , AND IT ' S BEEN BROUGHT UP , AND I THINK IT' S WORTH 6 EMPHASIZING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS 7 A SPOT ZONE . THERE ' S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. ABSOLUTELY 8 NONE . THIS IS NOT THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE OR TEN WELLS; 9 THIS IS 45 OR 50 WELLS . THAT REPRESENTS AN INDUSTRIAL 10 USE . THERE ' S NOTHING LIKE IT IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 11 BEACH WITHIN ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING. 12 AND THAT' S THE THING YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO 13 DEFEND AGAINST IN A COURT OF LAW, I 'M SURE OF IT, BECAUSE 14 IF YOU APPROVE THE PROJECT, YOU WILL FORCE THESE PEOPLE 15 TO GO TO COURT. AND ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS THAT THEY 'RE 16 GOING TO RELY ON IN THE COURTS. THAT' S ONE OF THE ONLY 17 AREAS THAT THE COURT REALLY HAS IN THE PAST BEEN WILLING 18 TO INTERFERE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THEY LET LOCAL 19 GOVERNMENT DO A LOT OF THINGS. THEY REALLY STAY HANDS 20 OFF, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DON'T DO IS THEY DON'T 21 ALLOW SPOT ZONINGS. AND THERE ' S CASE LAW AFTER CASE LAW, 22 AND WE 'VE REVIEWED IT IN PAST OCCURRENCES IN THE PLANNING 23 COMMISSION RELATIVE TO SPOT ZONING. 24 THIS IS THE MOST SERIOUS EFFECT IN THIS 25 PROJECT. APART FROM THE HUMAN FACTORS , AND I AGREE AND harrZ.��erx" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 69 1 I 'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETAILS OR 2 ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THIS IS A SERIOUS, SERIOUS 3 MISTAKE TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AND PUT IT IN THE MIDDLE 4 OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THERE JUST IS NOT SUFFICIENT 5 NUMBER OF POINTS OF MITIGATION THAT WOULD LET YOU APPROVE 6 IT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE . 7 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 8 MR. VAN HOUTEN: MY NAME IS JOHN VAN HOUTEN. I 'M A 9 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF 10 CALIFORNIA. MY OFFICE IS IN ANAHEIM. I 'M THE 11 ACCOUSTICAL ENGINEER WORKING FOR ANGUS PETROLEUM ON THE 12 PROJECT. 13 CONDITION 14 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14 REQUIRES , IN EFFECT, THAT ANGUS DEVELOP A NOISE CONTROL 15 ACTION PLAN. 16 WE 'RE WELL ALONG IN DEVELOPING THAT PLAN AND 17 WE 'VE EVEN SUBMITTED A DRAFT OF THAT TO YOUR STAFF. THE 18 PLAN IDENTIFIES THE NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE I 19 PROJECT. IT INDICATES THE NOISE CONTROL MEASURES THAT 20 WILL BE APPLIED. AND IT INDICATES A PLAN FOR 21 MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE START OF 22 THE DRILLING PHASE , IMMEDIATELY UPON STARTING THE 23 DRILLING PHASE , AND PERIODICALLY DURING THE TWO YEARS OF 24 DRILLING. 25 REPORTS , AND AGAIN, PER YOUR CONDITIONS OF 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 �er�ZLe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 cJ 70 1 APPROVAL , WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THIS CITY WITHIN THREE 2 DAYS AFTER EACH MEASUREMENT SERIES . 3 OUR CURRENT WORK INCLUDES NOISE AND GROUND 4 VIBRATION MEASUREMENTS . WE 'VE DONE A NUMBER OF THEM OF 5 DIFFERENT DRILL SITES. WE 'RE CURRENTLY MAKING 6 MEASUREMENTS AT A SHELL DRILLING RIG NEARBY AND GETTING 7 DATA ON ELECTRICALLY POWERED DRILLS , DRILLING RIGS. THE 8 DATA THAT WE 'VE OBTAINED SO FAR CLEARLY INDICATES THAT, 9 WITH THE NOISE CONTROL MEASURES THAT WE 'RE PROPOSING TO 10 USE AND WILL USE , THAT THE NOISE LEVELS THAT WILL BE 11 EXPERIENCED AT THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS WILL 12 COMPLY WITH THE CITY ' S NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS . 13 1 'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS . 14 MAYOR ERSKINE : I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY AT THIS 15 TIME . 16 ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS? PLEASE COME FORWARD. 17 MS . MELIOUS: MAYOR ERSKINE , MEMBERS OF THE 18 COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JEAN MELIOUS , AND I 'M AN ATTORNEY 19 WITH THE LAW FIRM OF NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT. 20 1 HAD HOPED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO REMAIN 21 SILENT TONIGHT. I FIGURED YOU'VE SEEN ENOUGH ATTORNEYS , 22 BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID THAT ARE SO 23 OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY REALLY NEED A RESPONSE . 24 1 HOPE THE TV VIEWERS AT HOME ENJOY MR. 25 WESTERMEIER ' S FORAYING INTO THE GERALDO RIVERA' S SCHOOL �arrz��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1(i xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 cC/� 71 1 OF SENSATIONALISM. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 2 WHAT HE SAID ABOUT FIRE . 3 HE SAID THERE ' S NO MITIGATION FOR FIRE . AND 4 THAT ' S JUST WRONG. I WOULD SAY TO THAT, "READ YOUR EIR. " 5 THE RADIANT HEAT HAZARD FOOTPRINT THERE WAS CALCULATED AS 6 IF THE TANKS WERE ON OPEN PLAIN WITH NO WALLS AND THE 7 TANKS WERE RECESSED UNDERGROUND. 8 HE SAID THE ONLY MITIGATION MEASURES ARE A FEW 9 LITTLE FIRE THINGS . WELL, YOU HEARD YOUR FIRE CHIEF SAY 10 THAT CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT WILL BE LESS DANGEROUS 11 THAN FIRE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT. AND I THINK 12 THAT STATING THAT THERE ' S NO MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRE 13 AND THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE BURNED IS ENTIRELY 14 IRRESPONSIBLE . 15 JUST TO GO OVER BRIEFLY A FEW THINGS 16 MR. MURDOCK SAID, HIS FIRST OF FIVE LEGAL ISSUES WERE 17 INCONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. WELL , THERE IS A 18 LEGAL TERM FOR IT. IT' S CALLED FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE . 19 OF COURSE , THE EIR DID NOT SIMPLY LOOK AT THE MATRIX . 20 I ' D REFER YOU TO PAGES 31 THROUGH 38 OF THE EIR, WHICH 21 GOES POLICY BY POLICY THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN STATING 22 REASONS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL 23 PLAN. 24 THE SECOND LEGAL ISSUE IS SPOT ZONING. AND 25 THERE ' S A LEGAL TERM FOR THAT. IT' S CALLED SILLY. IT ' S �arra��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z>2l/ &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 72 1 CLEARLY NOT SPOT ZONING WHEN YOU HAVE AN OIL OVERLAY OVER 2 AN ENTIRE OIL FIELD. 3 THE THIRD ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE EIR WAS IN 4 VIOLATION OF CEQA, AND HE RELIED ON MR . WESTERMEIER ' S 5 ANALYSIS TO DEFINE THIS POINT. WELL , YES , THERE IS A 6 LEGAL TERM FOR MR . WESTERMEIER ' S ANALYSIS ALSO. IN A I 7 SIMILAR CASE , WHERE A CONSULTANT WAS PAID TO CRITICIZE AN I 8 EIR, CAME UP WITH SIMILAR PICKY COMMENTS ON THE EIR , THE 9 COURT CALLED THEIR CRITIQUE , HYPERTECHNICAL, 10 HYPERCRITICAL , HYPERBOLE , AND I 'D SAY THAT ' S WHAT MR. 11 WESTERMEIER ' S ANALYSIS IS. 12 THE FOURTH LEGAL POINT WAS CC&R ' S, YOU'RE NOT 13 THE FORUM TO DECIDE THAT. THEY SAY THEY APPLY ; WE SAY 14 THEY CLEARLY DON 'T APPLY . 15 AND THE FIFTH POINT IS EQUAL PROTECTION. YOU 16 KNOW, MR. MURDOCK KNOWS THAT .THE CITY ' S DECISION TO 17 IMPROVE ITSELF, TO REDUCE SAFETY IMPACTS , TO REDUCE 18 AESTHETIC IMPACTS , TO INCREASE AIR QUALITY IS NOT AN 19 EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION. IT' S AN EXERCISE OF THE 20 POLICE POWER. 21 THE SIXTH POINT WAS WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO 22 WITH OCCIDENTAL? 23 THAT' S ALL . THANK YOU. i 24 MAYOR ERSKINE : I HAVE A QUESTION. i I 25 MS. MELIOUS: SURE . 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re`JGr Z72Q &rmce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 �� CJ 73 1 MAYOR ERSKINE: EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY CHARACTERIZE 2 THE ISSUE OF SPOT ZONING AS SILLY, I THINK THE COUNCIL 3 MIGHT APPRECIATE A LITTLE FURTHER ANALYSIS. 4 DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON WHY - - 5 MS. MELIOUS: YEAH. I CAN TALK ABOUT IT AND I 'M 6 SURE YOUR STAFF CAN TALK ABOUT THE ZONING SYSTEM. MY 7 UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS AN OIL SUFFIX WHICH CAN S IMPLY OVER AN ENTIRE DESIGNATED AREA, AND BECAUSE OF THAT 9 IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SPOT. IT 'S CALLED OVERLAY ZONING. 10 IT'S A VERY COMMON PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 THAT' S BEEN UPHELD NUMEROUS TIMES . 12 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 13 MS . MELIOUS: IS THAT CORRECT? 14 MAYOR ERSKINE : WE CAN GET INTO THAT WITH THE STAFF 15 LATER. THANK YOU. 16 MS . MELIOUS: SURE . 17 MR. ABRAMSON: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WESLEY 16 ABRAMSON, AND i OWN THE PROPERTY AT 1713 CALIFORNIA 19 STREET. I 'VE OWNED THAT PROPERTY FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS 20 NOW. THERE ' S NO QUESTION THE SPRINGFIELD OIL RECOVERY 21 PROJECT IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR 22 NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ' S NO QUESTION. 23 THIS DOES VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE 24 OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. THE CONSOLIDATION 25 DOES REMOVE THE OIL WELLS . THERE ' S NO QUESTION ABOUT 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrl� iervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 74 1 THIS. THE OIL IS THERE . THERE ' S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 2 BUT IT DOES PUT THEM ALL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE GET 3 THEM. 4 IT FORCES US , THE RESIDENTS , OWNERS, TO TAKE 5 THE RISK , THE NOISE , TRUCK TRAFFIC, DUST, AND THE 6 CONSTANT DANGER. THIS DEGRADATION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 7 WILL BE GOOD IN THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE , THE MOST HEAVY 8 PART, BUT THEN FOR ALL THE TIME THAT THE PROJECT IS THERE 9 AFTER THAT. I WISH TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE , THE 10 RESIDENTS AND OWNERS , ARE NOT BEING GIVEN EQUAL 11 PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. 12 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 13 MS. COUNTS: HI , MY NAME IS SUSAN COUNTS . I 'M AN 14 OWNER - - A HOMEOWNER IN HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR OVER 18 15 YEARS NOW. 16 MAYOR ERSKINE : SUSAN, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME? 17 MS . COUNTS: COUNTS, C-O-U-N-T-S. 18 I AM ONE OF THOSE , QUOTE , UNQUOTE , OIL PEOPLE . 19 1 DIDN'T COME HERE THIS EVENING ON THIS ISSUE , BUT 1 20 THOUGHT MAYBE I COULD SHED A LITTLE LIGHT. I WORK FOR 21 CHEVRON U. S .A. , EL SEGUNDO OIL REFINERY IN EL SEGUNDO. 22 THE PROPERTY THERE THAT SURROUNDS THE REFINERY HAS A MUCH 23 HIGHER PROPERTY VALUE THAN THE PROPERTY IN HUNTINGTON 24 BEACH. ON MY CONDO I PAID 180 , 000 FOR A THREE BEDROOM, 25 THREE BATH. IF I WANTED TO BUY THAT SAME CONDO IN EL 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z721/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 Cl 75 1 SEGUNDO, IT 1NOULD COST ME AT LEAST 500 , 000 . 2 WE CO-EXIST VERY PLEASANTLY WITH THE CITY OF 3 EL SEGUNDO. THEY ARE INVITED INTO OUR REFINERY. THEY 4 CAN COME IN, THEY CAN COME WITH OUR GENERAL MANAGER , THEY 5 CAN GO ON A WALK THROUGH AT ANY TIME . I ALSO WORK AS , 6 WOULD BE KNOWN, IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT, 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FIRE AND SECURITY. I 'M A MEMBER OF THE ERT 8 TEAM, EMERGENCY RESPONSE TERM. 1 SPENT A WEEK IN RENO IN 9 JULY THIS YEAR LEARNING HOW TO FIGHT THESE FIRES . THESE 10 FIRES CAN BE VERY POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS , YES . BUT IF YOU 11 HAVE A FIRE FIGHTING TEAM THAT IS EQUIPPED AND KNOWS HOW 12 TO HANDLE THESE FIRES, THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS ANY MORE SO 13 THAN A HIGH-RISE BUILDING. I WOULD SAY EVEN LESS SO. 14 PART OF MY JOB REQUIREMENT WAS TO SHOW UP AT 15 THESE FIRES IF WE HAVE ANY IN OUR REFINERY AND FIGHT 16 THESE . THEY HAD ASKED FOR PEOPLE TO VOLUNTEER TO JOIN 17 THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM. SO I FIGURED IF I 'M GOING 18 TO HAVE TO FIGHT THESE FIRES , I MAY AS WELL LEARN HOW TO 19 DO SO. NOW, IF I HAD SHOWN UP TO SOME OF THESE FIRES - - 20 WE LEARNED TO FIGHT PROPANE FIRES , WE FOUGHT FIRES THAT 21 WERE THREE STORIES TALL, WE CLIMBED UP STAIRS AND PUT 22 THESE OUT, WE USED FOAM, WE USED WATER, WE USED EVERY 23 AVAILABLE THING THERE WAS TO FIGHT THESE FIRES. YES, 24 THERE IS RADIANT HEAT AND, YES, IT CAN BE DANGEROUS. 25 BUT I WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THIS HAS BEEN 2arrZ��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr � xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 w 0 76 1 TESTED IN THESE TANKS, AND I HAD CLOSE ENOUGH RANGE WHERE 2 PEOPLE WOULD BE ENDANGERED IN THIS. 3 IF THEY'RE FOUGHT RIGHT, THEY 'RE NOT THAT 4 DANGEROUS, BUT YOU DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY OF 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH - - THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS TRAINED TO 6 FIGHT THESE FIRES. IF THEY 'RE NOT, THEN THEY CAN BE VERY 7 DANGEROUS. BUT THEY CAN BE SELF-CONTAINED, COOLED DOWN, 8 AND PUT OUT IN A VERY REASONABLE MANNER WITHOUT 9 ENDANGERING ANYBODY ' S LIFE . 10 AND AS FAR AS ALSO FINDING NUMBERS , 11 ENVIRONMENTAL NUMBERS, IN ORDER TO DO MY JOB, I HAVE TO 12 DO A LOT OF TESTING FOR STUFF FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 13 COMPLIANCE. AND IN ORDER TO DO THIS , I HAD TO BE 14 CERTIFIED THAT I KNOW HOW TO DO THIS PROPERLY . AND IF 1 15 FALSIFY THESE NUMBERS . I . NUMBER ONE , AM LIABLE FOR A 16 JAIL TERM. SO I CAN'T - - I CAN 'T HONESTLY SAY THAT I CAN 17 SEE ANYBODY DOING AN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND PURPOSELY 18 FALSIFYING THESE NUMBERS KNOWING THEY CAN GO TO JAIL. 19 AS FAR DOWN AS MY JOB, I MEAN, I 'M AT THE 20 BOTTOM OF THE TOTEM POLE AS AN OPERATOR, AND I CAN GO TO 21 JAIL IF I KNOWINGLY FALSIFY THESE NUMBERS . SO IT WOULD 22 BE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO STAND HERE AND BELIEVE THAT 23 WHOEVER THEY HIRED TO DO THESE ENVIRONMENTAL TESTINGS 24 WOULD FALSIFY THESE NUMBERS , KNOWING THAT THEY CAN SPEND 25 JAIL TIME FOR THIS . Aa_rrafer.r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr 2� �wrvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 77 1 TO COMPLY WITH THESE ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS , IT 2 BECOME STRICTER AND STRICTER EVERY YEAR. AND IF THIS 3 COMPANY CAN'T COMPLY WITH THESE - - I AM WELL VERSED WITH 4 AGMD, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD, NPDES , WHICH STANDS 5 FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM. 1 6 WORK WITH THESE PEOPLE DAILY. IF THEY CAN'T COMPLY WITH 7 THESE , THEN YOU SHOULD SHUT THEM DOWN AND THEY WOULD BE 8 SHUT DOWN BY THESE AGENCIES . IF THEY CAN, THE BUSINESS 9 CAN RUN VERY SMOOTHLY. AND IF WE DON'T UTILIZE THE OIL 10 IN OUR COUNTRY, WE WILL BE PAYING MUCH MORE FOR GAS IN 11 THE FUTURE . 12 THANK YOU. 13 MR. SCHOFIELD: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL 14 MEMBERS . MY NAME IS EDD SCHOFIELD. I 'M A SALES ENGINEER 15 FOR AN OIL SERVICE COMPANY AND HAVE WORKED IN AND AROUND 16 URBAN DRILL SITES FOR A REMAINDER OF NINE YEARS NOW. 17 THE DOCUMENTS AND PROPOSALS BEFORE YOU ARE 18 WELL-THOUGHT OUT AND WELL-ENGINEERED OIL DEVELOPMENT 19 PROJECT. A PROJECT THAT WILL CONSOLIDATE NOXIOUS, NOISY, 20 HAZARDOUSLY, HAPHAZARDOUSLY SPREAD OUT PRODUCING WELLS 21 INTO A CONTROLLED MONITORED ENVIRONMENT. 22 THIS PROJECT POSITIVELY ADDRESSES AESTHETICS 23 TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE COMMUNITY, SAFETY AS ONE 24 OF ITS HIGHEST CONCERNS, TRAFFIC AND THE INSIGNIFICANT 25 EFFECT. IT INVOLVES NOISE ABATEMENT, UTILIZING THE MOST farris.fers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 r1 lar Z5 service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 78 1 MODERN SOUND NOISE ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE , AIR 2 QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS WITH NEWER MITIGATION TANK 3 FACILITIES AND WASTE WATER USAGE , AS OPPOSED TO DUMPING I 4 IT IN OUR SANITATION SYSTEMS AND THEN IN THE OCEAN. 5 THIS PROJECT BENEFITS HUNTINGTON BEACH AND ALL 6 OF ITS RESIDENTS. YOUR STAFF FINDINGS CONCUR. 7 I ' D LIKE TO CONCLUDE WITH AN INTERESTING QUIP 8 THAT PROPONENTS MUST TRULY BELIEVE IF THEY THINK THE 9 ANGUS PROJECT SITS ON AN ARBITRARY SITE WHICH THEY FOUND 10 NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED IN OIL . 11 LET ' S CALL IT THE SUPERMARKET FABLE . AS WE NO 12 LONGER NEED SMELLING AND NOISY AND OFFENSIVE DAIRIES 13 BECAUSE ANY SUPERMARKET OR 7-ELEVEN NOW HAS PLENTY OF 14 MILK; AND SO FOLLOWING, WE MUST NO LONGER NEED OIL 15 COMPANIES, DRILL SITES , OR PRODUCING WELLS BECAUSE , 16 REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE RESOURCES MAY LIE , OUR FAVORITE 17 GASOLINE STATION HAS GOT PLENTY OF GAS . 18 CALIFORNIA IS A NET IMPORTER OF OIL TODAY, AND 19 WHAT ARE WE FACING IN THE FUTURE? I STRONGLY RECOMMEND 20 YOUR UNANIMOUS PASSAGE OF THIS BENEFICIAL PROJECT. 21 THANK YOU. 22 MR. CORRY: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GEORGE CORRY. 23 1 'M A PROPERTY OWNER AT 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET, WHICH IS , 24 YOU KNOW, 60 FEET AWAY FROM THAT DRILL SITE . AND IT ' S 25 DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT. �arrZ��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA92701 r�er Z �wriace TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C/ 79 1 FROM THE BEGINNING, I STRONGLY URGED YOU TO 2 OPPOSE THIS PROJECT. I ALWAYS HAVE . TONIGHT THERE IS A 3 MODIFIED CONDITION NO. 37 , WHICH SAYS , "UPON COMPLETION 4 OF ALL DRILLING OPERATIONS , A DRILLING STRUCTURE SHALL BE 5 REMOVED FROM THE SITE . " PREVIOUSLY IT WAS STATED THAT 6 AFTER THE FIRST TWO-YEAR PERIOD THAT THE DRILLING RIG 7 WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND ADDITIONAL DRILLING 8 WOULD BE DONE LATER ON. 9 NOW, I REALLY DON 'T UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT WHAT 10 IT ' S READING TO ME IS THAT DRILLING RIG MIGHT BE OUT 11 THERE FOR FIVE YEARS , SIX YEARS . THERE ' S NO SCHEDULE ON 12 HOW LONG THAT DRILLING RIG WILL BE OUT THERE NOW IF YOU 13 APPROVE THIS CONDITION, AT LEAST IN MY MIND. 14 THIS WHOLE CONCEPT, THE FIRST TWO YEARS - - YOU 15 KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO HOW MANY YEARS THEY 16 SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DRILL , WHICH IS TM YEARS THE FIRST 17 TIME AROUND; BUT THE SECOND PHASE GOING IN, HOW LONG WILL 18 THAT LAST? 19 SEEING A DRILLING RIG UP THERE FIVE YEARS IS A 20 LONG TIME . TWO YEARS IS TOO LONG FOR ME . 21 1 REALLY OPPOSE , YOU KNOW, DRILLING 24 HOURS A 22 DAY. 23 THE OTHER THING ON ITEM 8-B, I DON'T KNOW WHAT 24 VALUE BOXES ARE . 25 CAN ANYBODY TELL ME? I 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�(Ir Z7ZQ &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 (`J 80 1 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: VALVE . 2 MR. CORRY: IT'S MISSPELLED, I GUESS . 3 OKAY. AS A PROPERTY OWNER , WE ALL HAVE 4 PROPERTY RIGHTS . WHEN I BOUGHT MY PLACE I HAD CC&R ' S , 5 WHICH PERTAINED TO - - PREVIOUSLY THERE WERE THREE HOUSES 6 ON A LOT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME . THE SAME TUDOR 7 HOUSES THAT I WAS INVOLVED WITH. FOUR OF THOSE HOUSES ON 8 THAT BLOCK OF LAND, IN MY CC&R ' S STATE THAT NO NOXIOUS OR 9 OFFENSIVE TRADE OR ACTIVITY SHALL BE CARRIED ON UPON ANY 10 LOT, NOR SHALL ANYTHING BE DONE THEREUPON WHICH MAY BE OR 11 BECOME ANY ANNOYANCE OR NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 12 THIS DEFINITELY WILL BECOME A NUISANCE TO THE 13 NEIGHBORHOOD. 14 NUMBER 15 IN MY CC&R ' S : NO DERRICK OR OTHER 15 STRUCTURES DESIGNED FOR USE IN BORING, MINING, OR CORING 16 FOR WATER , OIL, OR NATURAL GAS OR PRECIOUS MINERALS SHALL 17 EVER BE ERECTED, MAINTAINED, OR PERMITTED UPON ANY SAID 18 REAL PROPERTY . 19 WHEN 1 BOUGHT MY PROPERTY, THIS WAS STATED IN 20 MY CC&R' S WHICH PERTAINED TO FOUR OF THEIR LOTS ACROSS 21 THE STREET INHERE THIS DRILLING IS GOING TO OCCUR. 22 ANOTHER ITEM WHICH IS ADDRESSED TO THE 59 23 CONDITIONS IS STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT. THERE IS NOWHERE IN 24 THERE - - I DON'T KNOW IF THEY 'RE GOING TO BE STORING 25 THEIR PULLING RIGS AND MAINTENANCE RIGS ON THAT SITE OR farra'fercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z c-wrmce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� Cf 81 1 NOT, BUT SOMEWHERE IN THERE IT SHOULD BE STIPULATED THAT 2 THEY CANNOT MAINTAIN ANY EQUIPMENT ON THAT - - THEY CAN 'T 3 KEEP EQUIPMENT ON THAT SITE . 4 LIKE JOHN THOMAS DOES AT HIS SITE , HE 'S GOT A 5 DRILLING RIG THAT ' S BEEN ERECTED FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS , 6 HE ' S GOT A PULLING RIG STILL SITTING THERE , WHICH I 'VE 7 BEEN TOLD IS ALL LEGAL AND EVERYTHING ELSE , BUT WE CAN'T 8 SEE - - WE DON 'T WANT ANY OF THAT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 9 1 DON'T WANT THE PROJECT - - BUT THIS HASN'T EVEN BEEN 10 COVERED, AT LEAST NOT THE CONDITIONS , AND IT SHOULD BE . 11 THE OTHER THING IS THE SETBACKS . I BROUGHT 12 THIS UP PROBABLY FOR ABOUT THE TENTH TIME , THAT IN A 13 NORMAL RESIDENTIAL LOT, LIKE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE 14 A FOUR-FOOT SIDEWALK. ON THIS PROJECT THEY 'RE GOING TO 15 PUT A SEVEN- FOOT SIDEWALK . FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB 16 BACK TO THE SIDEWALK IS 7 FEET. FROM THE FACE OF THE 17 CURB TO THE BACK OF MY SIDEWALK IS 10 FEET. THE CITY HAS 18 DEDICATED ANGUS THREE ADDITIONAL FEET, WHICH IN REALITY 19 TURNS OUT - - INSTEAD OF FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB TO 20 THEIR - - FRONT OF THEIR WALL IS 22 FEET AWAY , FROM THE 21 FACE OF THE CURB TO MY WALL - - THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE IS 22 25 FEET AWAY. 23 SO WE 'RE , IN REALITY GETTING, YOU KNOW, 3 FEET 24 LESS. AND WHEN YOU PUT AN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT IN A 25 RESIDENTIAL AREA, I MEAN, COMMON SENSE TELLS YOU SETBACKS farnl�fe,rcr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z121/ .�ervzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 82 1 SHOULD BE MAXIMIZED, NOT MINIMIZED. THEIR SETBACKS 2 SHOULDN'T PERTAIN TO REGULAR RESIDENTIAL UNITS , WHICH 3 THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH HERE , WHICH THEY - - I THINK 4 THEY HAVE . 5 1 ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU 6 MR. HARTMANN: I 'M MARK HARTMANN. I LIVE AT 1809 7 CALIFORNIA STREET. I LIVE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE 8 PROJECT. I KNOW IT' S GETTING LATE , SO I WANT TO KEEP 9 MINE SHORT AND TO THE POINT. I 'M AGAINST IT AND THAT ' S 10 IT, AND YOU GUYS KNOW WHY. 11 THANK YOU. 12 MR. GAUTSCHY: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL , MY 13 NAME IS DAVID GAUTSCHY. I 'M AN OIL PRODUCTION CONSULTANT 14 FOR ANGUS PETROLEUM. I 'VE WORKED WITH MR . CARMICHAEL ON 15 ANOTHER PROJECT, EXTRA ENERGY CORPORATION IN THE CITY OF 16 CARSON, DOING THE SAME TYPE OF WORK THAT I 'VE BEEN DOING 17 FOR THEM. 18 IT' S REALLY BEEN DIFFICULT TO SEE THE PEOPLE 19 HERE PUT DOWN A LOT OF THINGS THAT ANGUS HAS REALLY TRIED 20 TO GO OVERBOARD ON. THEY 'VE REALLY TAKEN AN EXTRA 21 COMMITMENT TO TRY TO DO THINGS ABOVE WHAT' S JUST REQUIRED 22 BY THE CITY. 23 SOME OF THE THINGS I ' LL TALK ABOUT HERE ARE 24 THOSE THINGS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE 'VE STARTED IS 25 THE - - AN ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SITE . IT' S GOING TO BE oairra.&;5�- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r5oigrhwService TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 83 1 AN OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION SITE IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA, AND 2 IT 'S GOING TO BE USED FOR HAULING IN CONSTRUCTION 3 MATERIALS SO WE WON'T BE DISTURBING THE NEIGHBORS. WE 4 CAN PHASE THE TRUCKING SO THE TRUCKING WILL BE COMING IN 5 AT TIMES THAT ARE LEAST DISTURBANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I 6 WE FELT BY HAVING AN OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION 7 SITE WE COULD CONTROL AND LESSEN THE IMPACT IN THE 8 NEIGHBORHOOD. 9 ONE OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT WE 'VE SEEN IS 10 THE SEQUENCING OF THE PROJECT. WE 'VE HEARD A LOT OF 11 PEOPLE TALK TO US ABOUT WHY DON'T YOU START THE STREET 12 IMPROVEMENTS FIRST, THEN YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING ELSE . 13 WELL , ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE AT 14 THE SITE IS THAT WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH GRADING. IT 15 USED TO BE AN OLD OIL SITE . WE 'VE GOT SOME AREAS WHERE 16 THERE ' S SOME FILL MATERIALS 13 FEET DEEP OF OLD ROTARY 17 MUD AND TRASH. AND THESE AREAS FILL OUT RIGHT NEXT TO 18 THE CITY PROPERTY LINES. SO WE HAVE TO GO IN AND CLEAN 19 THOSE AREAS OUT; AND IF WE HAVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN AT 20 THAT TIME , THEN WE WOULD BE DISTURBING THE NEW STREET 21 IMPROVEMENTS TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY . I 22 SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TALKED WITH THE PUBLIC i 23 WORKS DEPARTMENT AND TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD BE WILLING 24 TO GO AHEAD AND START THE GRADING, GET THESE AREAS 25 CLEANED OUT AND WITHIN A FOUR-WEEK PERIOD WE WOULD START 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re lcr Zrl�/ Service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 84 1 THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AS A PHASED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 2 SO THAT WE VIIOULDN 'T BE DISTURBING THESE NEW FACILITIES. 3 ANOTHER AREA THAT WE 'VE KNOWN THAT WE 'VE HAD 4 PROBLEMS IN AND WE 'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK ON IT IS DUST 5 CONTROL. WE 'VE BEEN OUT THERE WITH WATER TRUCKS AND YOU 6 SPRAY THE AREA; AND, AS SOON AS THE SUN COMES OUT, IT 7 EVAPORATES THE WATER AND YOU'VE GOT THE DUST PROBLEM 8 AGAIN. WE 'VE LOOKED INTO A PRODUCT CALLED SOIL-CRETE . 9 THIS PRODUCT IS AN ORGANIC, NONTOXIC PRODUCT THAT THEY 10 USE FOR LINING FISH PONDS , BUT IT HAS THE ABILITY OF 11 STRENGTHENING THE SOIL AND ALSO ATTRACTING THE DUST 12 PARTICLES AND PULLING THEM BACK TOGETHER. 13 WHAT IT ' S DOING, IN EFFECT, IS ELIMINATING THE 14 POSITIVE/NEGATIVE ION EFFECT WHERE DUST SCATTERS AND 15 MAKES THEM ATTRACT EACH OTHER. SO WE 'RE GOING TO BE 16 USING THIS PRODUCT OUT ON THE SITE . IT WILL BE ADDED TO 17 EVERY WATER TRUCK; AND WHEN IT' S SPRAYING, IT WILL SPRAY 18 THAT PRODUCT OUT THERE . AND THE MORE YOU SPRAY IT, THE 19 MORE IT CONSOLIDATES THE DUST. 20 THE SPRINGFIELD PROJECT, OR FOR THAT MATTER 21 ANY OTHER TYPE OF PROJECT, SUCH AS APARTMENTS OR ANY 22 CONSTRUCTION OUT THERE ON THAT SITE , WOULDN'T HAVE THE 23 SAME PROBLEMS THAT WE 'RE GOING TO HAVE . AND WE KNOW THAT 24 IT' S A PROBLEM AND WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD AT TRYING TO 25 DO THIS . Aa_,rrzefercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z xervzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 Cf 85 1 A LOT MORE - - YOU HAVE ALL THESE CONDITIONS , 2 BUT WE 'RE REALLY TRYING TO WORK ABOVE THE CONDITIONS . 3 AND I REQUEST THAT YOU LOOK FAVORABLY UPON OUR 4 PROJECT AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. 5 THANK YOU. 6 MS . DAVIS : GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PAT DAVIS , 7 AND I 'M A RESIDENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. SEVERAL MONTHS 8 AGO ANGUS PETROLEUM ASKED ME TO TRY TO OPEN LINES OF 9 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE 10 COMPANY. IN THESE PAST MONTHS , I 'VE REPEATEDLY SPOKEN 11 WITH MANY HOMEOWNERS AND HELD TWO MEETINGS , INVITING THE 12 HOMEOWNERS SURROUNDING BOTH THE DRILL SITE AND THE 13 FACILITY SITE . AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS THE HUNTINGTON 14 BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS REPRESENTED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 15 ON SAFETY. 16 AT THE LAST MEETING JOHN VAN HOUTEN, AN 17 ACCOUSTICAL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, AND CRAIG WEBBER, 18 THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT, WERE PRESENT TO 19 SPEAK AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. I THINK THOSE WHO CHOSE TO 20 ATTEND THESE MEETINGS CAME AWAY BETTER INFORMED. 21 IN OUR ENDEAVOR TO KEEP THIS INFORMATION 22 CURRENT, WE WILL BE SENDING NEWSLETTERS TO ALL PROPERTY 23 OWNERS ON A CONTINUING BASIS . WE INTEND TO KEEP ALL THE 24 PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THE SITE INFORMED AND ANSWER 25 QUESTIONS DURING ALL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DRILLING. Aa-rrafercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rG/✓Gr Zrlr/ Service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 86 1 THANK YOU. 2 MR . ALLEN: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL , MY 3 NAME IS DENNIS ALLEN. I LIVE AT 2106 VENICE DRIVE IN 4 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE , CALIFORNIA. MY MAILING ADDRESS IS POST 5 OFFICE BOX 2000 , SOUTH LAKE TAHOE , CALIFORNIA. 6 NOW, WHY AM I HERE? I 'M HERE BECAUSE I OWN A 7 MINERAL INTEREST IN THE PROJECT AREA OF ANGUS , AND I 'VE 8 HEARD ALMOST NO ONE SPEAK TONIGHT TO THOSE INTERESTS. MY 9 INTEREST IS A DEEDED INTEREST JUST AS VALID AS ANY 10 SURFACE OWNER ' S INTEREST IS . IT' S RECORDED WITH THE 11 COUNTY AND IT CAN BE SOLD: IT CAN BE BOUGHT. THE PROBLEM 12 WITH A MINERAL INTEREST IS THAT YOU CAN'T FEEL IT, YOU 13 CANNOT SEE IT, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING TO YOU. 14 SO EVERYBODY FORGETS ABOUT THE MINERAL 15 INTEREST . THE MINERAL INTERESTS ARE A PROPERTY RIGHT. 16 MY RIGHTS ARE JUST AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE ' S WHO LIVES ON 17 TOP OF THE GROUND. 18 I 'M HERE TO ENDORSE THE ANGUS PROJECT BECAUSE 19 1 KNOW IT TO BE A GOOD ONE . I KNOW THAT ANGUS IS TRYING 20 TO DO THIS PROJECT RIGHT AND WITH THE 59 - - 58 CONDITIONS 21 THAT ARE BEING PLACED ON IT BY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 22 PLACED ON IT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I FEEL THAT IT 23 HAS TO BE A GOOD PROJECT. 24 NOW, I THINK I SPEAK WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE 25 BECAUSE I 'M A REGISTERED GEOLOGIST AND I DO CONSULTING �arrz��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z72!/ rService TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 87 1 WORK IN CALIFORNIA, PARTICULARLY WITH RESULTS - - I DO 2 CONSULTING WORK IN OIL FIELD PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS 3 ONE . 4 I 'VE BEEN A CONSULTANT FOR THE PROJECT IN 5 TORRANCE , CALIFORNIA, THAT HAS WHAT ' S CALLED AN URBAN 6 DRILL SITE DEVELOPMENT. IT ' S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT 7 YOU'RE DOING HERE . 8 I 'VE HEARD MANY OF THE SAME PROBLEMS VOICED, I 9 THE SAME FEARS VOICED BY RESIDENTS OF THE AREA BEFORE 10 THAT ONE WAS APPROVED. THERE 'S NOT - - THE URBAN DRILL 11 SITE , THE DEL AMD SHOPPING CENTER IN TORRANCE , IF YOU GO 12 DOWN TORRANCE BOULEVARD, YOU ' LL SEE IT. ALMOST NO ONE 13 KNOWS IT'S THERE TODAY AND IT ' S BEEN OPERATING FOR A 14 NUMBER OF YEARS . 15 I 'M CURRENTLY CONSULTING FOR A COMPANY IN 16 TORRANCE WHERE ANOTHER PROJECT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY 17 THE CITY COUNCIL . IT' S ALSO VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU 18 HAVE BEFORE YOU HERE . THERE ' S NOTHING NEW OR STRANGE 19 ABOUT THIS, BUT THE CONSOLIDATION OF OIL IS THE WAY OIL 20 HAS TO BE DEVELOPED IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. 21 NOW, WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT AN OIL FIELD 22 PROJECT? OF COURSE , NO CITIZEN WANTS TO HAVE SOME TYPE 23 OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECT PLACED BEFORE HIS HOUSE . THE THING 24 IS OIL IS WHERE YOU FIND IT . YOU CAN'T MOVE THE OIL 25 FIELD. IT' S UNDERGROUND; AND, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z xervrce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 88 1 IT, AND SOME DAY , I 'M SURE IT WILL HAVE TO BE , YOU HAVE 2 TO DEVELOP IT WHERE IT IS. YOU CAN 'T MOVE THE OIL FIELD. 3 YOU CAN MOVE THE WELLS AROUND TO SOME EXTENT. 4 THIS IS BEING DONE IN THIS PROJECT BY USING THE 5 CONSOLIDATION PROCESS SO THAT YOU CLEAR MOST OF THE AREA 6 FOR OTHER USES, LEAVING ONE WELL-LANDSCAPED, 7 WELL-PROTECTED AREA FOR THE OIL DEVELOPMENT. 8 IT CAN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY. YOU CAN 'T MOVE A 9 PROJECT SUCH AS THIS AND END UP IN A DISTANCE . THERE ' S A 10 LIMIT TO HOW FAR YOU CAN DRILL OIL WELLS FROM ANY SURFACE 11 SITE. THIS HAPPENS TO BE THE BEST LOCATION FOR THIS 12 PROJECT. ANYTHING ELSE , IT BECOMES LESS AND LESS 13 DESIRABLE AT ANY OTHER LOCATION, SO I WOULD LIKE TO URGE 14 YOU TO VOTE FOR THIS PROJECT. 15 THANK YOU. 16 MR. FILES: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. 17 MY NAME IS LEON FILES . I 'M A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL 18 PETROLEUM ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND I 19 WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF OIL PROPERTIES , CITY OF LONG 20 BEACH. I REPRESENT MYSELF ON THIS PROJECT. I 'M A 21 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. I 'VE LIVED HERE 22 ALMOST 17 YEARS AND TWO HITCHES, TEN OF WHICH WAS NEXT TO 23 MY LOVELY NEIGHBOR, MRS . WINCHELL. 24 WE ARE COMMITTED TO LIVING IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 25 AND WE OPERATE ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE URBAN farrafers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr � sermice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 89 1 ENVIRONMENT. IN OUR OFFSHORE ISLANDS, OUR OIL ISLANDS , 2 FOR WHICH I AM RESPONSIBLE , ARE THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY 3 COMPATIBLE OIL OPERATIONS THAT I 'VE KNOWN IN MY 36 YEARS . 4 I 'VE WORKED ABOUT HALF OF MY 36-YEAR CAREER IN 5 MAJOR OIL COMPANIES FROM THE GULF COAST UP TO THE TIP OF 6 CANADA. I 'VE SEEN ALL TYPES OF OPERATIONS OF OIL 7 BLIGHTED, RAVAGED, COMPATIBLE , AND I THINK - - MY POINT 8 HERE IS A LOT OF THIS COMPATIBLE OIL FIELD OPERATION THAT 9 1 BRAG ABOUT NOW WAS DEVELOPED AND SUPERVISED BY MY 10 PREDECESSOR, MR. JOHN CARMICHAEL , WHO IS THE VICE 11 PRESIDENT OF ANGUS PETROLEUM. 12 SO I 'M REAL CONFIDENT THAT JOHN AND ALL OF 13 THESE DESIGNS WHICH YOU SEE BEFORE YOU SHOWS THAT WE CAN 14 LIVE ENVIRONMENTALLY WITH OUR OIL PROPERTY. 15 AS DENNIS HAS SAID, WE MUST PRODUCE THE OIL 16 WHERE IT IS. AS A VETERAN OF TWO SHOOTING WARS, I CAN - - 17 1 HAVE A WELL APPRECIATION. I HAVE A GREAT APPRECIATION 18 FOR THE VALUE OF ENERGY THAT WE MUST HAVE AND MUST 19 CONTINUE TO DEVELOP WHERE IT EXISTS . 20 I 'M NOT A GOOD ENOUGH ENGINEER TO TELL IT TO 21 GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE I CAN PRODUCE IT, WHERE PEOPLE 22 ARE MORE HAPPY WITH THE OPERATION. I WISH I COULD DO 23 THAT. WE MUST PRODUCE OUR OIL WHERE IS IT. 24 1 CAN 'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF 25 THE ANGUS PEOPLE . AND I 'M QUITE SATISFIED THAT THIS WILL I I Aa-rra.fer(r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 .� cJ 90 1 BE ONE OF THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE OPERATIONS 2 THAT YOU HAVE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 3 THANK YOU. 4 MR. PHIPPS : MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL , MY NAME IS DON 5 PHIPPS. I AM OPPOSED TO THE AGENDA ITEM F-2 . BASICALLY, 6 I ' D LIKE TO ADDRESS THREE QUICK ISSUES . THE FIRST ONE IS 7 FOR ALL THESE OIL PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE , I ' D LIKE TO KNOW 8 WHY THEY PLAN TO PUT THE PROJECT IN MY BACKYARD AND NOT 9 THEIR BACKYARDS SINCE THEY ARE IN SUCH SUPPORT OF IT. 10 SECONDLY, I 'VE SPOKEN TO MY NEIGHBORS AND 11 PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE ACROSS ADAMS , DOWN 12 DELAWARE STREET, SOUTH OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE 13 CONCERNED WITH THE NOISE AND THE POLLUTION THAT WILL BE 14 COMING FROM THE DIESEL TRUCKS THAT WILL BE TRAVELING ON 15 ADAMS AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY, THE SOOT AND THE TYPES OF 16 STUFF THAT THEY ' LL BE PUTTING INTO THE AIR, THE TRAFFIC 17 HAZARDS THAT MAY ENVISION SHOULD ONE OF THEM CRASH OR BE 18 STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE . AND, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, 1 19 DON'T LIKE TO BREATHE BLACK SOOT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU 20 FEEL ABOUT IT. 21 LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, SOME OF THE PLANNING 22 COMMISSION PR MUST BE GROSSLY IN ERROR BECAUSE I READ IN 23 YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION' S PUBLIC RELATIONS PLATFORM THAT 24 THEY INTEND TO BUFF THE COMMUNITIES FROM THE OIL 25 INDUSTRY. WELL , IF THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY BUFFER , I 'D 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�Gr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 91 1 HATE TO FIND OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY BUFFER FREE . 2 THANK YOU. 3 MR. MARTELL: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF 4 THE CITY COUNCIL . MY NAME IS ED MARTELL. I 'M A RESIDENT 5 OF 2010 CALIFORNIA STREET. 6 MY FRONT WINDOW FACES THE PROPOSED STORAGE 7 SITES NEAR THE CORNER OF TORONTO AND CALIFORNIA. MY 8 CONCERN IS LIKE MANY OTHER RESIDENTS, THOSE BEING HEAVY 9 EQUIPMENT TRAFFIC, NOISE , AIR POLLUTION, AS WELL AS 10 DEPRECIATED VALUES OF REAL ESTATE IN THE AREA DUE TO 11 INDUSTRIAL REZONING. 12 I 'VE CALLED THE ANGUS REPRESENTATIVES TO FIND 13 OUT THAT MY PROPERTY , AS WELL AS, 1 BELIEVE , MANY OTHERS 14 WHO WILL SUFFER DEPRECIATION WILL NOT BE COMPENSATED BY 15 THE FUND THAT WAS SET UP BY THEM FOR THIS PURPOSE . 1 16 SUBMIT THAT IF THIS INDUSTRIAL REZONING WAS PROPOSED IN 17 YOUR OWN FRONT YARDS , THAT YOU WOULD NOT VOTE TO APPROVE 18 IT. 19 1 ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT THIS AREA IS 20 RESIDENTIAL AND THIS PROJECT WILL HARM ALL LOCAL 21 RESIDENTS . 22 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 23 MR. ROHRIG: MR. MAYOR , COUNCIL, I 'M JOHN ROHRIG. 24 I 'M A NATIVE SON OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND 1 25 CALLED THAT AREA HOME IN 1930 . 1 GO BACK SOME TIME BEING farraferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 rcr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 92 1 IN THAT AREA. WE HAVE HAD PROPERTY IN THE AREA FOR THE 2 LAST 25 YEARS. AND I 'M WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE TIMES 3 THAT HAVE GONE ON THERE FROM WHERE IT WAS 25 YEARS AGO 4 UNTIL NOW. AND I THINK THIS PROJECT ENHANCES THE AREA. 5 ANGUS HAS SHOWN GOODWILL AND A DESIRE TO CLEAN 6 UP THE AREA BY THE ABANDONMENT OF WELLS IN THAT AREA AT 7 THIS POINT. AND I WOULD FAVOR YOUR VOTING FOR THIS 8 PROJECT, THAT WE CAN GET ON WITH IT AND CLEAN THE AREA 9 UP . 10 THANK YOU. 11 MR . BRAYTON: MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL , MY NAME 12 IS GEORGE BRAYTON. I 'M A MINERAL OWNER IN THE ANGUS 13 PROJECT, I THINK, APPROXIMATELY 1 PERCENT OF THE 14 MINERALS. AND 1 WAS , I BELIEVE , THE FIRST TO SELL MY 11 15 OIL WELLS IN THEIR PROJECT TO ANGUS PETROLEUM, AND THIS 16 WAS TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO. 17 FIRST , 1 WANT TO SAY THAT EVERY DEALING - - 18 I 'VE SOLD THEM SEVERAL THINGS, SOME REAL ESTATE , SOME OIL 19 WELLS. IN EVERY DEALING THAT I 'VE HAD WITH ANGUS WAS TOP 20 NOTCH. THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE . I 'VE - - I 'VE BEEN ABLE TO 21 GET TO KNOW THEM ON A LIMITED BASIS , PERSONALLY. AND 22 EVERYTHING THEY EVER SAID THEY WOULD DO THEY DID RIGHT TO 23 THE LETTER. WHETHER IT BE IN WRITTEN FORM, VERBAL , THEY 24 ALWAYS BACKED UP EVERYTHING THEY SAID WITH HONOR. 25 I 'D LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE PEOPLE farrisfers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr 2n� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c� 93 1 THAT OWN THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND, JUST LIKE I DO WITH 2 MY HOUSE , I DON'T OWN THE MINERALS UNDER MY HOUSE . 3 PEOPLE CONVENIENTLY DON'T READ THEIR DEEDS - - OR EXCUSE 4 ME - - 1 SHOULDN'T SAY CONVENIENTLY. THEY OUGHT TO START 5 READING THEIR DEEDS . 6 THE OWNERS OF THE MINERALS HAVE , I BELIEVE - - 7 1 'M NOT AN ATTORNEY - - THERE ' S RIGHTS TO INGRESS AND 8 EGRESS TO THOSE MINERALS AND I DON'T THINK. THAT - - AS 9 LONG AS ANGUS PETROLEUM CAN SHOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO 10 PRODUCE THOSE MINERALS IN A WORKMENLIKE MANNER WITH THE 11 HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC IN MIND, 1 12 DON'T THINK YOU CAN DEPRIVE THEM ACCESS TO THOSE MINERALS 13 THAT THEY 'RE LEASING. 14 AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE 250 MINERAL OWNERS 15 OUGHT TO BE HERE TONIGHT, ALL OF THEM, NOT ANGUS . ANGUS 16 IS THE TENANT RENTING THE RIGHTS TO THOSE MINERALS. THE 17 WHOLE THING IS A LITTLE BACKWARDS. IT SHOULDN'T REALLY 18 BE ON ANGUS ' SHOULDERS TO DO ALL THIS . 19 ANYWAY, THANK YOU. 20 MR. WILLIAMS : GOOD EVENING MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL 21 MEMBERS . MY NAME IS KEVIN WILLIAMS . I LIVE ON CARBECK 22 DRIVE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH WITH MY WIFE AND THREE 23 CHILDREN. I 'M A NATIVE CALIFORNIAN AND 1 'VE LIVED IN 24 HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR 15 YEARS. 25 YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF DEBATE FOR AND AGAINST farrisfe,rs- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z�2(/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 94 1 ANGUS ' PROPOSAL . I 'M HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT. 1 2 BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE OPPOSITION THIS PROJECT IS 3 RECEIVING IS CAUSED BY UNFOUNDED FEARS . I PRESENTLY LIVE 4 IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO AN ACTIVE DRILLING RIG AND HAVE 5 BEEN WORKING IN THE OIL INDUSTRY AND AROUND OIL RIGS FOR 6 THE LAST 15 YEARS . 7 1 HAVE SPENT MANY DAYS, NIGHTS PARKED NEXT TO 8 A DRILLING RIG IN MY CAR AND I HAD NO APPREHENSION AT 9 ALL . ANGUS HAS HAD ITS OIL WELLS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT 10 THIS AREA FOR MANY YEARS. WHAT THEY ARE NOW PROPOSING IS 11 TO CONSOLIDATE IT, MAKE IT SAFER AND BEAUTIFY THE AREA. 12 MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS OUR GROWING RELIANCE ON 13 FOREIGN OIL, WHICH IS NOW APPROACHING 42 PERCENT AND 14 PROJECTED TO HIT 50 PERCENT REAL QUICKLY. 15 PEOPLE SAY THAT THIS PROJECT WILL ONLY BE A 16 ONE-DAY SUPPLY OF OUR CURRENT NEEDS , BUT I THINK THAT 17 FOUR OR FIVE OF THESE SMALL ONE-DAY PROJECTS COULD MAKE 18 THE DIFFERENCE IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS DURING A CRUCIAL 19 TIME . 20 HUNTINGTON BEACH BECAME A BOOMTOWN WITH THE 21 DISCOVERY OF OIL. UNFORTUNATELY , WE CANNOT CHOOSE WHERE 22 OUR OIL FIELDS WERE LOCATED, BUT WE CAN MAKE EVERY EFFORT 23 TO ACHIEVE THE HARMONY WITH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AND OIL 24 PRODUCTION. 25 1 COMMEND ANGUS FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO TRY TO farrisferer 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z �Ser ice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 95 1 ACHIEVE THIS HARMONY . THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 2 SHARE MY THOUGHTS AND 1 SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. 3 MS . WEST: 1 ' D LIKE TO SAY GOOD EVENING, 4 MR. MAYOR ERSKINE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 5 MY NAME IS PATRICIA WEST AND I AM A MEMBER 6 OF THE OIL COMMUNITY. I AM CURRENTLY WITH THE LOS 7 ANGELES BASIN CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM 8 INSTITUTE . I 'M THE CHAIRMAN THIS YEAR. I 'M ALSO A 9 21 -YEAR RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. 10 1 SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. IT IS IN MY BACK 11 YARD. I SUPPORT THE CONTINUING UNITY OF THIS TOWN AND 12 OIL. IT ' S WHAT BROUGHT MY FAMILY HERE AND I LOVE THEM 13 BOTH. 14 ALTHOUGH SOME CONSIDER OIL TO BE JUST BIG 15 BUSINESS INTERESTS OR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS , I KNOW OIL 16 TO BE PEOPLE . THIS IS NOT L .A. , THIS IS NOT PACIFIC 17 PALISADES, WHICH HAS NOT SEEN A DRILLING UNIT. THIS IS A 18 TOWN THAT NEEDS A WELL-THOUGHT CONSOLIDATION PROJECT. 19 THIS PROJECT, ALONG WITH CARING PEOPLE , SUCH 20 AS ANGUS PETROLEUM, IS A PLAN THAT CAN WORK FOR ALL THE 21 COMMUNITY. 22 AND 1 THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME SPEAK. 23 MR. MOSEMAN: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR ERSKINE AND CITY 24 COUNCIL. I 'M GOING TO ELIMINATE PART OF MY LITTLE TALK 25 HERE SO NOT TO BE REPETITIOUS . 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z72Q &rpice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 l Cl 96 1 ANGUS PETROLEUM HAS STATED IN THE PAST - - 2 MAYOR ERSKINE : WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME , PLEASE? 3 MR. MOSEMAN: JOHN MOSEMAN, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 4 1824 DELAWARE STREET. 5 ANGUS HAS STATED IN THE PAST THE DEVELOPMENT 6 OF THE DRILL SITE WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO COMPLETING THE 7 HOUSING THAT WAS TO BE BUILT ON THE SITE . NOTHING CAN BE 8 FURTHER FROM THE FACT. 9 THE DRILL SITE , BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, WILL 10 TAKE TWO YEARS TO BUILD. THE NOISE FROM THE DRILL SITE 11 WILL BE FOR 24 HOURS A DAY. 12 THEN FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE DRILL SITE , 13 WE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO WELL CLINKING NOISE FOR SEVEN 14 PLUS WEEKS A YEAR OR THREE YEARS OF ADDITIONAL DRILLING 15 OVER THE 20-YEAR SPAN OF THE PROJECT. 16 THIS PROJECT IS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 17 THAT ANGUS WANTS TO BUILD IN A TOTALLY RESIDENTIAL 18 NEIGHBORHOOD. 19 1 WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 20 THE LEADERSHIP ROLE IT HAS ASSUMED IN THE BOLSA CHICA 21 PROJECT. ALSO, 1 FEEL WE DESERVE THE SAME CONSIDERATION 22 AS THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT. THAT PROJECT IS FOR THE 23 PRESERVATION OF THE WETLANDS AREA AND THE ANIMAL 24 PROTECTION. ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR IS THE PRESERVATION 25 FOR OUR HOMES AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE PROTECTION 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z�2Q wrvilce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� Cl 97 1 OF THE ANIMALS SURROUNDING THE SPRINGFIELD PROJECT, THE 2 HUMAN ANIMALS . 3 THANK YOU. 4 MS. KOOGLER: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 5 MEMBERS . MY NAME IS NANCY KOOGLER. I LIVE AT 1824 6 DELAWARE STREET. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO 7 MAKE . IT WAS QUOTED IN THE FINDINGS AND THE CONDITIONS 8 THAT THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN INCREASED TAX REVENUE FOR 9 HUNTINGTON BEACH AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES . 10 WELL , WHAT ARE THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE 11 SURROUNDING AREAS EXPECTED TO RECEIVE? OH, I FORGOT, THE 12 TRUST FUND. 13 BUT IT ONLY BENEFITS A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE . 14 WHY NOT ELIMINATE ANGUS AND THE CITY FROM THE TRUST FUND 15 AND ALLOW THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BENEFIT? 16 FROM THE EIR' S . THE RISK OF UPSET TO HEALTH 17 AND SAFETY, WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE ODDS ARE 1 IN 10 , 000 18 TO 1 IN 1 MILLION THAT AN OIL TANK FIRE COULD RESULT IN 19 RADIANT HEAT AFFECTING THE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE IMMEDIATE 20 PROJECT SITE , BUT TO WIN THE LOTTERY, THE ODDS ARE THAT 21 LARGE AND PEOPLE BEAT THOSE ODDS EVERY WEEK. 22 REMEMBER THE FULLERTON TANK FIRE? IT TOOK 23 DAYS TO EXTINGUISH AND MANY DIFFERENT CITY UNITS WERE 24 CALLED IN. COULD OUR CITY ALONE HANDLE SUCH A 25 CATASTROPHE? I DON'T THINK SO. 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 98 1 ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY HAVE PROMISED 2 SOUND REAL GOOD TO US , BUT WHO IS GOING TO MAKE SURE 3 THEY 'RE NOT VIOLATED? 4 THANK YOU. 5 MR. HARTMANN: GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. 6 MY NAME IS TODD HARTMANN. I LIVE AT 1810 HUNTINGTON 7 STREET. I LIVE IN THE TRACT THAT ARRIS SOLD ME ABOUT 8 NINE YEARS AGO. AND MY CC&R ' S SAID WHAT OUR ATTORNEY FOR 9 THE CONCERNED CITIZENS SAID, THAT IT IS A VIOLATION. 10 WHEN YOU PASSED IT BEFORE , WE THOUGHT, WELL , WE ' LL GIVE 11 THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS . 12 WELL , WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE HAD TO CALL THE 13 POLICE MANY TIMES TO GET THEM TO COME OUT TO CONTROL THE 14 DIESEL TRUCKS THAT WERE PARKED AT 6 O'CLOCK IN THE 15 MORNING, THE DUST FROM THE TRACTORS . I THOUGHT THAT 16 THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SOUND SCREEN. THE SOUND SCREEN 17 THEY PUT UP WASN'T ON THE - - FOR THE PRODUCTION SITE . I 18 THE TRACTORS WERE BLOWING DUST ALL OVER OUR HOUSE AND IT 19 WAS TERRIBLE . AND 1 ' D JUST LIKE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION 20 TO THIS PROJECT. 21 IF THEY WOULD HAVE COME OUT AND FIXED THE 22 STREETS FIRST AND GOT - - MADE A GOOD RAPPORT WITH THE 23 PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE WE WOULD BE , I THINK, A LOT MORE 24 INCLINED TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, BUT THIS 25 IS RIDICULOUS. 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrl� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 99 1 AND I ' D JUST LIKE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO 2 THIS PROJECT. 3 THANK YOU. 4 MS . PARR-ISH: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR ERSKINE AND 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS. I AM MARY PARRISH. I LIVE AT 1919 6 ALSUNA LANE . AS A YOUNG GIRL I WAS TOLD THAT YOU CAN 'T 7 FIGHT CITY HALL ; BUT NO ONE TOLD ME THAT WHEN YOU FIGHT 8 CITY HALL , THAT THIS INCLUDES HERE , HUNTINGTON BEACH 9 COMPANY, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , OTHER OIL COMPANIES , A FEW 10 OIL ROYALTY HOLDERS , AND THE REALTY BOARD. 11 SO IT' S A FORMIDABLE TASK THAT WE HAVE SET FOR 12 OURSELVES IN TRYING TO KEEP THIS OIL FIELD OUT OF OUR 13 RESIDENTIAL AREA. I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THE CITIZENS 14 ARE BEING SOLD A BAD BILL OF GOODS THAT I CERTAINLY DO 15 NOT BUY. THE PROPAGANDA IS VERY HEAVY ON THIS PROJECT 16 BEING GREAT BECAUSE IT WILL CONSOLIDATE OIL WELLS 17 EXISTING NOW IN HUNTINGTON BEACH INTO ONE AREA. IF TRUE , 18 WHICH I DOUBT, THIS IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ONE SET OF 19 CITIZENS; NAMELY ME , AND WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO OTHER 20 CITIZENS BY THE SO-CALLED CONSOLIDATION, WHICH I STILL DO 21 NOT BUY. 22 1 ASK YOU TONIGHT FOR EQUAL CONSIDERATION. IF 23 THIS CONSOLIDATION IS A NECESSITY IN THIS LITTLE TOWN, 24 WHY PICK ON AN EXISTING SMALL RESIDENTIAL AREA. PLEASE 25 DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST US. I DO NOT BUY THE 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 r5J r Z 7 &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C/ 100 1 PROPOSAL OF CONDITIONS ON THE OIL DRILLING PERMITS AS AN 2 EXCUSE TO ALLOW SUCH PERMITS. IT WAS TRIED AND IT 3 FAILED. 4 IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT ' S 5 ANSWER TO OUR DUST HAZARD COMPLAINTS; I . E . , THERE IS NO 6 DUST, WAS THEIR ANSWER. WHO CAN BELIEVE SUCH AN ANSWER? 7 MOVING ON TO CONDITION NO. 4 ON NOISE 8 MONITORING, I DON'T BUY THAT ONE EITHER. TO IDENTIFY A 9 NOISE OF A RIG CAUSE AS NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY ' S 10 NOISE ORDINANCE IS NO GUARANTEE TO THE CITIZENS THAT IT 11 WILL BE STOPPED. AND IF ABOVE THE REQUIRED NOISE 12 DECIBELS , WHAT HAPPENS? IT DOES NOT SAY. 13 FOR START OF DRILLING AND DURING DRILLING 14 PHASE , PARTS B AND C OF NO. 4 , THE LIMITED SKETCHING 15 MEASUREMENT TIME FOR NOISE DISTURBANCES TO THE CITIZEN IS 16 NOT ENOUGH MONITORING FOR A RESIDENTIAL AREA, 10 P.M. TO 17 7 A.M. FOR SIX HOURS ON EACH OF THE THREE NIGHTS WITHIN A 18 FIVE-DAY PERIOD. THIS CONDITION MISSES THE MARK 19 ALTOGETHER TO SATISFY A NOISE STANDARD FOR AN INDUSTRIAL 20 USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING. 21 WHAT IS NEEDED IS A 24-HOUR MONITORING 22 SERVICE FROM THE START TO THE FINISH OF THIS PROJECT. SO 23 1 WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU AND THEN I ' LL QUIT, I DO NOT 24 BUY THAT THIS ONE BLOCK-AREA OF OIL PRODUCTION WILL HAVE 25 ANY IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THE PRESSURE FOR OFFSHORE farrafers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z72Q x'ervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 101 1 DRILLING. THAT WILL ONLY BE DETERMINED BY MUCH HIGHER 2 OFFICIALS . 3 GOD HELP US AND THANK YOU. 4 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 5 LYNN MOSEMAN: HELLO, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS LYNN 6 MOSEMAN. I OWN PROPERTY AT 1716 DELAWARE . MR . KELLY, 1 7 SEE THAT YOU ARE VERY TIRED TONIGHT, SO AM I . JUST 8 IMAGINE LISTENING TO THIS FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS BECAUSE 9 WE WILL BE HERE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS IF THIS PROJECT 10 GOES DOWN. IT HAS BECOME A TERRIBLE IMPOSITION ON OUR 11 FAMILIES, OUR LIVES , AND OUR POCKETBOOKS. WE HAVE SPENT 12 THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF OUR OWN MONEY TO 13 FIGHT THIS OIL PROJECT THAT DOESN'T BELONG IN OUR 14 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 15 1 DON 'T FEEL THAT MONEY SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF 16 THE RESIDENTS ' POCKET TO FIGHT WHAT THE CITY SHOULD STAND 17 UP FOR, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTS ' RIGHT TO LIVE IN THEIR 18 HOME AND HAVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE . 19 MY HOME IS APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET FROM THE 20 OIL FACILITY. I AM NOT A REALTOR. MY NAME IS NOT MICKEY 21 SHAFER, MY COUSIN IS NOT SHAFER OIL, WHO PRESENTLY OWN 22 THE PROPERTY, MY NAME IS NOT MR. ROHRIG, WHO IS AN OIL 23 MAN IN THE CITY, WHO I BELIEVE HIS SON WAS HIRED TO MOVE 24 THE HOUSES FROM THE PROPERTY. 25 1 'M NOT ALL THE FRIENDS OF SPENCE SHELDON THAT 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r &rpice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 57101rfl,� l 102 1 HAVE BEEN GATHERED HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE 2 PROJECT. AS YOU CAN SEE , THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO 3 HAVE BEEN BROUGHT HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK FOR THE PROJECT 4 ARE FRIENDS OF SPENCER SHELDON. 5 AS A MEMBER OF THE CITIZEN' S AD HOC COMMITTEE , 6 1 FIND IT RATHER AMUSING THAT WE HAVE NEVER MET SINCE THE 7 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR WAS AVAILABLE . THE COMMITTEE WITH 8 MANY - - WAS ONE OF THE MANY CONDITIONS THAT WAS MADE AS A 9 PACIFIER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I ASK THE THREE MEMBERS 10 OF THE COUNCIL, WHY HAS IT BEEN SIX MONTHS SINCE WE MET 11 DR. GREEN, MR. MAYS , MS. WINCHELL? WHY HAS IT BEEN SO 12 LONG? WHY HASN 'T THE CITIZENS ' AD HOC COMMITTEE HAD AN 13 OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS WITH YOU? WHY IS IT 14 TONIGHT, IN THIS FORUM WHERE YOU 'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO 15 ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS , BUT WE SIT HERE AND WE WONDER, 16 WELL , WHY WE HAVEN 'T MET WITH YOU. 17 IS THIS JUST THE BEGINNING OF OUR NIGHTMARE? 18 HAS THE CITY FALLEN DEAF TO THE CITIZENS AND WHAT THE 19 CITIZENS WANT? 20 ALSO, ANOTHER CONDITION WAS THAT A DBA METER 21 BE PUT ON. DR . GREEN, YOU AND I DISCUSSED THIS , THIS IS 22 A CONDITION THAT YOU SET FORTH. 23 WELL, WHERE IS THE THE DBA METER? 1 24 UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN SAID TONIGHT THEIR PAPERWORK IS 25 ON CITY HALL ' S DESK. WHY HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG? WHY �arrz��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r, Z& r 7 Xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c� 103 1 ISN'T IT IN THERE? 2 1 ASK YOU AGAIN, WHY HASN'T THIS CONDITION 3 BEEN ENFORCED? WHY CAN'T VIEW PANELS BE PUT IN IF THIS 4 PROJECT GOES IN? WHY CAN'T DOUBLE PANING OF GLASS BE 5 DONE FOR THE RESIDENTS? WHY CAN'T AIR-CONDITION SYSTEMS 6 BE OFFERED TO THE RESIDENTS? EVERYBODY IN THE 7 NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT NECESSARILY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WITHIN 8 THE TRUST FUND AREA, EVERYBODY THAT' S GOING TO BE 9 AFFECTED. WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON THAT ' S 101 FEET AWAY? 10 ARE THEY GOING TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LESS DUST THAN A 11 PERSON 100 FEET AWAY? NO. THE SAME CONDITIONS ARE GOING 12 TO BE THERE FOR THEM. 13 ANGUS HAS PROVEN TO US THAT THEY ARE NOT 14 CAPABLE OF STAYING WITHIN THE NOISE LEVELS. ON NUMEROUS 15 OCCASIONS ANGUS GREATLY EXCEEDED THE NOISE LEVELS WHEN 16 THEY WERE JUST PULLING THEIR WELLS. IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE 17 TO PUT UP WITH FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS? IS THE CITY GOING 18 TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE NOISE VIOLATIONS? OF COURSE 19 NOT. THIS WAS PROVEN TO US DURING THE PULLING OF THE 20 RIGS . THE DBA METER THE CITY OWNS IS NOT CALIBRATED. 21 THE ONLY CALIBRATED METER IS WITH THE COUNTY. AND TO GET 22 A COUNTY OFFICIAL OUT IS APPROXIMATELY THREE DAYS. IT 'S 23 AFTER THE FACT. THE CITY OFFICIALS DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE 24 MEANS OF WHICH TO COME OUT THERE WHEN NEEDED. 25 THE CITY HAS PROVEN THAT THE - - THAT THERE ' S �arrZ..ferc " 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z�2Q service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 104 1 NOBODY IN THE CITY THAT CAN DO THE JOB THAT IS NEEDED TO 2 ENFORCE ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THIS PROJECT. AND 1 3 DON'T SEE HOW IT CAN BE ENFORCED. I BELIEVE THAT ANOTHER 4 SITE , MORE COMPATIBLE , CAN BE FOUND. IT JUST TAKES ANGUS 5 A LITTLE MORE TIME TO LOOK. AND IF THEY HAVE TO DIG A 6 LITTLE FURTHER , THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT ' S THEIR CHOICE . BUT 7 IF THEY WANT THIS PROJECT, THEN TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE , IN 8 AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WHERE IT ' S COMPATIBLE . 9 THANK YOU. 10 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 11 MR. ABRAMSON: GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF 12 THE CITY COUNCIL . I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE AND YOUR 13 PATIENCE , AND 1 ' LL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE , 14 EXCEPT FOR LEAVING RIGHT NOW. 15 MY NAME IS RICHARD ABRAMSON. I RESIDE AT 1804 16 ALSUNA LANE , APPROXIMATELY ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THE 17 PROJECT. I WISH TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S 18 ACTION OF OCTOBER 18TH, WHICH APPROVED THE ZONE CHANGE , 19 THE USE PERMIT - - OR MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THAT 20 EFFECT - - AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR. 21 1 OPPOSE THIS PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING 22 REASONS: TWO YEARS AGO, AS HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO OR 23 REFERRED TO PREVIOUSLY BY ANOTHER SPEAKER, THIS PROJECT 24 APPEARED BEFORE THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, AND 25 THAT COMMISSION VOTED WITH THE MEMBERS PRESENT, EXCEPT i farrix,ferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rebGr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 105 1 FOR MR. PORTER, WHO JUST INDICATED HIS SENTIMENTS ON IT, 2 VOTED AGAINST IT. IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE 3 PRESENT. 4 AND I FEEL THAT THE BASIS OF THIS ACTION IS AS 5 PERTINENT TODAY AND AT THIS TIME AND THE REASONS ARE AS 6 VIABLE AS THEY WERE AT THAT TIME . 7 1 THINK IT SHOULD BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD, 8 RATHER THAN MY READING ALL OF THE REASONS THAT THE ZONE 9 CHANGE , THE USE PERMIT WERE DENIED, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO 10 ABBREVIATE MY COMMENTS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 11 PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION 'S FINDINGS WOULD BE CONSIDERED 12 PART OF THE RECORD AND ENTERED IN FULL. 13 BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO EMPHASIZE A COUPLE OF 14 POINTS . UNDER THE FINDINGS OF DENIAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE 15 AT THAT TIME - - WE 'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO NOW - - 16 OF THIS PROJECT, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM OLDTOWN' S SPECIFIC 17 PLAN, DISTRICT 2-0 , WHICH REFERRED TO OIL OPERATIONS , 18 EXCLUDING OIL DRILLING, TO OLDTOWN' S SPECIFIC PLAN, 19 DISTRICT 201 , OIL OPERATIONS INCLUDING OIL DRILLING WILL 20 NOT BE COMPATABLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING 21 RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND RATHER THAN GO ON TO ADDRESS TO 22 THAT, I ' LL JUST EXCLUDE THAT EXPLANATION. 23 ANOTHER POINT THAT IS APPLICABLE HERE IS THAT 24 THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND 25 POLICY OF THE GENERAL PLAN. AND RATHER THAN GO INTO THAT �arra��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�Gr Z72Q servrce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C/ • , 106 1 DETAIL , I WOULD JUST REFER AGAIN, AS SOME OTHER SPEAKERS 2 HAVE INDICATED, THAT ON PAGES 97 AND 109 OF THE GENERAL 3 PLAN, IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THIS IS A HEAVY 4 INDUSTRIAL USE OF RESOURCE PRODUCTION FACILITY. IT 5 REQUIRES APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES AND IT DOES NOT - - SHOULD 6 NOT FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE AS FAR AS A ZONE CHANGE . IT 7 REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN. AND THAT IS 8 THE PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. THE PROPOSED ZONE 9 CHANGE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF 10 THE GENERAL PLAN BECAUSE THE PROPOSED OIL OPERATION 11 ENTAILS UP TO 60 WELLS, WHICH IS A RESOURCE PRODUCTION, 12 THAT' S JUST WHAT I SAID. 13 OKAY. RATHER THAN CONTINUING THROUGH THIS , 1 14 WOULD SUBMIT IT FOR INCLUSION INTO THE RECORD. 15 ADDITIONALLY , ANOTHER POINT RELATIVE TO THE 16 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR IS THAT IT IS FLAWED FROM THE STANDPOINT 17 OF INDICATING ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GIVE A 18 COMPLETE OR ANY DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO ALTERNATE SITES 19 WITH RESPECT TO, IN PARTICULAR, PARCEL 1 , WHICH THEY 20 DISCUSS ONLY ON A LIMITED BASIS . THEY DO NOT REFER - - 21 PARCEL 1 , BY THE ONE WAY, IS THE PROPERTY ADJOINING THE 22 CITY HALL, THE 17 ACRES THAT I BELIEVE PACIFIC HOMES IS 23 PLANNING TO DEVELOP THEIR HOMES. 24 THAT SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SINCE THAT IS 25 CONSIDERED THE PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVE TO THIS SITE . AND A- arrz�'�er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z xervzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� CJ 107 1 SINCE THERE ARE EXISTING PUMPING OPERATIONS GOING ON 2 WHICH ANGUS OPERATES , THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN 3 CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF THIS SITE AND THE 4 IMPLICATIONS OF BOTH PROJECTS ON EACH OTHER. THAT SHOULD 5 BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE . 6 THE OTHER POINTS I HAVE IS - - RATHER THAN GO 7 THROUGH ALL OF THEM, I WOULD SAY THAT ADDITIONAL 8 MITIGATION MEASURES MUST BE ADOPTED. EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE 9 GOT 59 , YOU MAY NEED 500 MORE , BUT THERE ARE TWO OR 10 THREE , AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN MORE , THAT WOULD BE 11 PERTINENT, AND I JUST WON 'T GO INTO THEM AT THIS TIME . 12 1 WOULD URGE YOU TO DENY THE USE PERMIT, THE 13 ZONE CHANGE , AND DISAPPROVE THE EIR AND SEIR 14 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 15 MR . CARMICHAEL : MR . MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY 16 COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JOHN CARMICHAEL. I 'M A VICE 17 PRESIDENT OF ANGUS PETROLEUM CORPORATION. 18 1 THINK YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A 19 PLETHORA - - DID YOU GET THAT - - A PLETHORA OF INFORMATION 20 TONIGHT, BOTH THE COMMENTS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL. 21 ANGUS HAS ATTEMPTED TO BRING IN A PROJECT THAT 22 THE CITY WOULD BE PROUD OF AND USE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR 23 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. 24 WE THINK THE SPRINGFIELD PROJECT REPRESENTS 25 THE KIND OF ENGINEERING THAT IS REQUIRED TO SUCCESSFULLY fams.fers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrll/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 108 1 BLEND AN OIL FIELD CONSOLIDATION PROJECT INTO AN EXISTING 2 NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE LEAST DISRUPTION. 3 IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE AGREED TO 58 4 CONDITIONS , THE MOST HEAVILY CONDITIONED PROJECT THE CITY 5 STAFF HAS EVER RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL . 6 1 HAVE AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND IN THE OIL 7 BUSINESS, AND I FEEL I KNOW HOW TO DO THIS PROJECT AND TO 8 CONFORM WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. 9 1 THINK IT ' S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, ALSO, 10 THAT 30 TO 45 WELL DRILLING PROJECTS IS TO ACCOMPLISH ONE 11 WELL AT A TIME . THE CITY ISSUES ONE DRILLING PERMIT. IF 12 PROBLEMS ARISE THAT CAN'T BE RESOLVED DURING THE DRILLING 13 OF A WELL, THE CITY CAN REFUSE TO ISSUE THE NEXT DRILLING 14 PERMIT UNTIL THE PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED. 15 I 'M CONVINCED THAT WE CAN DO THIS PROJECT AND 16 DO IT RIGHT. 1 WISH WE COULD DRILL IT FROM COSTA MESA OR 17 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, BUT I JUST CAN'T GET HERE FROM THERE . 18 1 WISH WE - - I WISH WE COULD FIND OTHER WAYS 19 OF MOVING OIL AROUND UNDERGROUND, BUT SO FAR THE GOOD 20 LORD HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT SORT OF 21 THING. 1 ' D LOVE TO GET THAT OFFSHORE OIL ONSHORE . I 'D 22 LIKE TO GET THIS THING IN WEST TEXAS WHERE THEY LOVE 23 THIS, BUT WE JUST CAN'T DO IT. WE 'VE GOT TO HAVE 1T 24 WHERE IT IS . 25 REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU HEARD ALSO, THIS farric�.fe,r,-jr- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1r/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 l 109 1 PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO RED CURB THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IN 2 FACT, WE WILL ADD 1700 LINEAL FEET OF CURBSIDE PARKING. 3 AFTER THE INITIAL GRADING, WHICH DAVE GAUTSCHY 4 WAS EXPLAINING TO YOU, WE WILL PUT IN THE STREETS, CURBS , 5 GUTTERS AND INSTALL THE DECORATIVE WALL AND LANDSCAPING 6 BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS DONE . 7 IF HUNTINGTON BEACH REALLY WANTS TO CLEAN UP 8 THE OLD OIL IN THEIR TOWN, PROJECTS LIKE SPRINGFIELD IS 9 THE WAY TO GET IT DONE . 10 APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WILL PUT THE OIL 11 BUSINESS ON NOTICE THAT THIS CITY IS EAGER TO COOPERATE 12 WITH THE INDUSTRY IN CLEANING UP THE OLD OIL FIELD AND 13 PUT SOME NEEDED OIL RESERVES IN THE BANK FOR OUR FUTURE 14 USE . 15 1 URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS ZONE CHANGE , USE 16 PERMIT AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 17 THANK YOU. 18 MAYOR ERSKINE : ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS? 19 WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 20 THE CLERK: MAYOR ERSKINE . 21 MAYOR ERSKINE : YES . YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT 22 TO READ INTO THE RECORD. 23 THE CLERK : I DO HAVE A LETTER THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED 24 TO YOU OPPOSING THE PROJECT FROM ANITA YOUNG, 1923 ALSUNA 25 LANE . fanrl.5.'fnr�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z�2Q service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c/ 110 1 AND A LUCILLE HARMON HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING, 2 2205 DELAWARE , NUMBER 5 . SHE WAS FOR THE PROJECT AND SHE 3 STATED SHE REPRESENTED SIX PROPERTY OWNERS ALSO IN FAVOR. 4 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 5 LET' S ENTER THOSE INTO THE RECORD. 6 COUNCILMAN MAYS? 7 COUNCILMAN MAYS: 1 HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS . 1 8 DON'T KNOW IF STAFF CAN ANSWER THIS. MAYBE IF SPENCE OR 9 SOMEBODY CAN COME DOWN HERE . 10 ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP WAS 11 AN ALTERNATIVE DRILLING SITE WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY BEHIND 12 THE CIVIC CENTER . AND 1 WAS WONDERING IF SOMEBODY CAN 13 COMMENT ON WHY THAT SITE IS NOT APPROPRIATE . 14 SPENCE , IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME DOWN, THAT ' S 15 FINE . 16 MR. SHELDON: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN MAYS . AGAIN, 17 SPENCE SHELDON REPRESENTING ANGUS PETROLEUM. 18 YES , THE CIVIC CENTER SITE HERE , ANGUS DOES 19 OWN THE PREVIOUS LEASE , WHICH IS THE 1 . 7 ACRES IN THE 20 CENTER, BUT DOES NOT OWN ANY OF THE SURFACE AND DOES NOT 21 OWN ANY OF THE MINERAL RIGHTS THAT SURROUND THAT PROPERTY 22 AND IS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE THOSE PASTURE RIGHTS TO GO DOWN 23 INTO THE SPRINGFIELD UNIT. 24 EVEN IF IT WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, AND IT IS NOT 25 BECAUSE THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY IS ALREADY IN THE �arra��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr 272Q Service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 111 I PROCESS OF GAINING ENTITLEMENTS FOR A RESIDENTIAL 2 DEVELOPMENT, THAT PROPERTY IS TO THE FAR NORTH END, AS 3 YOU CAN SEE ON THE SECOND AERIAL PHOTO THERE ON THE WALL, 4 AND NOT ALL WELL BOTTOM LOCATIONS COULD BE REACHED FROM 5 THERE SO THAT A SECOND DRILLING LOCATION WOULD ALSO BE 6 REQUIRED. 7 SO YOU NOW WOULD HAVE A PROJECT WITH DOUBLE 8 IMPACTS ON TWO NEIGHBORHOODS . IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THAT 9 YOU'D GO AHEAD AND USE THE SPRINGFIELD DRILL SITE THAT IS 10 PROPOSED THERE ON DELAWARE PLUS THE OTHER ONE , DOING 11 FEWER WELLS FROM EACH. AND THAT, FRANKLY , WOULD BE 12 OPPOSED BY ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN VISITING WITH YOU 13 OUT OF THE UTICA - - SOUTH OF UTICA NEIGHBORHOOD. 14 SO THAT JUST DIDN'T SEEM - - IT ISN'T 15 LEGALLY - - THAT IS , YOU CAN'T ACQUIRE THE RIGHTS; AND 16 EVEN IF YOU COULD, YOU THEN HAD TO DRILL FROM TWO SITES. 17 YOU CAN'T REACH ALL THE BOTTOM OF THE LOCATIONS YOU NEED 18 FROM ONE . 19 COUNCILMAN MAYS: THANKS , SPENCE . 20 AS FAR AS OIL IN HUNTINGTON BEACH IS 21 CONCERNED, IT' S BEEN HERE FROM THE BEGINNING SINCE 22 HUNTINGTON BEACH BECAME HUNTINGTON BEACH FROM SURFSIDE 23 CITY. CONSOLIDATION OF OIL THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA IS 24 BECOMING MORE SIGNIFICANT AS WE GET INTO MORE URBANIZED 25 AREAS, AND IT ' S GETTING MORE IMPORTANT HERE IN HUNTINGTON ,arnljferx 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z�2Q service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� i 112 1 BEACH. 2 THE PROJECT, FROM WHAT i CAN TELL OVER THE 3 PAST SEVERAL MONTHS TALKING WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT 4 PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE , WILL ELIMINATE THE 5 DANGEROUS WELLS IN THE AREA, WHICH IS ACTUALLY - - HAS 6 CAUSED A DEATH OF A YOUNG BOY, WHICH WAS UNDER TESTIMONY 7 EARLIER THIS EVENING. 8 ALSO, THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE 9 IN TAX REVENUES BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF OIL THAT WILL BE 10 ABLE TO BE BROUGHT OUT OF THE WELLS . 11 AND, ESSENTIALLY, THE PROJECT WILL BE USING 12 THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN THE OIL INDUSTRY AND WILL SOLVE 13 A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA AS FAR AS BLIGHT AND 14 NOISE AND SMELL AND SO FORTH. IN HUNTINGTON BEACH THE 15 CONSOLIDATION OF OIL IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT PART OF OUR 16 FUTURE . THERE IS A LOT OF - - THREE OR FOUR OTHER SITES 17 THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT OVER THE NEXT FEW 18 YEARS , AND IT' S BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT THAT OIL IS GOING 19 TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BE A PART OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AS 20 IT HAS BEEN OVER THE LAST 88 OR 90 YEARS. 21 SO, THEREFORE , I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE STAFF 22 RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ACTION 23 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING 24 ACTIONS OF ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 25 86- 1 , RESOLUTION NO. 5954 , AND APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1Q �'ervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 113 1 88- 11 WITH FINDINGS AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2980 AND 2 APPROVE THE USE PERMIT NO. 88-25 WITH THE MODIFIED 3 CONDITIONS AS DISCUSSED EARLIER BY STAFF AND IS HERE ON 4 PAGE 2 OF THE RCA. 5 COUNCILMAN KELLY: OKAY. FOR ARGUMENT SAKE , I ' LL 6 SECOND THAT. 7 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY. THERE ' S A MOTION AND SECOND 8 ON THE TABLE . FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF OR COMMENTS 9 APPROPRIATE? 1 BELIEVE , RUTH, YOU WERE NEXT. 10 COUNCILWOMAN FINLEY: I - - 11 MAYOR ERSKINE : EXCUSE ME . CITY ATTORNEY, DID YOU 12 WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? 13 MS . HUTTON: YES . I JUST WANTED TO INQUIRE WHETHER 14 YOU HAD ADOPTED THE FINDINGS AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL 15 FINDINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED EARLIER? 16 COUNCILMAN MAYS : YES . REMEMBER , I SAID, IT' S 17 EVERYTHING - - ON THE STAFF ' S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS - - 18 INCLUDES THEIR MODIFICATIONS . 19 MS . HUTTON: THANK YOU. 20 MAYOR ERSKINE : GO AHEAD. 21 COUNCILWOMAN FINLEY: I 'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER 22 EVERYTHING THAT - - THANK GOODNESS IT' S THE LAST TIME I ' LL 23 HAVE TO SIT HERE AT THIS TIME OF NIGHT AND TRY TO MAKE MY 24 MIND WORK . I HAVEN 'T CHANGED MY MIND. I AM NOT 25 ANTI -OIL . I DON'T THINK THAT OIL IS THE ENEMY. I DON'T .Garra��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrl� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 114 1 THINK THAT ANGUS IS THE ENEMY. 2 1 DO THINK THAT WE HAVE IN THIS CITY - - IF IT 3 IS IMPORTANT THAT WE SAVE THE OIL - - ALLOWED A LOT OF OUR 4 CITY TO BE COVERED. AND WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE STAND OUT 5 HERE AND SAY, "YOU'RE NOT LETTING ME GET AT MY OIL , " 1 6 HAVE TO SAY THAT I SAT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE 7 EARLY DAYS OF MY DAYS ON THE COUNCIL , AND WE COVERED THE 8 OIL IN OLDTOWN WITH THE HOUSING. AND WE HAD, NOT AN OIL 9 BOOM, BUT WE HAD A RESIDENTIAL BOOM. AND PLENTY OF 10 PEOPLE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY, MAYBE NOT AS 11 MUCH AS THEY 'RE MAKING NOWADAYS WITH HOUSING, BUT THEY 12 MADE CONSIDERABLE MONEY AND THEY COVERED THAT AREA AND 13 MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO GO BACK IN AND DO THE SORT OF 14 THINGS THAT IS DESIRED TO BE DONE HERE . 15 AND IT ' S CONTINUING. WE 'RE CONTINUING TO 16 COVER IT UP - - COVER UP THE AREA AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT. 17 1 CANNOT CHANGE THE POSITION I TOOK TWO AND A HALF YEARS 18 AGO, WHICH MARK PORTER EXPRESSED VERY WELL , AND 1 DON 'T 19 REALLY HAVE TO REHASH IT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IT IS A 20 HEAVY USE IN AN AREA THAT PEOPLE HAD TOOK OIL OUT OF, 21 THEY TOOK SALE OF LAND MONEY OUT OF, THEY TOOK 22 DEVELOPMENT MONEY OUT OF, AND NOW SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING 23 TO MAKE A HOME THERE . AND I HAVE TO RESPOND TO THAT 24 CONSTITUENCY TONIGHT. 25 1 CAN UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS , BUT WE HAVE A a-msfers 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1Q �Servilce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ • 115 1 BEFORE US AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHICH SAYS THAT 2 THERE ARE IMPACTS THAT CAN'T BE MITIGATED. AND 1 3 CANNOT - - I CAN LEGALLY SAY THESE ARE - - THAT THIS 4 FINDING OF - - HOW DO WE PUT IT, OVERRIDING 5 CONSIDERATIONS , IS NOT THERE , JUST AS MUCH AS LEGALLY 6 SOMEONE CAN SAY THEY ARE THERE . IT ' S A JUDGMENT CALL, 7 REALLY. IT' S A JUDGMENT CALL OF WHAT WE WANT FOR THE 8 CITY , WHAT WE FEEL IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE 9 COMMUNITY. AND 1 DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS ACTION ON THIS 10 NEIGHBORHOOD WAS GOOD JUDGMENT AT THE TIME AND I CONTINUE 11 TO FIND IT UNDESIRABLE . 12 MAYOR ERSKINE : DR . GREEN? 13 COUNCILMAN GREEN: JUST AS RUTH HAS NOT CHANGED HER 14 OPINION IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS , I HAVE NOT CHANGED MINE 15 EITHER . AND THE WAY IN WHICH WE VOTE IS DETERMINED, 1 16 THINK, BY THE QUESTIONS WE ASK OURSELVES AS WE MULL OVER 17 THE WHOLE ISSUE . 18 IN ONE QUESTION, I MENTIONED THIS TO THE 19 CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW WHEN THEY ASKED ME 20 WHY I TOOK THIS POSITION, I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION ONE 21 SHOULD ASK: IS THE ENVIRONMENT A SAFER AND CLEANER 22 ENVIRONMENT WITH THE PROJECT OR WITHOUT THE PROJECT? 23 AND AFTER READING THE EIR , THE SUPPLEMENTAL 24 EIR , THE CONDITIONS , I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THE CITY OF 25 HUNTINGTON BEACH WILL BE A CLEANER AND SAFER CITY IN .Garra��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Zr1Q service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 116 1 WHICH TO LIVE IF THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 2 AND, SECONDLY, ARE THERE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS? 3 AND WE DO HAVE THESE 59 CONDITIONS AND I HOPE THAT THE 4 CONDITIONS WOULD BE ENFORCED, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE 5 CITIZENS RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE . 6 WE ' LL HAVE TO WATCH THAT VERY CAREFULLY. 7 AND WE DO HAVE IN CONDITIONS 55 , A NINE-MEMBER 8 PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE , AND I HOPE THAT SOME OF THE 9 CITIZENS WILL BE ON THAT COMMITTEE . 10 AND THEN IN SPEAKING TO THE CITIZENS - - THE 11 CONCERNED CITIZENS , THEY ASKED A VERY PERTINENT QUESTION 12 TO ME - - OF ME , AND THEY ASKED, "WOULD YOU WANT TO LIVE 13 NEXT TO A PROJECT LIKE THAT?" AND I THINK THAT' S THE 14 ULTIMATE (QUESTION. ONE DOESN'T WANT TO OPPOSE - - IMPOSE 15 UPON OTHER PEOPLE THAT WHICH ONE WOULD NOT DO TO HIMSELF. 16 AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO 17 SPOKE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO LIVED IN CLOSE 18 PROXIMITY. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, THERE 19 WERE EIGHT PEOPLE WHO LIVED CONTIGUOUS TO THE PROJECT AND 20 FIVE SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT AND THREE IN 21 OPPOSITION. AND I THINK THAT I WOULD - - IF I EVEN LIVED 22 IN THE AREA, I WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE 23 OF THESE CONDITIONS AND KNOWING THAT IT WOULD BE OVER IN 24 TWO YEARS AND THEN WE CAN GET ON WITH OTHER THINGS . 25 SO I AM GOING TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE A.7arnixfer;" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z �er�lZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� CJ 117 1 PROJECT. AND YOU SEE , IT DEPENDS - - THE CITY OF 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH IS A CITY IN TRANSITION. THIS IS AN OIL 3 FIELD WITH RESIDENCES ON THE SURFACE , OR IS IT A 4 RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH OIL UNDERNEATH? AND I THINK THAT 5 IT' S - - FIRST IT ' S AN OIL FIELD, THE RESIDENTS ARE THERE , 6 BUT THE REST OF THE OIL HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT BEFORE WE CAN 7 MOVE OUT OF THIS TRANSITION FROM OIL FIELD TO RESIDENTIAL 8 COMMUNITY . 9 MAYOR ERSKINE : GRACE? 10 COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL : 1 DON'T THINK THERE ' S ANY 11 QUESTION IN ANY OF OUR MINDS WHO HAVE WORKED IN THE 12 PLANNING AND IN THE CITY AND NOW - - AND SOME OF US NOW 13 HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE COUNCIL , BUT THERE IS A GREAT 14 NEED IN THE CITY, NOT ONLY TO CONSOLIDATE THE OIL WELLS 15 BUT TO GET RID OF THE OIL WELLS THAT ARE NOT UP TO SAFE 16 STANDARDS AND OF THE TANKS . NOBODY IS QUESTIONING THAT. 17 AND MY OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT IS NOT A 18 MATTER OF MY NOT UNDERSTANDING THE NEED FOR THAT. MY 19 OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT IS THAT IN MY MIND, ANGUS , 20 LIKE ANY GOOD BUSINESS , HAS CHOSEN THE MOST CONVENIENT, 21 THE MOST ECONOMICAL WAY TO DO THIS PROJECT FOR ANGUS . 22 AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE ARE OTHER 23 ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD WORK. THEY 'RE JUST NOT QUITE AS 24 ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR ANGUS . AND MY RESPONSIBILITY 25 HERE ON THE COUNCIL , AS FAR AS I 'M CONCERNED, IS TO fa,rz-zxfe,r,r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r her Zr1� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 118 1 BALANCE THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS. 2 AND THESE ARE EXISTING RESIDENTS. THESE ARE i 3 NOT RESIDENTS WHO CAME THERE KNOWING THAT THERE WAS A 4 PROJECT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS IS AN UNUSUAL 5 CASE . IT' S NOT THE CASE OF ALL THE YELLOW DOTS UP THERE 6 WHERE THEY ALREADY WERE THERE WHEN PEOPLE MOVED IN. THIS 7 IS WHERE WE 'RE PUTTING IT DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF AN 8 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. 9 ANGUS HAS DONE THE BEST IT CAN. THEY ' VE PUT 10 ON - - WE 'VE PUT ON A LOT OF CONDITIONS ; AND IF THE 11 PROJECT PASSES, WHICH I SUSPECT IT WILL , IT WILL PROBABLY 12 BE A GOOD PROJECT. BUT IN MY MIND IT SHOULD NOT BE IN 13 THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT COULD BE MOVED, 1 14 BELIEVE , TO ANOTHER AREA WHERE YOU WOULD IMPACT FEWER 15 RESIDENTS OR NONE . IT COULD BE FURTHER AWAY. THE OIL - - 16 THE REACH OF THE WELLS WOULD HAVE TO BE FURTHER. IT I 17 MIGHT NOT BE QUITE AS PROFITABLE FOR ANGUS, BUT IT COULD 18 BE DONE AND IT WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME BENEFITS THAT 19 WE 'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE CLEANUP , THE CHANGE OF TANKS , 20 AND THE AIR QUALITY AND ALL THE REST OF IT. 21 AND THAT ' S MY QUARREL WITH THIS PROJECT. 22 THERE JUST IS A BETTER PLACE . IT COULD BE PARCEL 2 AT 23 ADAMS AND BEACH. I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO REACH THAT 24 FAR AND THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET IT ALL , BUT THE 25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAYS THEY CAN STILL GET THEIR �arrz��er�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Z�21/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 119 1 NINE MILLION BARRELS. THEY JUST WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE TO 2 DO IT. 3 AND I JUST FEEL VERY STRONGLY IN THIS CASE . 4 WE HAD A NEED TO PROTECT RESIDENTS, AS MRS. FINLEY HAS 5 SAID. WE GO ROUND AND ROUND WITH THE OIL COMPANIES . 6 FIRST THEY TAKE THE OIL , THEN THEY TAKE THE MONEY FROM 7 THE LAND, AND THEN WE HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT, AND NOW 8 THEY 'RE BACK AGAIN. AND I JUST - - I RESENT THAT WE HAVE 9 TO MAKE EVERY DECISION ON THE BASIS OF MAXIMIZING PROFIT 10 AND CONVENIENCE FOR THE OIL COMPANIES . I THINK THERE 11 NEEDS TO BE SOME COMPROMISE AND THERE HASN'T BEEN IN THIS 12 CASE . 13 THANK YOU. 14 MAYOR ERSKINE : JACK? 15 COUNCILMAN KELLY : YES . MR. MAYOR , THANK YOU VERY 16 MUCH. 17 YOU KNOW, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING SPOKEN 18 TONIGHT BY EACH SIDE OF THIS OR BY MY COLLEAGUES ' 19 COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS THAT 20 WE HAVE HEARD. NOT ONE UTTERANCE THAT DOESN'T BY ITS 21 INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION DESERVE PROPER AND ABSOLUTE 22 CONSIDERATION. 23 FORTUNATELY , YOUR CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN PUT 24 INTO THE POSITION OF TRYING TO DRAW FROM ALL THIS 25 INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH US . ALL OF THE Aa-rra.fe,r.5�- -r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Zrl�/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 120 1 INCREDIBLE MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 2 GO THROUGH, DILIGENTLY, I 'M CERTAIN, ON MOST OF OUR 3 PARTS , BECAUSE THIS IS QUITE A CANTANKEROUS AND 4 ARGUMENTATIVE AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE . 5 BUT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS WERE 6 MENTIONED HERE THAT I THINK BEAR SOME REAPPRECIATION OR 7 RERECOGNITION. WE 'VE HEARD ABOUT SURFACE RIGHTS AND 8 WE 'VE HEARD ABOUT MINERAL RIGHTS . WE 'VE HEARD ABOUT 9 RIGHTS OF FOLKS . AND I THINK THE NUMBER WAS 250 ROYALTY 10 PURCHASE TO THE EXTRACTION PROCESS THAT IS SYMBOLIZED BY 11 THIS ANGUS PROGRAM. 12 YOU KNOW, IT' S INTERESTING THAT ONE SIDE , 13 WHETHER IT IS PRO OR CON ON THIS ANGUS PROGRAM, ONE SIDE 14 IN ALL EFFORTS TO BE FAIR , AS THEY HAVE INDIVIDUALLY AND 15 COLLECTIVELY STATED, ARE CONSIDERATE OF THEIR RIGHTS, 16 INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY. 17 DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE OTHER GROUPS ' RIGHTS . 18 NOW, IF WE TAKE IT DOWN TO A RECOGNITION THAT THERE ARE 19 RIGHTS INVOLVED, THE SUBSURFACE RIGHTS, MINERAL RIGHTS, 20 ROYALTY RIGHTS , TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THESE 21 SUBSURFACE MINERAL OWNERS PAID FOR THEIR OWNERSHIP OF 22 SUCH PRIVILEGED RIGHTS , JUST AS THE SURFACE OWNERS OF 23 THOSE RESIDENCES PAID FOR THOSE RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH 24 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP . 25 NOW, IN THE PROCESS OF DEFINING THIS ISSUE 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z �er�ZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 121 1 THROUGH THE MULTIPLES OF PAPERWORK, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, 2 DOWN TO WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED OF US THIS EVENING, TO 3 MAKE A DECISION, UNTOLD HOURS AND HOURS AND DAYS AND 4 WEEKS AND MONTHS , AND YES, EVEN YEARS , HAVE GONE INTO 5 TIRELESS EFFORTS TO MEET THE RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS AND 6 STILL BE ABLE TO EXTRACT THAT SUBSURFACE RIGHT. 7 NOW, OUT OF THESE UNTOLD HOURS AND MONTHS , ET 8 CETERA OF MEETINGS , SOME 50 OR 60 QUALIFICATIONS HAVE 9 BEEN IMPOSED ON THIS PROGRAM. THOSE 50 TO 60 10 QUALIFICATIONS WERE DESIGNED OUT OF THIS TIRELESS EFFORT 11 OF DISCUSSION TO MITIGATE THE ACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL 12 LEVELS , EVERY SINGLE QUESTION THAT WAS SHARED WITH US 13 TONIGHT . 14 GETTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACTOR OF THE 15 OUTSIDE PEOPLE WHERE A FIVE-YEAR-OLD CHILD LEFT US , 16 FORGET ALL OF THE FIRE POTENTIAL THAT IS THROUGHOUT, NOT 17 ONLY THE CITY AS IT EXISTS TODAY, BUT MOST LIKELY THERE 18 IS A DANGER OF FIRE ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WE 'RE 19 DISCUSSING TODAY, EITHER THE FACILITY BLOCK OR THE 20 DRILLING BLOCK. 21 BUT THESE SOME 50 TO 60 QUALIFICATIONS ARE 22 GOING TO PUT US IN THE POSITION TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE 23 THOSE CHALLENGES AND NO SUPPOSE AND IFS . AND IT SEEMS TO 24 ME THAT IN SOME APPROACH TO REASONABLENESS THAT WITH THE 25 EXCEPTION - - WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT 24-MONTH PERIOD, �arrz��er�" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zrl� rS I-vice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CC�J 122 1 POSSIBLY MORE , POSSIBLY LESS , I 'M NOT SURE , BUT 2 REGARDLESS, IT IS A DAMNED INCONVENIENT PERIOD. 3 AFTER THAT PERIOD HAS BEEN LIVED THROUGH, THAT 4 NEIGHBORHOOD WILL END UP WITH A RESIDUAL OF ONE OF THE 5 MOST OUTSTANDING LOOKING MALLS , IF YOU WILL , WHERE THIS 6 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IMPACT , UNDER THESE 50 TO 60 7 QUALIFICATIONS TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS , WILL HAVE BEEN 8 HISTORY AND IT WILL BE A DYNAMITE AREA TO LIVE IN. 9 OKAY. YOU CAN LAUGH IF YOU WISH, BUT 1 SAT UP 10 HERE AND DIDN'T LAUGH AT SOME OF THE RIDICULOUSNESS I 11 HEARD EITHER. SO I GUESS THAT WHEN THE JOKE IS OVER AND 12 THE LAUGHTER IS DEAD, MY VOTE WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THE I 13 MOTION. JESUS CHRIST, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS . 14 MAYOR ERSKINE : I SEE NO FURTHER LIGHTS SO THE TIME 15 FOR THE VOTE IS NEAR. 16 1 HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH BOTH THE 17 CONCERNED CITIZENS EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON IN A MEETING, 18 SO I GUESS I 'M SUPPOSED TO DISCLOSE THAT EX PARTE 19 COMMUNICATION, AS THEY CALL THEM. I 'VE ALSO DISCUSSED 20 THE PROJECT WITH MR . SHELDON ON THE PHONE . AND I HAVE 21 HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW IT ON A NUMBER OF HEARINGS , 22 INCLUDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING THAT WAS 23 REFERRED TO BEFORE BACK - - I GUESS BACK IN ' 85 OR ' 86 . 24 YOU DON'T WIN POPULARITY CONTESTS BY BEING 25 CONSISTENT IF YOUR POSITION IS ONE THAT CERTAIN INTEREST farrlXfer,r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 123 1 GROUPS DON'T LIKE . AND YOU DON'T WIN POPULARITY CONTESTS 2 BY BEING INCONSISTENT. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT YOU 3 THINK IS RIGHT. AND WHILE I THINK THE VOTES WILL BE 4 THERE TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER 5 OF CONDITIONS THAT REALLY NEED TO BE ENFORCED AND I 'M 6 AFRAID MAY NOT BE ENFORCED IF PAST EXPERIENCE PROVES TO 7 BE CORRECT. 8 THAT ' S WHY I DISCUSSED WITH PAUL COOK THIS 9 AFTERNOON, AFTER TALKING WITH SOME OF THE RESIDENTS , THAT 10 WE PUT IN AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION, WHICH, AGAIN, MAY 11 NOT - - MAY NOT GO TO PLEASE A LOT OF THOSE WHO ARE 12 OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT, BUT I THINK IT WILL GO TO THE 13 ISSUE OF MAKING SURE THE CONDITIONS ARE ENFORCED. AND 14 THAT CONDITION WOULD BE THAT WE ASK ANGUS TO FUND AND THE 15 CITY TO HIRE A HALF-TIME - - BY THE HALF TIME , I MEAN 20 16 HOURS A WEEK - - INSPECTOR THAT MIOULD REPORT TO MR . COOK 17 TO ENSURE THAT THE CONDITIONS ARE ENFORCED. 18 1 THINK ADDITIONAL DUTIES WOULD BE FOR THAT 19 INSPECTOR TO MAKE HIMSELF AVAILABLE , POSSIBLY ON TUESDAYS 20 AND THURSDAYS OR MONDAY AND FRIDAYS TO AIR AND TO RECEIVE 21 COMPLAINTS, ET CETERA, ON THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE 22 CONDITIONS FROM THE RESIDENTS. 23 1 HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT 24 WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF ANGUS . I KNOW IT MAY BE SLIGHTLY 25 EXPENSIVE , BUT I THINK THE COMMITMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO DO farrisferi,' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r5POr Zr1� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 Cl 124 1 EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE THAT THIS 2 PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CONDITIONS . AND I 'M NOT 3 CONFIDENT THAT THE STAFF WILL HAVE THE TIME OVER THE LIFE 4 OF THE PROJECT TO REALLY TRACK THE CONDITIONS . SO I 'D 5 LIKE TO ADD THAT. 6 SECONDLY, JUST IN GOING THROUGH THE EIR, I WAS 7 LOOKING AT THE NOISE AND THE AIR EMISSION SECTIONS OF THE 8 EIR. AND ON PAGE 47 , THIS IS IN THE EIR , SUPPLEMENTAL 9 EIR, ON PAGE 47 , IT TALKS ABOUT INSTALLING RUBBER-LINED 10 PIPE ELEVATORS , QUOTE , IF NECESSARY, AND RUBBER TIRES TO 11 ABSORB IMPACT OF VARIOUS EQUIPMENT. 12 1 THINK THERE ' S BEEN A LOT OF TESTIMONY THAT 13 SOME OF THESE THINGS MAY HAVE BEEN NEEDED AND WEREN 'T 14 INSTALLED. I DON'T KNOW. I 'M NOT A TECHNICAL EXPERT, 15 BUT I ' D LIKE TO ASK THE STAFF IF THEY THINK THERE ' S 16 ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ADDITIONALLY, BESIDES THE 17 CONDITIONS AS STATED, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NOISE OF THE 18 PROJECT STAYS CONTINUALLY, AND NOT JUST OCCASIONALLY, 19 BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVELS . 20 1 FOUND OUT SOMETHING TONIGHT THAT I DIDN'T 21 KNOW, THAT I LIVE WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF A MAJOR OIL 22 DRILLING AREA BECAUSE I NEVER REALLY FOCUSED ON WHAT ' S ON 23 THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT FENCE ON COAST HIGHWAY, EVEN 24 THOUGH I 'M ON 22ND STREET. SO I GUESS I SHOULD BE 25 CONCERNED ABOUT IT. far,raferer 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr 2 xelwzce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 c/ 125 1 1 THINK IT POINTS OUT THE FACT, THOUGH, THAT 2 JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THE CITY, WHETHER IT ' S MEMBERS OF 3 THE COUNCIL OR THE PROJECT APPLICANT, WE CAN FIND DOZENS 4 OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN, AROUND, NEAR , OR ADJACENT TO 5 VARIOUS KINDS OF OIL DEVELOPMENT. WHEN YOU MOVE TO 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH, YOU KNOW THAT OIL IS NEAR, YOU KNOW 7 THAT OIL RIGS GO OUT, THEY MOVE AROUND, THEY COME DOWN, 8 AND THAT ' S BEEN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY. 9 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER RHETORIC, I WOULD LIKE TO 10 GET SOME RESPONSE FROM THE STAFF ON THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL 11 SUGGESTIONS. 12 MR. COOK: IN TERMS OF THE HALF-TIME EMPLOYEE , I 13 WOULD NOT HAVE - - FURTHER , NOT BE SET AT HALF TIME 14 SPECIFICALLY, BUT AS NEEDED. AND WE WOULD FIND TIMES 15 DURING THE PROJECT WHERE WE MIGHT NEED TO ONLY SPEND 10 16 HOURS A WEEK AT THAT, AND OTHER TIMES THEY MAY BE NEEDED 17 FULL TIME . SO IF YOU WOULD PUT SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THAT 18 CONDITION, I ' D APPRECIATE IT. I THINK IT IS A GOOD ONE . 19 AND IN TERMS OF NOISE LEVELS , WHO WOULD BE THE 20 STAFF PERSON TO ANSWER THAT, OF MONITORING TO MAKE SURE 21 THAT NOISE ALWAYS STAYS BELOW THE STANDARD. 22 MR. ADAMS : WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT CONDITION OF 23 MITIGATING MEASURE AS ANOTHER ITEM UNDER CONDITIONS OF 24 APPROVAL, COULD BE 14-B. HOPE TO ADD A SIMPLE CONDITION 25 THAT WOULD SAY THAT ADDITIONAL NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES farraferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z xeri)ZCe TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 126 1 BE IN PLACE SUBJECT TO A REPORT PREPARED BY THE 2 APPLICANT. 3 COUNCILMAN KELLY: MAYOR, THE SECONDER APPROVED 4 THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION AND MOVE IT TO BE PART OF 5 THE MOTION. 6 MAYOR ERSKINE : I WOULD SUGGEST IT. 7 1 WOULD LIKE SOME DEFINITION, THOUGH, TO THAT 8 RATHER THAN JUST US , YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN COME UP WITH 9 SOME WORDING RATHER THAN JUST AS NEEDED. IF WE HAD, YOU 10 KNOW, A DESIGNATED PORTION OF STAFF TIME PER WEEK SO THAT 11 SOMEBODY CAN BE AVAILABLE TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS AT A 12 DESIGNATED TIME . AND IF THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS , THE GUY 13 CAN WORK ON YOUR CAR, PAUL, OR SOMETHING. 14 MR. COOK: GOOD IDEA. 15 1 THINK THAT PART IS A GOOD IDEA. WHAT I 'M 16 SAYING IS THAT I DON'T WANT THEM JUST SITTING AROUND 17 THERE WATCHING ANGUS WORK WHEN THERE ' S REALLY NOTHING TO 18 WATCH. THIS PERSON THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIRING WILL 19 CERTAINLY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE . THERE WILL BE BUILDING 20 INSPECTORS AND MANY FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC 21 WORKS EMPLOYEES , ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY 22 ARE APPLICABLE , WILL BE MONITORING AND INSPECTING THE 23 ANGUS PROJECT. 24 BUT THIS ONE PERSON YOU ' RE TALKING ABOUT 25 REPORTING DIRECTLY TO MY OFFICE WOULD SORT OF - - COULD BE farrixferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 127 1 THE COORDINATOR FOR THE CITIZEN COMPLAINTS , COORDINATE 2 ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL WORK, RECEIVE COMPLAINTS , AND 3 TAKE CARE OF THEM AND SO FORTH. AND THAT - - THEY 'RE 4 DEPENDING ON A PHASING OF THE PROJECT, COULD BE ANYWHERE 5 FROM A QUARTER-TIME TO A FULL-TIME POSITION. 6 MR. SHELDON: MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY, LET ME ADDRESS 7 THE NOISE ISSUE FIRST. CONDITION 4-A, B, AND C, AS 8 PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL, OUTLINE BASICALLY A 9 PROCESS. AND THAT PROCESS WILL CONTINUE TO ADD LAYERS OF 10 NOISE PROTECTION AS SOURCES OF NOISES ARE DISCOVERED. 11 AND ATTENUATION IS DESIGNED AND APPLIED TO THEM. 12 SO MR . JOHN VAN HOUTEN WHO SPOKE TO YOU 13 EARLIER, HAS QUITE A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT HE 14 INTENDS TO APPLY . AND AS ADDITIONAL MITIGATION BECOMES 15 EVIDENT, THAT IS A NEED FOR THEM, THEN THEY TOO WILL BE 16 APPLIED. SO I THINK YOUR CONCEPT OF HOW THAT SHOULD WORK 17 IS REALLY EMBODIED IN THE PROCESS THAT IS SET FORTH IN 18 CONDITION 4-A, B, AND C, A MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND 19 THEN FURTHER MITIGATION AS REQUIRED. 20 SO I THINK THAT ' S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'RE 21 THINKING THERE . 22 MAYOR ERSKINE : THAT 'S SPECIFICALLY UNDER 23 MITIGATION ON PAGE 47 . 1 KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT 24 OF YOU, BUT IT SAYS , "SUDDEN HIGH-FREQUENCY NOISE WILL BE 25 KEPT TO A MINIMUM BY USING RUBBER-LINED PIPE ELEVATORS, farnix-ferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z xervice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 l CJ 0 0 128 1 IF NECESSARY. " 2 HOW WOULD - - 3 MR. SPENCER: I 'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME , 4 BUT WE PROVIDED TO STAFF A LIST - - A SEPARATE LETTER THAT 5 HAD SOME 10 OR 12 SPECIFIC NOISE MITIGATIONS THAT WERE 6 INTENDED TO BE USED AUTOMATICALLY. AND THEN THE PROGRAM 7 IN 4-A, B, AND C WILL ADD ON TOP OF THAT. 8 PERHAPS IF JOHN VAN HOUTEN IS HERE , HE CAN 9 ENUMERATE THE THINGS THAT HE HAD ALREADY SPECIFIED THAT 10 HE ANTICIPATED BEING REQUIRED. 11 MAYOR ERSKINE : HOW ABOUT THE OTHER SUGGESTION? - - 12 MR . SHELDON: IF I - - WELL, LET ME JUST SPEAK TO 13 YOU - - WE GO INTO A NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE , GIVEN THE 14 FACT THAT IT TAKES A SECOND READING OF THE ZONE CHANGE 15 ORDINANCE AND THEN 30 DAYS FOR THAT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE . 16 GRADING COULDN 'T START UNTIL AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR . 17 THEN FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS , WE 'RE IN A 18 NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE WHERE WE 'RE DOING STREET 19 IMPROVEMENTS , PERIMETER CURBS, GUTTERS , SIDEWALKS , 20 LANDSCAPING, PERMANENT WALLS . AND AFTER ALL OF THAT IS 21 DONE , WE START THE ONSITE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES , 22 INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT AND TANKS . ALL THAT IS PRETTY 23 ORDINARY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE PAID, AND 1 24 SUSPECT WE ' LL PAY AGAIN. FAIRLY HEFTY FEES IN THE - - FOR 25 BUILDING PERMITS , GRADING PERMITS . AND PART OF THE Aa-r,ra.fe,rer 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 ice SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rcr Z serv. TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 0 • 129 1 BENEFIT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GET FROM THAT IS AN INSPECTOR 2 TO COME DOWN AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE DOING IT AND HAVE DONE 3 IT TO CODE AND ARE DOING IT TO CODE . 4 SO WE WOULD LIKE - - 5 MAYOR ERSKINE : WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING IS AT SOME 6 POINT YOU MIGHT BE WILLING TO SUPPORT IT - - 7 MR. SHELDON: YEAH. 8 MAYOR ERSKINE : - - BUT NOT DURING THE EARLY 9 CONSTRUCTION PHASE? 10 MR. SHELDON: WELL, WHAT I WAS THINKING OF - - THE 11 PROBLEM THAT EVERYONE WAS REALLY ANTICIPATING WAS DURING 12 THE 24-MONTH DRILLING PHASE . I LIKE MR . COOK ' S NOTION 13 THAT IT OUGHT TO BE AS REQUIRED. AND I THINK WHAT I WAS 14 TRYING TO SAY IS WE HAD SIX MONTHS IN ORDER TO DESIGN 15 THAT; SO IF YOU WOULD LEAVE THAT AS AN INTENTION OF 16 COUNCIL TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU DURING THAT PERIOD AS 17 TO DETERMINE HOW LONG, HOW MUCH TIME THAT GUY WOULD 18 SPEND, WHAT HE WOULD BE DOING IN ADDITION TO ALL THE 19 OTHER INSPECTORS WHO WILL BE ON THE JOB, WHAT SPECIAL - - 20 INCLUDING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GROUP IN PLANNING. 21 MAYOR ERSKINE : SPENCE , I THINK THE INTENT OF MY 22 COMMENT, THE THING I 'M LOOKING FOR A RESPONSE ON IS 1 23 WOULD LIKE STAFF TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT PERSON 24 WHO DOESN'T REPORT TO CHIEF PICARD OR ANY OF THE BUILDING 25 INSPECTION DIVISION PEOPLE , DENNIS KRATCHY (PHONETIC) , AN farrisfers-- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z�21/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� • 130 1 INDEPENDENT STAFF REPORTING DIRECTLY TO THE CITY 2 ADMINISTRATOR, WHO IS - - PAUL, I THINK CORRECTLY SAID - - 3 A COORDINATOR. 4 AND IF - - YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO 5 HAVE THAT PERSON ON BOARD UNTIL YOU START ACTUAL 6 CONSTRUCTION OF THE DRILLING OPERATIONS - - 7 MR . SHELDON: FOR THE DRILLING PHASE , AND I THINK 8 AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE SOME LANGUAGE AS REQUIRED OR AS 9 DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE ADMINISTRATOR , WE WOULD 10 HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT. 11 MAYOR ERSKINE: COUNCILWOMAN FINLEY? 12 COUNCILWOMAN FINLEY: I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD BE A 13 BUFFER FOR COUNCIL TO PREVENT THIS SORT OF THING THAT WE 14 GET WITH THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THE NEIGBORHOOD THAT UPSET 15 PEOPLE OCCUR. AND THEN THERE ' S A LOT OF THRASHING BACK 16 AND FORTH. 17 AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN A SMALL PROJECT THAT IS - - 18 IMPACTS A NEIGHBORHOOD. A CALL AT 2 O'CLOCK IN THE 19 MORNING BECAUSE SOMETHING IS HAPPENING OR SEEN. THERE 20 SHOULD BE SOME BUFFER TO THAT. AND THAT ' S WHAT YOU'RE 21 ASKING FOR. 22 MAYOR ERSKINE : I THINK AN ANALOGY IS - - IT ' S 23 PROBABLY A BAD ANALOGY, BUT IT' S ONE THAT PEOPLE ARE 24 FAMILIAR WITH, IS HAVING A DANIELLE MADISON WORKING 25 COMMODORE CIRCLE , WHICH WE 'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN THE farrafers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r5oor Z72!/ serviceTELEPHONE(714)953-4447 �`J 131 1 UPCOMING WEEKS. BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING 2 DANIELLE THERE WORKING DAILY VERSUS JUST SOMEBODY FROM 3 PLANNING, NOT THAT PLANNING CAN'T DO IT, BUT THEY 'RE TOO 4 BUSY DOING OTHER THINGS . 5 MR. SHELDON: I WOULD HATE TO JUST AGREE TO, YOU 6 KNOW, A SET PERIOD OF TIME . I THINK THAT OUGHT TO BE 7 REVIEWED BY MR. COOK. HE MADE SOME DETERMINATION 8 SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR APPROVAL OF THAT PROGRAM. BUT 9 CONCEPTUALLY WE AGREE . I THINK THAT' S FINE FOR THE 10 DRILLING PHASE AND FOR A TIME PERIOD THAT IS SO MANY 11 HOURS PER WEEK OR PER MONTH IS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE BY 12 THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR. 13 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY. I ' LL GIVE UP AT THIS POINT. I 14 THANK YOU. 15 1 THINK WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND IS 16 AMENDED. 17 COUNCILWOMAN FINLEY: IT HAS BEEN AMENDED. 18 MAYOR ERSKINE : IT' S AMENDED. 19 WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER ON THE 20 NOISE ISSUE FROM STAFF . 21 MR. ADAMS : MAYOR , ON THE NOISE ISSUE , YOU HAVE - - 22 AS SHELDON POINTED OUT, YOU HAVE THE ITEMS 4-A THROUGH C. 23 THOSE ARE THE MONITORING SYSTEMS. THEN YOU HAVE 24 CONDITION NO. 14 , WHICH ACTUALLY SAYS THAT A REPORT WILL 25 COME IN WHICH WILL IDENTIFY THE MITIGATION MEASURES. BUT farrz ferc" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 rG/✓Gr Z�ZIf &rvilce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 132 1 THEN YOU HAVE A CATCH-ALL CONDITION WHICH IS NO. 58 , THAT 2 SAYS THAT ALL THE MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE 3 EIR AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR SHALL BE INCLUDED AS 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 5 SO THE COMMENT THERE , THAT SUDDEN 6 HIGH-FREQUENCY NOISES WILL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM BY USING 7 RUBBER- LINED-TYPE ELEVATORS , THAT INDEED WILL BE A 8 CONDITION PLACED ON THE PROJECT AND CAN BE IMPOSED AT OUR 9 DISCRETION IF IT' S THE MAJOR METHOD OF WHICH WE CAN 10 CONTROL NOISE . 11 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT 12 MITIGATION MEASURE IS IT HAS THE PHRASE , " IF NECESSARY, " 13 AND 1 'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW - - WHO AND HOW YOU 14 DETERMINE - - 15 MR. ADAMS : WELL , THEY REPORT THAT THEY ' LL GET BACK 16 TO US . UNDER CONDITION NO. 14 , WILL IDENTIFY CERTAIN 17 MITIGATION MEASURES SO THEY WILL - - SO THEY WILL IDENTIFY 18 CERTAIN NOISE SOURCES AND WAYS TO CORRECT THOSE OR 19 MITIGATE THOSE SOURCES IF THE NOISE SOURCE HAPPENS TO BE 20 THIS SUDDEN HIGH-FREQUENCY NOISE AND THEN WE ' LL TRY THE 21 RUBBER-LINED PIPES . AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, WE ' LL TRY 22 SOMETHING ELSE . BUT IT ' S GOING TO BE A STAFF - - 23 MR. SHELDON: MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY. IN MY LETTER TO 24 MR. BOB FRANKLIN OF SEPTEMBER 26TH - - I 'M SORRY - - MR. 25 JOHN CARMICHAEL ' S LETTER, WE ENUMERATED A NUMBER OF ITEMS farrisicers- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z�ZIj service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 133 1 ON NOISE AND INDICATED THAT THE ANGUS PLAN PLANS TO ADOPT 2 THE FOLLOWING MEASURES DURING THE DRILLING PHASE . 3 SURE , THEY CAN EASILY BEAT NOISE CODE 4 STANDARDS - - EXCUSE ME - - ACCOUSTICAL BARRIER 30 FEET 5 HIGH, ERECTED INSIDE THE PERMANENT MASONRY WALL, DERRICK 6 AND SUBSTRUCTURE OF THE DRILLING RIG WILL BE ENCLOSED 7 WITH ACCOUSTICAL MATERIAL . THE DRILLING RIGS WILL BE 8 POWERED BY OFFSITE GENERATED ELECTRICITY. WELL CEMENTING 9 EQUIPMENT WILL BE POWERED BY ELECTRICITY THAT IS A POWER 10 TAKEOFF FROM THE CEMENT TRUCK ' S DIESEL MOTOR, WHICH WE 11 WOULD NORMALLY USE , WILL NOT BE USED. WE ' LL USE 12 ELECTRICAL TAKEOFF . 13 ALL OTHER AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT WILL BE POWERED 14 BY ELECTRICITY. THE DRILLER WILL BE REQUIRED TO STOP FOR 15 THE DERRICK MEN TO LATCH THE ELEVATOR WHILE RUNNING DRILL 16 PIPE IN THE HOLE . THE DERRICK-B DOOR WILL BE CLOSED AT 17 ALL TIMES WHEN NOT IN USE . TRUCK TIRES WILL BE USED ON A 18 WALK TO DEADEN ANY SOUND CAUSED BY MOVING CASES OR DRILL 19 PIPE . 20 THE CREW WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO WRAP DRILL 21 PIPE TO TEST FOR FLUID WHILE PULLING DRILL PIPE OUT OF 22 THE HOLE AND WHENEVER POSSIBLE , INFREQUENT OPERATION, 23 SUCH AS RUNNING CASING AND CEMENTING, WILL BE DONE DURING 24 DAYLIGHT HOURS. AND THEN MR. VAN HOUTEN HAS DESIGNED 25 THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION WHICH SET FORTH FURTHER farnl.�.fnr,r 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�cr Zrl�/ service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 C� 134 1 PROCESS , WHICH I SAY, WILL DISCOVER AND THEN INCLUDE 2 ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS AS THEY BECOME SELF-EVIDENT. 3 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY? 4 MR. SHELDON: THANK YOU. 5 MAYOR ERSKINE : ALL RIGHT. WE ' LL CLARIFY THAT IN A 6 MINUTE . 7 COUNCIL , ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR 8 COMMENTS? 9 THERE ' S STILL CONFUSION ON THE AMENDED MOTION. 10 1 THINK, PAUL, YOU HAVE THE DIRECTION ON THE INDEPENDENT 11 STAFF - - 12 MR. COOK : YES , WE DO. I BELIEVE MRS . HUTTON HAS A 13 CONCERN THAT COUNCILMAN MAYS MAY HAVE NOT MENTIONED THE 14 APPROVAL OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 15 MAYOR ERSKINE : YEAH. WE ' LL GET DO THAT IN A 16 MINUTE . I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT ON THE OTHER ISSUE - - 17 MR. COOK : I 'M CLEAR, YES . 18 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY . CONNIE , DO YOU HAVE THAT 19 AMENDMENT? 20 THE CLERK: I DON'T HAVE IT VERBATIM, NO. 21 MAYOR ERSKINE : BASICALLY, WE ' LL ADD A CONDITION 22 THAT AN INDEPENDENT STAFF PERSON WILL BE HIRED WHO 23 REPORTS TO PAUL COOK, FUNDED BY ANGUS, FOR WEEKLY 24 COMMUNICATION REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF 25 THE PROJECT AND FOR MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS REGARDING farra.fercr 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Zr1l/ &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 135 1 COMPLAINTS ON THE PROJECT. SO THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT. 2 THE MOTION ALSO INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL 3 MODIFIED CONDITIONS A-13120 AND 37 . AND 1 UNDERSTAND YOU 4 WANT US TO READ THE FULL RECOMMENDED ACTIONS. 5 MR . MAYS , WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT. 6 THE CLERK: I CAN READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE . 1 7 JUST DIDN 'T HEAR THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR BEING ADOPTED - - a COUNCILMAN MAYS : YES, THE - - 9 THE CLERK: - - OR THE FINDINGS. 10 COUNCILMAN MAYS: OKAY. IT' S - - THE MOTION 11 INCLUDED A, WHICH - - DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT SHEET 12 THERE? 13 MAYOR ERSKINE : PAGE 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT, CONNIE , 14 THE TOP OF THE PAGE . 15 COUNCILMAN MAYS : IT' S THE LATEST RCA, NOT THE ONE 16 THAT WAS IN THE PACKET. 17 IT ' S A AS IN - - IT' S A, B, AND C WITH THE 18 MODIFIED CONDITIONS. A IS ADOPTED CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE 19 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88- 1 AND I 20 ADOPTED RECERTIFIES ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 21 NO. 86- 1 BY ADOPTING CITY RESOLUTION NO. 5954 WITH 22 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. 23 THEN THE REST OF IT, B AND C, AND THEN A - - 24 8-B AND 20 AND 37 AND THEN THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE JUST 25 DISCUSSED. .bla-ms.fere" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Z� &rvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 Cl 136 1 THE CLERK: ALL RIGHT, FINE . 2 COUNCILMAN MAYS : THERE ' S MODIFICATIONS THAT THIS 3 STAFF HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER, ALSO, I BELIEVE . 4 MAYOR ERSKINE : CONNIE , YOU NEED TO READ ADDITIONAL 5 PARTS OF THE RESOLUTION? 6 THE CLERK: SCOTT, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTI0N ABOUT 7 SEPARATE VOTES? 8 MR . ADAMS : IT MAY BE CLEANER TO DO INDIVIDUAL 9 ACTIONS ON EACH OF THOSE A, B, AND C ITEMS . 10 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY . CLERK , WHY DON 'T YOU CALL 11 OUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE - - 12 THE CLERK: MR. ADAMS BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF 13 SEPARATE VOTES . THAT' S WHY I BROUGHT IT TO YOUR 14 ATTENTION. 15 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY. IT ' S GETTING LATE , SO WE 'RE 16 TRYING TO BE PATIENT. WE JUST NEED SOMEBODY TO OUTLINE 17 EXACTLY WHAT - - WOULD YOU LIKE THE FULL A ON PAGE 10 OF 18 THE COVER SHEET TO BE READ BEFORE WE VOTE , OR DO YOU JUST 19 WANT US TO TAKE A SEPARATE VOTE? 20 COUNCILMAN MAYS : JUST SEPARATE A, B, AND C. 21 THE CLERK: MAYOR ERSKINE , I 'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. 1 22 THINK IF WE JUST TAKE A VOTE SEPARATELY, AS MR. ADAMS I 23 JUST SUGGESTED TO MY MINUTE CLERK, MAYBE THAT' S WHAT HE 24 BELIEVES IS NECESSARY OR GAIL CAN COMMENT ON IT. I DO 25 HAVE TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY' TITLE AND THE FINDINGS AND oarra.fen�' 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA AN&CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr Zrl� service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 .� C� 137 1 CONDITIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED. 2 OTHER THAN THAT, I ' LL LEAVE IT TO THE 3 ATTORNEY. 4 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY . WELL , THE ONLY THING 5 DIFFERENT ABOUT A ON PAGE 2 AND A ON THE COVER SHEET IS 6 THAT THE RESOLUTION, NO. 5954 IS SPELLED OUT ON THE COVER 7 SHEET. SO UNLESS THE CITY ATTORNEY THINKS THAT SHOULD BE 8 READ, WE ' LL MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THAT PARTICULAR 9 ITEM. 10 MS . HUTTON: YOU MAY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE . 11 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY, WE ' LL CALL FOR - - CALL FOR 12 THE VOTE ON SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 88- 1 , 86- 1 RESOLUTION NO. 13 5954 , AS INDICATED IN ITEM A. 14 THE CLERK: AND THIS MOTION WILL BE MADE BY MAYS 15 AND KELLY? 16 MAYOR ERSKINE : CORRECT. 17 THE CLERK: FINLEY, NO; WINCHELL, NO; FIVE AYES . 18 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE BEFORE 19 US IS ITEM B, WHICH IS THE ZONE CHANGE 88- 11 . IT 20 INCLUDES ORDINANCE NO. 2980 , WHICH WE WILL ASSUME IS PART 21 OF THE RECORD THERE . 22 CALL FOR THE VOTE ON THAT. 23 MS. HUTTON: AFTER READING THAT TITLE? 24 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY . 25 MINUTE CLERK: ORDINANCE NO. 2980 : "AN ORDINANCE farra.ferer 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z�ZQ wrvice TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 138 1 OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON 2 BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE 3 FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DISTRICT 4 TWO) WITH OIL SUFFIX TO OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DISTRICT 5 TWO) WITH OIL SUFFIX FOR DRILLING PURPOSES ON REAL 6 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN DELAWARE STREET TO THE 7 EAST, ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, CALIFORNIA STREET TO 8 THE WEST, AND SPRINGFIELD AVENUE TO THE NORTH. " ZONE 9 CHANGE NO. 88 - - 10 THE CLERK: AND THIS MOTION WAS ALSO MAYS AND 11 KELLY? 12 COUNCILMAN MAYS: YES. 13 THE CLERK: FINLEY, NO; WINCHELL , NO; FIVE AYES. 14 MAYOR ERSKINE : OKAY. THE LAST ITEM WAS ITEM C, 15 WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 88-25 , WITH FINDINGS 16 AND CONDITIONS AS MODIFIED BY ITEM 8-13, ITEM 20 , ITEM 37 17 IS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT RCA. 18 CALL FOR THE VOTE . 19 THE CLERK: AND THAT 'S MAYS AND KELLY. 20 FINLEY, NO; WINCHELL , NO; FIVE AYES . 21 MAYOR ERSKINE : CLERK, I FORGOT TO LIST THE 22 ADDITIONAL CONDITION ABOUT THE STAFF PERSON REPORTING TO 23 PAUL COOK. 24 THE CLERK: AND INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL 25 CONDITIONS . I I oarnis.fers" 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 r�cr Z service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1 CJ 139 1 MAYOR ERSKINE : THANK YOU. 2 3 (END OF PROCEEDINGS . ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 farraferx- 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 220 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 re�Gr aril/ xermce TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 ,� c� REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE 1 , LUCIE PREECE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT CIS THE 21ST DAY OF NWI3BER , 1 988 , 1 DID REPORT IN' I SHORTHAND THE TEST I W)OMY AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOREGO I "',G I HEARING; THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE AIWOVE ETNTI LED MA7'7E7' , DID TRANSCRIBE MY SHORTHAND NOTES INTO TYPEWRITING, AND T:;".`7 THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND COFIRECT COPY GF SHORTHAND NOTES THEREOF . 1 SHORTHAND. REPORTER 1600 EAST FOURTH STREET. SUITE 220 SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 re5CJrfZn service TELEPHONE(714)953-4447 1