Is The City of Hermosa Beach Hiding Oil Related Expenses?

Howard Longacre Letter to City Council May 20, 2013 (Item 3) 

(Please excuse my typos below)

3)  Request for clarification as to where/how the City is specifically keep track of the accumulating city expenditures which are not being reimbursed by E&B Natural Resources as related to the likely 2014 oil ballot measure.  

When the settlement agreement between the parties was announced in March of 2012, it was indicated that E&B Natural Resources would be paying essentially all of the costs leading to an election for the purposed of determining if the people of Hermosa Beach would lift the City's ban on oil drilling.  

Later it was announced that city staff time utilized for all additional work related to preparation for an election would be reimbursed by E&B at an amount equal to 10% of the cost of the EIR preparation.  And further it was indicated that E&B would cover the costs of obtaining the EIR, and would pay not more than $50,000 of the actual election costs.  

Since then the Council has approved hiring (at the City expense) consultants to do such things as the City's own "Economic Study", and for a "Community Dialog" process (some or much of which "Community Dialogue" will be oil drilling related according to the RFP for that consultant.) 

There appears to be a significant amount of staff time being expended daily on various aspects of oil drilling.  Thus, if the EIR preparation costs amounted to $800,000 in total, that would mean E&B would only be reimbursing the City $80,000 for all of its cots for consultants, meetings, reports, attorney fees, staff time and on and on for the extraneous activities leading to the oil drilling election.  

The people were essentially told by the Council that the oil litigation was over and that their only costs going forward would be one of the following:  

• If the electorate approved oil drilling at an election then the City's obligation to E&B would be $3.5M, plus the City's own costs ongoing attorney and staff time indefinitely, plus essentially the giving over to E&B for their use of a parcel of City Yard land presently worth $11M or more.  In other words an approximate total city burden of $14.5M plus city expenditures of perhaps $500,000 indefinitely.  

• However, if the electorate maintains the ban on oil drilling they'd simply owe E&B $17.5M and that amount could be paid over a period of years, ie. 30 years at "mutually agreed terms". 

All need to be reminded that the settlement agreement requires an extremely valuable 1.3 acre city parcel, with a present value of $11M or more if properly zoned, to be handed over gratis to E&B, along with $3.5M cash, if the voters approve lifting the ban on oil drilling.  

Further, all need to be reminded that the city and the school district are to be receiving relatively poor share of the hypothetical oil revenue (it should be not less than 50% in total of direct oil and gas sales revenue).  This unfortunate fact indicates that past city councils really did give away the store to Macpherson.  Why they so stupidly did that is past history.  

3-a)  The question here is, how is the city keeping track of its expenses month by month, and where can the public and the Council view and be aware of the ongoing escalating expenses in a manner, ie via a spreadsheet tabulation?  Such tabulation should clearly indicate the ongoing costs being reimbursed by E&B from their deposits fund, along with the ongoing costs being reimbursed by E&B from their deposits fund, along with the ongoing city expenditures not being reimbursed by E&B from their deposits fund.

See Item 4 Brown Act

Who Owns Present & Future Oil & Gas Mineral Rights?

Howard Longacre Letter to City Council May 20, 2013

1)  Request for clarification regard the present and future ownership of the oil and gas mineral rights that were own by the City prior to the original agreement(s) with Macpherson.    

1-a)  Who owns / controls the City's original oil and gas mineral rights at the present time? 

1-b)  Who will  own/control the subject mineral rights if oil drilling IS NOT APPROVED by the voters, and for how long?  

1-c)  Who will own/control the subject mineral rights if oil drilling is approved by the voters and for how long? 

2)  Request for clarification regard the Oil Lease expiration data. 

2-a)  How many years remain on that oil lease? 

2-b)  Is the clock presently ticketing on that oil lease or has it been suspended due to the prior oil litigation, and if so is it still suspended and to when? 

2-c)  If oil drilling is NOT APPROVED by the voters what happens to the oil lease, ie. does it expire immediately, will it ever expire, will the clock continue to tick? 

2-d)  If oil drilling is approved by the voters what happens to the oil lease, ie. when does it expire, will it ever expire and if so when? 

A Cry For Help From More Hermosa Beach Residents

Listen to what Kevin Sousa, Michael Collins, Hany Fangary, Allan Mason and Stacey Armato have to say at the Hermosa Beach City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2013.  They are all speaking to the issue of E&B Natural Resources drilling in the Hermosa Beach City Yard without a County permit.

Related Articles:
Hermosa Beach Residents Catch E&B Drilling Without a County Permit
Hermosa Beach Patch "City Cited For Lack of Drilling Permit

15 Ways The HB City Council Is NOT Being Impartial To Oil Drilling

Hermosa Beach City Council is Warned You Are Not Acting Impartial

In case you missed the meeting last night here is a summary of Stacey Armato, Barbara Ellman & Chris Prenter warning the Hermosa Beach City Council & City Attorney Michael Jenkins about the lack of impartiality with oil drilling.  Here are 15 excellent points they bring up that the City has not address and has simply ignored.  Are they acting impartial by not including our due diligence?  

1)  "Oil Drilling" is the proper term not "Oil Production" which makes it sound like you siding with oil.  Lets not "sugar coat" it because it makes it sound like you are siding with oil.

2)  Hermosa Beach web site discussing oil landing page is not properly updated.  It says you are waiting on the project application but also says you are reviewing it?   The project application is not properly displayed on the page.  No current information is posted and no way to notify what has changed.

3)  The illegal settlement agreement is buried in the site.  How about a quick click?  Its important component that needs more attention to detail and FAQs.

4)  City is encouraging the timeliness of the EIR encouraging a quick and efficient process and the project timeline is of critical importance.  Lets encourage the accuracy of the report not the timeliness.  Lets not speed up the process unnecessarily 

5)  As the City Attorney, Michael Jenkins should be going through the settlement agreement that is not properly reflected in the FAQs.

6) Web and FAQs do not say anything about giving the City Yard up which could be valued at $8-10M dollars.

7)  Web and FAQs do not not talk about a 35 year lease of the City Yard.

8)  If the ballot measure passes and there is no significant oil royalties we are obligated to pay $3.5M within 90 days.  How will the City pay for $17.5M if it does not pass?  City says on their web site "they will undoubtedly need to issue municipal debt to pay E&B."  How do we pay for it and you are scaring the residents by not explaining your plan.  What you are implying is that we will need to issue municipal debt and that scares the residents.  This is an overstatement because we have $30M in the bank and a $100M in real estate assets.

9)  Web site talks about gross percentage sales goes to the City and schools without discussing the Tidelands trust?  This is not true and illegal.

10)  We would like to see a much more impartial analysis of on the web site because you sit there and have no opinion on the oil project.

11)  E&B's propaganda machine has been advertising in the paper before a public hearing has been done is ridiculous?

12)  The community of Hermosa Beach does not own the oil.  Its out in the ocean and the resources of the City are not oil.  Our resources are the beach, ocean, parks, people and health and safety.

13)  Steve Layton has a poor environmental track record and no where does the City web site disclose his horrible track record.

14)  Oil drilling is banned in Hermosa Beach and does not say this on the web site.

15)  The planning application is hundreds of pages and hard to read.  Its not easy to read and has not been discussed in public.  You have to hire an attorney to understand it.

Here is the public information sharing slide in the video.

This is Tom Bakaly's slide on the public input process.  Michael Divirgilio is looking into a tracking document to inform folks about the changes they are making to the web site.  There is no way for anyone to know that they are adding any items.  Track document changes, adds and edits.  The web site is the minimum require to stay up to speed.

Hermosa Beach Oil Drilling Municipal Code Law

5.56. 000E adopted June 25, 1985

Ord 85-803, adopted June 25, 1985 provides for the establishment of an oil code. Such oil code is on file and available in the office of the City Clerk.

5.56. 010 Oil drilling unlawful.

The drilling, boring or otherwise sinking of an oil or gas well, or oil or gas wells, or the maintenance, pumping or operation of any oil well or oil wells or gas well or gas wells in the city is declared to be a nuisance and is to be unlawful. It is unlawful for any person to drill, bore or otherwise sink or maintain, pump or operate or cause to be drilled, bored or otherwise sunk, or maintained, pumped or operated, or to aid in the drilling, boring or otherwise sinking, or maintaining, pumping or operating of any gas or oil well or wells for the purpose of procuring oil, gas or other hydrocarbon substances within any portion of the city. It is unlawful for any person to commence the construction or to construct or maintain any derrick, or any oil well apparatus in the city for the purpose of drilling for or maintaining any oil or gas well in the city; except, however, the oil wells now constructed or under construction or in actual operation in the city. (Ord. 95-1139 § 2, 1995; prior code § 21-10)

Oil & Gas Drilling Time Lapse Video

Does Oil & Gas Drilling Belong In Hermosa Beach, California?

Public OpinionPoll Results

Hermosa Beach Self Storage Lot & Civic Center Roulette

(Option 1) Drilling for Oil = Relocating City Maintenance Yard Here

(Option 2) Keep Current Hermosa Beach City Maintenance Yard

I was shocked to hear at the planning commission meeting that CITY STAFF and not the Planning Commission know all of the information about future plans of the City Hall.  New Downtown Civic Center? Apparently, Hermosa Beach's long term plan is to develop a downtown Civic Center.  This plan is now in jeopardy because of the proposed oil drilling project?  Why, because the City Maintenance yard would have to be relocated to the City own Storage lot across the street from City Hall.  What would happen to City Employee parking?  City Staff seems to think that the City Yard can be relocated onto the storage lot without disrupting the parking.

The City was planning to expand City Hall across the street to the Storage Lot above which makes a lot of sense.  But what more do they need downtown and hope to understand in the future?  Transparency please?

According to Mike Flaherty, Public Works Director say this.  "The EIR for the oil project has to address the City yard relocation.  Is E&B going to pay for the relocation?"  No.

Former Hermosa Beach City Councilmen Gary Brutsch said, "oil revenue from the Tidelands could pay for a police and fire substation on The Strand. Brutsch, "believes many people who were in favor of oil drilling in 1984 didn’t have the energy to defeat the anti-oil forces. Brutsch said, "he wanted to designate Hermosa Beach the environmental portal to the Santa Monica Bay by using tidelands revenues to install filters on storm drains that empty into the ocean."   See Easy Reader article.

Zoning for the new City Yard location next to homes would have to be reconsidered to light industrial.  Is the planning commission going to be involved oil EIR process?  Lets hope so.  Will the planning commission be involved in the EIR?  Lets hope so because I bet Planning Commission Chairman Ron Pizer has some input.

You might also want to read this. How does Hermosa Beach plan to pay $17.5M?

What is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)?

Hermosa Beach is about to begin the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process and its important that you know what it is, the timing, costs, players, politics & process.  An EIR is the planning document which describes the environmental impacts associated with a oil drilling project.

17 Environmental Impacts

The EIR will analyze 17 different environmental impacts and will determine which ones are significant. Aesthetics, Agricultural resources, Air Quality, Biological resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population, Real Estate, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities, Mandatory Findings.  It also describes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to an appropriate or acceptable level.

Planning Commission & City Council

The information within an EIR allows the decision-makers (the Planning Commission and/or the City Council) to make an informed decision when considering whether or not to approve a project. The report also assists with deciding if approval conditions (entitlements) are necessary. The ultimate decision to approve a project, however, remains with the decision-makers. When the Planning Commmission or City Council approves an EIR, it is simply an acknowledgement that the EIR is true and accurate. It is only a step towards project approval, not a guarantee. The Planning Commmission or City Council may decide to instead decide to approve or deny the project based on overriding considerations. For example, the Planning Commission may find that a proposed project may provide monetary benefits to a community that don't outweigh a problems identified in the EIR, such as unsafe air quality, heavy truck traffic & real estate price decline that will negatively impact property tax revenue.

Public Review

There may also be one or more meetings about the report, either as a separate meeting or as an item in a Planning Commission agenda. Note that approval of the environmental impact report does not mean that the project is approved. Once the report is approved, decision-makers review the project, taking into account the information in the report and other considerations. The public has an opportunity to review and provide comments on a draft of an EIR by contacting, in writing, the planner listed on the EIR. Public input is then included in the EIR, and considered by the decision-makers along with other aspects of the report.

EIR Project Managers

The Hermoa Beach City Council approved a contract with Ed Almanza & Associates, a Laguna Beach firm, to serve as the project manager.  However, there is no public information on this firm available on the internet as of today which is concerning.  The firm will oversee the city’s review of the proposed project at large. The Council also approved a consulting contract with former City Manager Stephen R. Burrell.

Opinion:  "Can Voters Rely on an EIR to Make a Voting Decision?"

It is important for the entire South Bay to understand this will be the 4th time in 80 years that Hermosa Beach has been faced with an oil drilling ballot measure. Hermosa Beach overwhelmingly banned oil drilling in public votes in 1932, 1958 and 1995. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will address many aspects of this process, but it will never fully disclose all the damage that oil drilling will bring about in a town 1.3 miles square. Our position as a great area to live will be severely tarnished. These safety and environmental damage resulting from oil drilling will effect generations to come.

An EIR is supposed to be a thorough analysis of: Air quality, Biological resources, Geology and soils, Greenhouse gases, Hazards and hazardous materials, Hydrology and water quality, Land use and planning, Mineral resources, Noise impact, Population and housing, Public services, Recreation, Transportation and traffic, Utilities & any other Mandatory findings of significance like real estate values. Upon the completion of the EIR, a thorough examination of the safety risks will be necessary as it was in the previous MacPhearson oil drilling project. A report like Bircher Report (safety study), which was done in relation to the MacPhearson project, will need to be done.

Its too complicated for the voters to rely on an EIR alone.  Its too complicated and does not address safety to the residents.  An EIR is meant to simply figure out how a project could get approved. Don't be surprised to see this EIR analyzed and separated by parts to make the environmental impacts appear smaller and insignificant to residents. It’s very important that the City Council get a report similar to the Bircher Report to fully understand the risks these kind of project present.

Hermosa Beach has been down this road before and completed an Environmental Impact Report for Macpherson Oil in the 1990's at this exact location. The City Council elected at that time showed great care and diligence in their decision making. They commissioned the Bircher Report and reviewed the EIR and concluded that it was unsafe and the air quality impact would have been too harmful on residents. Three City Council members Sam Edgerton, Julie Oakes and John Bowler unanimously agreed that to not proceed with oil drilling after reviewing all the findings. They felt that the safety risks were too great to allow the oil drilling project to proceed.

We need the EIR to be interpreted by professionals who will take into account the same safety issues our 1990 City Council had to. Our current council chooses not to heed this previous unanimous vote of their predecessors. It is unknown if they even read the prior EIR and related safety reports before agreeing to this settlement arrangement. The current city council viewed the outcome of a jury trail too risky and unlike our 1998 city council they put the citizens at risk, or in this case obviated the due diligence of a complicated project into a political vote where safety arguments and facts might get lost in the rhetoric..

How Can Hermosa Beach Pay For The $17.5M Settlement?

Hermosa Beach Self Storage Worth Approx. $7M ($180K Annual Tax Revenue)

City Yard in Hermosa Beach Worth Approx. $15M ($0 Tax Revenue).  Are we just giving E&B a $15M property? Here is why it might be more expensive to vote yes.  $3.5M loan repayment + $15M Property for voting Yes = $18.5M vs 17.5M for Voting No.  

Noble Park in Hermosa Beach Worth Approx. $20M ($0 Tax Revenue)

Hermosa Beach Breezeway Lot Worth Approx. $1.5M+  ($12K Tax Revenue)

Old Prospect Ave School Building Lot Worth Approx. $800K (No Tax Revenue)

Public Parking Facility Worth Approx. $20M ($360K Annual Revenue)

The biggest question that voters need to understand when going to the polls is how is Hermosa Beach going to pay for the $17.5M upon a "No" vote.  There has been some speculation that the vote might not happen until 2013 or 2014 which doesn't surprise me.  In the contract, it states that E&B can ask the city to put the measure on the ballot at any time and the city has 6 months to do it.  When do you think it will be in the best interest of E&B to put the measure on the ballot?  

I think Hermosa Beach should be financially prepared for another recession and have the cash in the bank or a bond measure approved to pay for $17.5M NOW!  Current macroeconomic headlines could easily affect our ability to finance a bond offering or sell real estate in the coming years:  1)  inflated bond market, 2) massive U.S. government debt and 3) European Union debt restructuring recession.  Its been over 4 years since the 2008 financial crisis and you never know when the next downward cycle will hit our economy.  

The City of Hermosa Beach has plenty of liquid and semi-liquid assets that it can use to cover the costs.  There is no need to do a parcel tax or an assessment on residents.  There is no need to believe the oil propaganda and rumors about the going bankrupt over the oil settlement.  We can afford to pay it and it won't affect our budgets or our valuable schools.  The City owns a lot of valuable property and the last time I checked we are not in the "property management" business.  The City has a number of assets that do not generate any tax revenue for the city and should be considered for sale.  

The City of Hermosa Beach likely owns over $100+ million in real estate assets and has over $25+ million in working capital in the bank available to pay for the settlement.  The City also has the ability to get a $10M "Judgement Bond" from the State of California at 3% and service loan which will cost the city $300,000 per year which is nothing out of the budget.  Why not also float another bond for $7.5M as well since boring money is so cheap these days.  So there are lots of ways we can solve the problem of paying for the settlement if we have to.   

The Storage facility was purchased by the City years ago for around $4M.  Its likely worth about $7M today if you put 14 multifamily units on the lot and zone if for residential purposes.   It generates $180K per year for a property the city paid $4M.  Is rent revenue worth the annual yield for tax payers?  The City is not in the property management business and thus we should sell it.  See lease agreement. 

The City Public Works Yard on 6th Street has 8-10 employees and unfortunately they would have to relocate if oil drilling came into town.  The city could outsource the public works functions to a private company which would save money on employee salaries and pensions, etc.  This lot is likely worth $10M  zoned as commercial and might be close to $15M as residential.  17-20 multifamily units could likely fit onto this lot if a developer buy it.  Also, has the city has not factored into the E&B Oil drilling deal that the we are practically giving E&B oil a $15M property.  So in reality, it might be cheaper to pay the $17.5M and vote NO vs paying $3M+ giving a $15M property to E&B for voting Yes. 

The City owns 13 parks some of them are more useful than others.  I am not proposing to go around the City to sell parks but if you compare a price per square foot and the lack of tax revenue to the city.  Noble Park is probably the most valuable asset we have that could be sold.  The Beach House next door to this large lot pays Hermosa Beach $800,000 per year in bed tax revenue.  I know there are a lot of people that use the park to walk their dogs but that is a debate for a separate discussion.  However, most people would not let their kids play in the grass because of the amount of dog waste.  You might be able to classify this as one of the most valuable dog walking park in the U.S.  It might be worth $25M depending on the zoning. 

The Fat Face Fenner's breezeway is likely worth $1.5M.  Currently the city leases the above air space for $1K per month for the right to have a restaurant above the walkway space.  $12K per year is not a lot that is worth $1.5.   I don't know many people who currently use the walkway and don't know how much value it has to lower pier any longer.   A full scale Fat Face Fenner's restaurant might make sense here if constructed from the ground up. 

The Old Prospect School is next to the Fort Lots of Fun park might be worth $800K.  It has been a storage facility for old city lights for years and does not serve as a tax generator for the City. 

The City of Hermosa Beach has parking garage which it shares revenue with LA County on a 50/50 split.  What is a property like this worth that generates $300,000 per year?  Could it be worth $20M and is it worth it to sell half of our stake for $10M?  Again we are not in the property management business and it might be in our best interest to divest this property.  See LA County agreement & annual parking structure revenue / expense financial statement. 

As you can see, we have lots of choices of assets that the City can sell.  Its up to the citizens to come up with a plan to sell one or a few smaller parcels because we know our officials wont take the initiative.  Just look at what Redondo Beach City Council is doing to their residents if you need any proof.  Real estate has recovered from the 2008 lows and it looks like another good time to sell some assets.  I hope this makes everyone more comfortable about voting "NO". 

This is work in progress and we would like your feedback on our theoretical pricing.  If you have commercial real estate experience please contact us or comment below.  Please check back frequently for changes.  I apologize for any errors.  

More Questions That Need Answers

Continued from Questions That Need Answers:

Below is an ongoing list of questions I am compiling from Hb residents on this issue.  Email me if you would like to add something.

8)  Many former City officials including former councilmen Sam Edgerton questioned in 2008 whether the city’s lawyers have ignored a line of attack that he believes could turn the legal tide back in Hermosa’s favor. Why was this never done and why are many of these officials furious of the current settlement? Why are current City Officials telling residents they will not take a position for or against oil drilling in the current settlement? Are they working for HB residents or their own interest? Read Easy Reader Article from 2008

9)  Do the deal leads Jenkins, Bobko & Divirgilo have any ‘skin in the game’? Do they have property value to protect or do they just simply rent temporarily in Hermopsa?  They have demonstrated that they are interested in higher levels of public service (above the City). Do they anticipate receiving future financial support from the Oil Companies to assist them in achieving their political ambitions? Kit Bobko, ran for Congress in 2011 to fill Jane Harman’s seat in a special election and finished in 7th place with 3.6% of the vote.  Michael Divirgilio was a Congressional Staffer for Rep. Jane Harman.  

10)  Why is Hermosa Beach spending money on a PR Firm,  Fiona Hutton & Associates  and how much is the city spending on this new endeavor? Don't we have elected officials on the City Council who do PR as a profession? Why aren't all Council members speaking for themselves, rather than just "going with the flow"? Why did the CIty hire a PR agency? What is their exact role? What is the cost of the PR agency? 

11) Why did you settle at $17.5 million & $3 million? What was the magic number and why?

12) Did you have a plan in place to pay the $17.5 million or 3 million? At what price did you have a plan in place to pay the settlement?

13) With the 6th street Yard being used for oil drilling it would be lost to the city for use.  What would the city do without this lot for city use?

14)  What is the City Yard lot worth? Could we sell it to help cover the 17.5 million?

15) What is it going to cost for extra emergency services personnel, equipment, and training? - Who is paying for it? Do we have to raise salaries for specific certifications of emergency services?

16) The tower is going to be over 135 feet tall. It is going to be in the line offsite of many residents. This devalues homes. Can the city be sued for the devaluation of their home?
The oil wells will cause issues with:

• The beautiful views from homes
• Air Quality (So much for the No Smoking signs along the strand) 
• Noise pollution 

17) The 2008 Chatsworth train crash happened when the conductor was texting while managing the train. 25 people were killed, 135 were injured with 46 being critical! My friends mother was in this accident. She was seriously injured. There is a cap on the amount of payout for the lawsuit at $200 million. She cannot even get her medical bills paid. With that said you are saying we would have had to pay $750 million no matter what while a train wreck that killed 25 people and injured 135 others cannot get more than 200 million!

18) What happens if there is an oil leak in the bay?  Is the City of Hermosa Beach on the hook for anything? How would this devalue not only Hermosa Beach homes but all of the homes in the bay?  Could there be a civil suit?

19) There is talk of "revenue share" from the oil wells.  Can we not pay the money and have the money go towards the $3 million first then take the revenue sharing?  What are the projections of the revenue sharing?  This should have been done long before any settlement happened! The biggest question is what can the money legally be able to be used for! There have been many statements that the money cannot actually go towards the school systems. This is something your lawyers should have advised you of before any settlement happened. The lawsuit has been going on long enough someone should have known and or have an answer.

20) Who is auditing the revenue coming in from the oil?  Do we now have to pay people to manage this and at what cost?

21) What happens if there is a disaster and or someone is killed?  Is the contract null and void immediately?

22) How safe is this type of oil drilling in case of an earthquake or tsunami? At what size of earthquake or tsunami do we run into an additional disaster?

23) The homes they drill under do they get revenue from the drilling and who has mineral rights? What happens if their foundation and or other issues appear in years to come from the earth under them moving?

24) Is the oil company using funds to get the votes to drill in Hermosa? If so did you know they would put money into the City of Hermosa to promote oil drilling?  What businesses in the city stand to benefit from oil drilling?

25) Kit Bobko and Michael Divirgilio are not home owners in Hermosa Beach. You do not directly pay taxes for the homes in Hermosa Beach. If you owned a home nest to 6th street before the settlement how would you feel? Would you sell your home? Why haven't you bought a home in Hermosa Beach?

26) If we vote no to the oil drilling your letter states: "$17.5 million equates to a liability of $2,500 per parcel." Are you going to bill the citizens this amount if the drilling is not approved? What if I moved into the area after the lawsuit and was not notified about the lawsuit? Do I still have to pay? The bigger question is as renters are YOU personally going to pay $2500 towards the liability you have committed to the citizens of Hermosa Beach?

27) What are the solutions to pay $17.5 million? How much money do we have in the bank? What assets does Hermosa Beach own? Can we get a bond from the state of California? What research have you done to figure out how to pay back any amount let alone the $17.5 million?

28) Now that you have settled the lawsuit what side are you on? I feel that you have drawn a line in the sand and now you should state whether you are for drilling or against drilling. This is only fair to the citizens of the city. What are the pro's and con's from each of your perspectives?

29) How late can drilling take place? Is it 24/7/365? How noisy is it? I can hear the Redondo Power Plant at 4am release steam that practically shakes my windows. Will we have any noise at all and if so how loud and at what times?

Email me if you would like to add or change something to this list. 

Settlement Agreement Comments

Below is a draft of our settlement agreement comments we are compiling from residents.  We welcome your comments so please email us with your comment structured similar to below.  If you want to read the full 45 page agreement you can download it on the HermosaBCH.org or at Google Docs.

Recitals, Page 1, A
Macpherson also obtained all of the necessary Permits to Construct for the Oil Project from the South Coast Air Quality Management District In November 1995 the residents of the City passed City Measure E an initiative measure that banned oil drilling in the City. 
Comment- South Coast Air Quality Permit ran out or cancelled March 30, 2000. 

Recitals, Page 1, A
In early 1998 and notwithstanding the passage of Measure E the California Coastal Commission authorized issuance of Coastal Development Permit No 29E86 to Macpherson far the Oil Project subject to conditions
Comment - Coastal Developmental Permit No. 29E86 never issued. 

Recitals, Page 2, D
Substantial revenue stream to be generated for City and the Hermosa Beach School District as a result of the payment to City and School District of royalties in association with the production of oil and gas reserves by E&B
Comment - How can School benefit from tidelands trust?

Definitions, Page 3, 2.10
School Lease means the lease between Macpherson and the Hermosa Beach School District
Comment - No lease on School property found. Where is this?

The Closing, Page 4, 3.2
Confidentiality Agreement previously signed on behalf of each of the Parties on February 17 2012
Comment -  Where is a copy of this?

Macpherson's Obligations At Closing: Page 5, 4.1 

1031 exchange as provided in Article X hereof all of Macpherson the School Lease and any other leases releases set forth in paragraph VI
Comments - Like-kind exchange, what's Macpherson doing here?  What other leases are involved in this agreement?

E&B's Obligations At Closing: Page 5, 4.3a 
Said assignment reserves to Macpherson from E B and its successors and assigns an overriding royalty of 1.5% of one hundred 100% of gross hydrocarbon production but otherwise
Comment - Macpherson keeps part of this going here.

E&B's Obligations At Closing: Page 6, 4.3c 

constitutes the E&B Loan of $17,500,000

Comment - Note this loan and how it's to be repaid by the city.

E&B's Obligations At Closing: Page 6, 4.4b 
Upon issuance of the drilling permit or in the event the City cannot issue the drilling permit as the sole result of action or inaction undertaken by and under the control of E&B (including without limitation) the failure of the California Coast Commission to issue a coast development permit. immediately

thereafter forgive $14,000,000 of the E&B Loan

Comment - Failure to meet conditions and most of loan is forgiven?  Where does the fact we are giving E&B a $15M property factor into the cost?  Total costs is more like $18.5M and more cheaper to vote no. 

City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 7, 4.6a 

Place on the ballot at a special municipal election in a manner that comports with all applicable law within six 6 months of a request to do so by E&B
Comment - Within 6 months call election!!!! "....notwithstanding inconsistent change in City's Municipal Code." ????

City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 7, 4.6b 

Vacate and make the City maintenance yard available for the construction of the Project as when and in the manner and subject to the conditions provided for in the Lease and repay Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars of the E&B Loan through a deduction of royalties equal to 1.5% of gross proceeds. 
Comment - Vacate and make the City maintenance yard available? And where in the world is the city going to put it. Steve Burrell could never find another location for it, here or in Redondo Beach. Let's get real. this is an important issue.  This property is worth $15M and we are paying them $3M on top?  Total deal looks like $18.5M to vote yes.  

City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 8, 4.6d 

Grant as reasonably required by E&B all necessary rights of way 
easements franchises and other rights as necessary for subsurface pipelines < and other facilities and appurtenances in order for E&B to drill for produce market transport and sell all oil and gas produced from the subject lease 
Comment - Whoa Ho! Check out this demand. Dig up the streets or the greenbelt? And where will it terminate in Redondo Beach or AES?

City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 9, 5.4 

The parties recognize that Macpherson is materially changing its legal position and rights and property holdings in reliance upon the final and binding effect of this Agreement and any rescission of this Agreement would be a wholly inadequate remedy for Macpherson because rescission cannot possibly return to Macpherson the legal position and rights it held prior to the consummation of this Agreement
Comment - We need an attorney to explain this paragraph. It's legalese is convoluted.

Mutual Releases: Page 9, 6.1 

Effective upon the successful completion of the Closing in accordance with the conditions described in paragraph 3
Comment - What are these conditions in 3.3 

Mutual Releases: Page 10, 6.1 

the City hereby fully and finally waives releases and  permanently discharges Macpherson and its respective partners officers employees agents representatives and attorneys the Releases from any claims arising under the Lease any continuation extension amendment restatement or replacement of the Lease
Comment - Whoa Ho! What's this? What about compensation due the city for the past  Environmental reports, attorneys fees due the city, etc?

Mutual Releases: Page 10, 6.4 

Except as may be provided in this Agreement each of the Parties waives any and all claims for the recovery of any costs expenses or fees including attorney fees associated with the matters and claims released in this Agreement
Comment - Attorneys fees from earlier court cases? Have they been paid?

Defense of Litigation:  Page 11, VII
In the event that one or more lawsuits are filed challenging this Agreement and/or the actions implementing or contemplated by this Agreement the Parties to the extent named as parties defendant in the lawsuit will cooperate in good faith in the defense of the litigation and shall initially bear their respective attorneys fees and costs With the exception of a lawsuit challenging the approval of this Agreement itself should the Ballot Measure described in paragraph 46a pass E&B shall indemnify the City for all attorneys fees and costs incurred by City in the defense of litigation encompassed by this paragraph and also for any attorney fees and costs awarded to a plaintiff against City if any in such litigation
Comment - Does this mean the city can collect attorney fees if sued for this agreement?

Representations & Warranties:  Page 11, 8.1c
They acknowledge that the Stinnett Well has been plugged and abandoned and agree that Csity inability to convey the Stinnett Well to E B shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement or the Lease. 
Comment - Dave Lucero, what was the result of your looking into this well on the City's Yard?

Representations &Warranties:  Page 12, 8.2c

The force majeure provisions in paragraph 30 of the Lease apply and have applied during the pendency of the Action and the CUP remains valid. 

Comment - CUP is for a "Conditional" Use Permit. The  Use Permit itself was never issued, or was it? Wasn't the Fire Code in doubt?  In the CUP it states, "All CUP required studies and reports must be submitted to the City and approved before permit issuance."

Representations &Warranties By All Parties  Page 12, 8.3a
The Parties have received all corporate and other approvals necessary to enter into this Agreement on their behalf and that the persons signing this Agreement on their behalf are fully authorized to commit and bind the Parties to each and all of the commitments terms and conditions hereof and to release the claims described herein and that all documents and instruments relating thereto are or upon execution and delivery will be valid and binding obligations enforceable
Comment - Not so! The California Coastal Commission issued "approval with a long list of conditions" but never issued a "Permit" for Macpherson to drill in Hermosa Beach. So how does this affect this Settlement Agreement? Is Macpherson claiming to have abided by all the requirements of 15 b. of Lease No. 2 (it has with the City), i.e. "The Lessee shall also apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the City of Hermosa Beach...The Lessee shall also be responsible, at its sole expense, for alI necessary permits and approvals to be obtained from the California Coastal Commission...."
Representations &Warranties By All Parties  Page 12, 8.3d
The Parties have prior to the execution of this Agreement obtained the advice of independent legal counsel of their own selection regarding the substance of this Agreement and the claims released herein
Comment - Was the advice "independent"?
Representations &Warranties By All Parties  Page 13, 9.2
This Agreement and the Confidentiality Agreement discussed in Paragraphs 32 and 3 are an integrated contract and sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein 

Comment - If the Confidentiality Agreement is part of this, please, let's have a look at it.

Representations &Warranties By All Parties  Page 13, 9.5
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each of the Parties and their respective representatives partners officers employees agents heirs devisees successors and assigns
Comment - How about to the benefit of the people of Hermosa Beach?

(stay tuned more to come)

Macpherson Lawsuit Issues

The Macpherson Lawsuit is probably the most serious and important detrimental issue facing Hermosa Beach. While investigating this issue, Hermosa Residents and attorneys have examined various documents, and discovered what they believe is a serious flaw in the 1995 election PROPOSITION E, the “STOP OIL DRILLING” voter initiative.

The most significant part of the claim for damages by MacPherson in his lawsuit is his claim for “lost profits” in the hundred of Millions of dollars. This claim is based on a fundamental tenet/principal of law that damages for “Breach of Contract” entitles the injured party to claim lost profits.

However, in the Voter pamplet/booklet provided to the voter for this election, the “Impartial Analysis of Proposition E” prepared the City Attorney Michael Jenkins RWG Law Firm made no mention whatsoever of this potential, if not highly probable, consequential detrimental impact on the City should this measure be passed (read below). Had this consequence of the passage of this measure been presented to the voters, there could have been a substantial difference in the number of registered voters voting, as well as the election results.

“Beginning in April 1994 the Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition began a campaign to qualify a ballot initiative to end the Macpherson project and to reinstate the comprehensive prohibition on oil drilling in the City by deleting from the Municipal Code the two exceptions from the ban that had been approved in 1984.  (Hermosa Beach Mun.Code, § 21-10, subds. (a) & (b).)  The measure, Proposition E, appeared on the November 1995 ballot.”  (Stop Oil I, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at pp. 543-544.) 

“The ‘Impartial Analysis of Proposition E’ by the Hermosa Beach City Attorney circulated to all voters explained, ‘The effect of this measure, if adopted, would be to amend the Municipal Code to prohibit oil and gas exploration, drilling and production on these two sites [the two sites then excepted from the citywide prohibition], and eliminate from the Code the authority to use these sites as a potential source of oil and gas revenue for the restricted purposes stated in the Code. [¶] The City has leased the City maintenance yard site to a private entity for oil and gas exploration and production activities which have not yet commenced.   All permits necessary for this project have not been issued and have been delayed by pending litigation.   If Proposition E is adopted, the law is not clear exactly how the measure would affect the project proposed by the lease.’   The ballot arguments in favor of and against Proposition E focused on the potential environmental risks and economic benefits of the Macpherson project on the City Yard Site."  

Proposition E passed by a narrow margin of only 565 votes.

1) Why hasn’t MacPherson (or his attorneys) at any time raised these election issues (the basis of the lawsuit) and at least requested (if not insisted) that the election be held again, this time with the requisite information/warning to the voters of the significant detrimental financial impact on the City.

2) Why hasn't City Management, City Attorney, or the various law firms representing the Hermosa Beach raised this issue and least requested (if not insisted) that the City Council rule that the election should be held again?  This time with the requisite information/warning to the voters of the significant detrimental financial impact on the City.

3) Could damages even have been awarded TO MACPHERSON by a jury (under directions provided by the presiding judge) due to failure of Macpherson Oil to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages over the past 15+ years, as required under California law, by NOTIFYING CITY OFFICIALS THAT THE ELECTION WAS FLAWED AND insisting on a new vote with a new proper City Attorney Impartial Analysis?

With regard to issue 1: 
“A party cannot recover for loss which he could have avoided or mitigated through his reasonable efforts.” Clearly, MacPherson will likely have a difficult time explaining he should be entitled to any damages due the fact that Macpherson made no effort to call for a new election this time with the proper impartial analysis containing warnings of potentially disastrous ramifications for the City.

With regard to issue 2: 
This raises the distinct possibility that the City may well be entitled to damages from the law firms representing the City to recoup its legal costs which have soared in to the Millions of dollars which could have likely been avoided had this issue been raised.

As a general rule, the objective of contract damages is to insure that the aggrieved or injured party should receive what he or she expected from the bargain. To the extent that an award of money can do so, the aggrieved party should be placed in the same position as though the contract had been fully performed. This is what is known as protecting the expectation interest of the parties. (Rest.2d §344(a))

Loss of Profits
Loss of profits, present or future, as an element of special or consequential damages, may be recovered for a breach of contract if; 1) The loss is the direct and natural consequence of the breach, 2) It is reasonably probable that the profits would have been earned except for the breach, and 3) The amount of loss can be shown with reasonable certainty.

An injured party may recover for a breach of contract the amount which will compensate the party "for all the detriment proximately caused by the breach, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result from the breach." (Cal.Civ.Code §3300.)

Limitations on Damages
There are several limitations on awarding damages to make the non breaching party whole: A party cannot recover for loss which he could have avoided or mitigated through his reasonable efforts. (Rockingham Cty. v. Luten Bridge Co. 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929); Rest.2d §350)
Read more about recovery of damages in lawsuit. 

Hermosa Beach Slant Oil Drilling Maps

These maps are speculative drawings based in information we have gathered from the Macpherson proposals.  E&B oil has not submitted their drilling proposal yet.  

Map of the proposed Hermosa Beach slant oil drilling site will reach out into the ocean.  What is slant oil drilling?  The drilling will also go underground into Redondo Beach likely.  The California Coastal Commission has full authority of this drilling and has thus tidelands restrictions on where money from oil can be spent.  The oil site will also be less than 100 feet from homes when Colorado requires a 350 foot setback and California recommend 300 feet.

Do we really know what is underground nor want to disturb the environment with oil drilling pipes possibly poking through the ocean floor?  Do want want to risk the dangers of the ocean floor and our beaches sinking (subsiding)?

The proposed drilling site effects more than 50% of residents of Hermosa Beach.  Noise, air pollution, explosions or dangerous gases are all a potential consequence.  Not to mention the drilling site will be within a few hundred yards of your kids playing in the park.  If you run on the greenbelt in Manhattan Beach or Hermosa Beach there could be an oil pipeline to under it to Chevron Refinery in Torrance and/or a natural gas pipeline AES Power Plant in Redondo Beach.

Lets not forget about the fault line that runs across the Santa Monica Bay and the South Bay.  We have had several earthquakes offshore in Hermosa Beach and Santa Moncia bay in the past few years. 

 27 oil wells and 3 water injection wells for Fracking and Natural Gas

Horrible Air Quality

I am told by oil experts in the business that the odor from gases and drilling will be "awful" around the site.  There is no way to contain the odor or poisonous gases that come up our of the ground.  This map depicts 3 different wind scenarios we get in the area.  An onshore, offshore and no wind where the smell and gases get trapped in the valley.

Emissions generated during the drilling/development phase include vehicle emissions; diesel emissions from large construction equipment and generators, storage/dispensing of fuels, and, if installed at this stage, flare stacks; small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates from blasting activities; and dust from many sources, such as disturbing and moving soils (clearing, grading, excavating, trenching, backfilling, dumping, and truck and equipment traffic), mixing concrete, and drilling. During windless conditions (especially in areas of thermal inversion), project-related odors may be detectable at more than a mile from the source.  Excess increases in dust could decrease forage palatability for wildlife and livestock and increase the potential for dust pneumonia.  See source.

250 Yard Heavy Impact Zone from Noise, Odor, Dangerous Gases and Explosions.   There are two parks, hundreds of homes and a jogging trail in the vicinity which I think is disgraceful.   There are probably 10+ kids under the age of 10 years old that live in the red boxed area.  Its just sad that no one thought through the ramifications.  

Projected Ripple Affect of Real Estate Losses

This is a Scenario of What Could Happen

comments powered by Disqus

$1B+ Destruction of Real Estate Wealth

This picture above precisely why homes are so much cheaper in Huntington Beach, CA.  A $1,000,000 home in Hermosa Beach would likely be 25% less if it were based in Huntington Beach.  Most speculate its because of the widespread drilling amongst the homes.  Do you want our in Hermosa Beach to drop by 25%?  

The 1.3 acre City Yard lot was worth an estimated $57,000 back in 1958 according to old news articles.  At this time oil was trading at $2 per barrel.  This was when the last Shell oil drilling vote was being contested by long timer Hermosa resident and hero Barbara Guild.   What is this City Yard lot worth now? 

Most speculate it might be worth as much as $10M for commercial zoning and possibly as high as $15M if it was rezoned for residential?  That is 175X the value.  Oil is now $100 per barrel only 20X more.  So you have to ask yourself the question which is more valuable today? Real estate or oil?   Are we just giving E&B Oil a $15M piece of property for nothing?  Its not factored into the proposed cost of voting for Yes oil drilling. 

There are 7,000 parcels in Hermosa Beach. Every 1% decrease or increase in home prices in Hermosa represents a $57M increase or decrease in aggregate wealth. A 15% drop would flush $1B of wealth and and huge property tax base down the drain.  The is assuming median home prices are $820,000. This oil drilling deal gambles with $5.7 billion in aggregate real estate wealth based on 7,000 parcels.  This is a zero sum game if you if you factor in the amount of property taxes that will be lost as a result with a 15% drop in real estate values.  You could also make the argument that real estate in Hermosa has been suppressed because of the ongoing oil and bankruptcy issue.  Pay of the $17.5M and real estate may rise by $1 billion in the area and increase the property tax base.

The City "might" make $1M in estimated revenue if they are lucky for a 4% increase on a budget of $25M annual budget? .20 cents per barrel for the schools is going to amount to nothing. Plus they can't spend the money because of the Tidal Lands act which restricts usage of the funds generated from oil.

Property values have risen up 2X since the deal was struck with Macpherson in the 1990's.  Median home prices were around $400,000.  Property values are up a 100X+ since the 1950's when the last oil crises was upon us with Shell.