[0:00] August 8, 2016, or come in the Los Angeles City Health Commission to order,

[0:07] clerk will call the roll, please.

[0:09] Audra's Taylor. Here. Abila.

[0:13] Griffith.

[0:14] Yeah.

[0:14] Hisorch.

[0:16] Harkis.

[0:18] Shannon.

[0:19] Here.

[0:19] Sharp.

[0:20] Here.

[0:21] Big.

[0:22] Here.

[0:22] Eight members present and a quorum.

[0:25] Thank you.

[0:27] Next we move on to approval of the minutes from July 11, 2016.

[0:31] Can I get a motion please?

[0:33] So motion.

[0:35] I'll make a motion.

[0:36] You approve?

[0:36] I'll be full.

[0:37] It's been moved and seconded for the approval of the minutes.

[0:40] All in favor?

[0:41] Please say aye.

[0:42] Aye.

[0:43] Opposed?

[0:44] Thank you.

[0:45] Next we move on to neighborhood council comments.

[0:48] I don't believe that staff has received.

[0:52] No.

[0:53] Okay.

[0:53] Any notification for neighborhood council to get the comments.

[0:57] So we will move the agenda item number one,

[1:00] which is a presentation on health-related issues by Angelo Belomo, who is a director of environmental

[1:07] health for Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, speaking on health and other impacts

[1:13] related to oil and gas drilling in residential areas.

[1:16] Thank you so much for coming.

[1:24] I can stand if you'd like.

[1:25] I can stand if you'd like.

[1:26] Either way.

[1:57] Okay.

[1:59] Thank

[2:10] you very much.

[2:11] Thank you very much.

[2:12] Again, my name is Angela Bilomo, and I am Deputy Director for Health Protection for the County Public Health Department.

[2:21] I did try to make this presentation about a month and a half ago, and we postponed it to tonight.

[2:30] In checking with you about the available time, I thought I was asked to limit my remarks to 10 minutes.

[2:36] So I'm going to go through knowing and anticipating based on what we were told that there may

[2:42] be a number of questions.

[2:43] So I'll just go through and make a few remarks and then be happy to answer questions in

[2:48] any area related to the health department, but probably with a focus on these types of facilities.

[2:57] So when we look at oil and gas type facilities, oil and gas production facilities in

[3:04] particular.

[3:07] The extent to which we need a body of regulations or lack of regulations and maybe sometimes

[3:15] beyond regulations, the standards of care that one would have to apply really depend on

[3:22] one significant factor, and that is where the facility is located.

[3:27] For some facilities, the standard regulations that are employed may be adequate for other

[3:33] they'll be grossly inadequate and this has a lot to do with the types of scenarios we encounter

[3:40] in Los Angeles and that is that we have oil production facilities that are located

[3:47] immediately adjacent in some cases to neighborhoods.

[3:52] And that, of course, leaves no buffer, no zone for mistakes or errors.

[3:59] And even if we had a hundred percent compliance with the existing regulations, this is in my opinion,

[4:08] this is an area that has been under-regulated for many years, many decades.

[4:14] And so we have to make sure that there is, in fact, strict compliance with the regulations that are on the books,

[4:21] and then we have to ask ourselves whether that goes far enough, because in many instances it won't go far enough.

[4:29] I think that what I recall over the last let's say 15, 20 years is sort of a renewed interest

[4:40] on oil and gas production facilities within Los Angeles.

[4:46] And I think some of this had to do with controversial high school that was under construction.

[4:51] I believe it was in the mid 1990s it was called Bellmont and the school site was

[5:00] Not thoroughly studied before they began construction, and then they noticed that they were picking up methane at certain portions of the school site, and it was above the levels of significance, and really raised a lot of concern about the continued construction of this high school, which was about 30% complete.

[5:23] We studied that. I was part of the school district in that era. Actually I was called in by the school district as a consultant.

[5:33] But we studied that and we found that had they done due diligence, the type of normal due diligence that is done before you develop properties.

[5:42] They would have encountered all of the issues and they could have dealt with them systematically.

[5:46] They could have taken every one of the old wells and made sure that it was abandoned to

[5:52] appropriate standards before they began to construct the school site.

[5:56] But because they hadn't done that due diligence, they basically had to stop the project,

[6:01] and they actually had to remove what was the completed administration building.

[6:05] It was done quietly over a few weekends, but nevertheless they had to remove the administration

[6:12] And then put in the proper active gas ventilation system and then continue construction of the school.

[6:22] None of these things are beyond the ability of science to deal with.

[6:31] The question really becomes, do we want to put that many bells and whistles into a facility?

[6:36] can we safely put a school in the middle of that field? We could, but it takes almost too much

[6:46] in the way of redundancy and the costs are just outrageous. So when you look at the investments

[6:51] that were made at that school, it was probably not a good investment. And had the information

[6:58] when they were looking at the site they might have passed on that site. We certainly would have recommended it.

[7:03] So then following Belmont, there were a number of other cases.

[7:09] I want to go a little more recently here a few years ago.

[7:13] There was the Allen co-facility not too far from this site right here.

[7:17] And a couple of others that were beginning to be focused on

[7:21] because the community was aware of these oral production facilities

[7:24] had likely been complaining about them for many years.

[7:29] But I think that the typical response from the regulatory agencies

[7:32] were the either in compliance or near in compliance with the applicable regulations.

[7:41] Colleagues from the Department of Public Health studied it, long enough, and interviewed

[7:49] enough of the residents to realize that regardless of whether they were meeting the standards

[7:53] that were applicable and we still don't know whether they were.

[7:57] This facility was having impacts on the surrounding community, which was located right across the street.

[8:06] When we looked a little bit further, we realized that the production within that facility had increased by 400 percent

[8:13] in just the year that we had looked at it.

[8:16] And that was because the price of oil, I think, had increased to the point where production was significantly scaled up.

[8:24] And what might have been some residual problems historically became

[8:27] unbearable for members of in that community.

[8:33] The Department of Public Health had responded by putting together what we call

[8:36] day environmental health assessment, which said we understand that maybe

[8:41] in compliance with the applicable standards from the air district, but it is

[8:46] having an impact on the health and welfare of people living in the neighborhood.

[8:49] So it got us to be thinking about what types of additional standards may be appropriate when you

[8:56] have this industrial residential interface that is too close.

[9:02] That's really what we're talking about.

[9:04] Most of the regulations never envision that you would have a regulated facility share a property

[9:12] boundary with the backyard of a residential line.

[9:14] So, when that does occur, we really have to be extremely careful, and we have to make sure that the laws are followed, and as I mentioned even in that case, there's really no room for error.

[9:28] So, it's not an advisable course of action, but we do have this existing landscape throughout LA, and we can't solve it overnight.

[9:37] So we really have to be thoughtful which is really good some of the things I'm hearing that this commission has thought about we have to be thoughtful about what changes do we want to put in and how do we change the pattern of decision making that created some of these problems so there's two tracks we have to run how do we evaluate the current conflicts that exist and update the conflict

[10:00] So that they are not endangering or impacting public health and welfare. And then on a second track, we have to ask ourselves, how do we improve the decision making for these facilities on a going forward basis so that we don't create or add to the current landscape of these types of problems.

[10:21] I think the next point I want to make I want to make three points here, the next point I want

[10:27] to make is that we really have to ask ourselves, do we want to respond to these types of incidents?

[10:35] Do we want these facilities to find us?

[10:38] Because that's generally how we find there's a problem with one of these facilities.

[10:42] It's usually not done during the routine inspection and regulation that these facilities are subject to.

[10:51] It's almost as if the poor way in which these facilities have been regulated has become commonplace.

[11:00] And so perhaps regulatory agencies or others are hesitant to change the practice.

[11:07] It's like you get into a regulatory review and you do it a certain way for a number of years

[11:14] and you're reluctant to say, maybe that's not enough, maybe we need to change that.

[11:20] So I think to this question of, do we simply respond or do we come up with a better way

[11:26] of regulating this problem and abating the impacts that it has on the public health?

[11:33] clearly we should be looking for better ways to do that, and that brings me to the third point,

[11:39] which is I think there's two other things we can do beyond simply responding when the problem

[11:45] finds us. We could do prevention and we could do surveillance. So let me just say a word about both

[11:54] of those. On the prevention front, if we ask what could we do, we could go out proactively and

[12:02] complete an inventory of where we have oil and gas facilities throughout the

[12:09] our jurisdiction. The county is doing that now, and my sense is the city is

[12:15] joining or doing some of their own work, but it's a really good idea for us to

[12:20] know where do these facilities exist, and then put them through a triage to see

[12:25] are they problematic currently and if so what grouping should we place them in?

[12:31] Do we put them in a grouping that says we have significant impacts that are evident to the surrounding community?

[12:39] Do we put them in one saying we're not aware of any particular impacts but we probably should look at it a little bit further?

[12:45] So it's that type of triage that I think would make sense if we're going to do prevention.

[12:50] We start with an inventory and then we go out and we assess what are these facilities presenting right now in the way of public health risk or uncertainty?

[13:02] And then we can talk also in the area of prevention, developing better policies so that the decisions we make in the future are better than the ones we made in the past that contributed to some of these conditions that we're dealing with.

[13:16] And then the second element that we should be looking at is surveillance.

[13:22] And I really think of it in two ways, we should be doing surveillance in the environment

[13:28] to determine whether there are impacts or changes on environmental conditions.

[13:35] So the type of routine monitoring, air monitoring that might be done, or could actually

[13:40] be enhanced in these facilities when they're in close proximity to people, that would help

[13:48] because it would almost represent ongoing Sentinel of do we have exposures and are those

[13:56] at significant levels.

[13:58] Now because monitoring, you might get the regulatory agency like AQMD to say we're checking

[14:05] and we don't find any constituents that are at a level that is believed to cause a health

[14:12] impact.

[14:13] But we're still getting complaints from the public, and the public is still obviously impacted.

[14:19] So they may not be receiving a toxic exposure to the point where they're going to incur a long

[14:26] term chronic condition, but it still could be something maybe a little larger than a new

[14:34] But less than causing a change in their permanent change in their health status.

[14:43] And that's where we have to focus, so that we have to look at this not just in terms

[14:47] of whether we've triggered a toxic threshold and we expect to see illness develop.

[14:53] But really, are we degrading the living environment for the people that are being impacted

[14:59] to buy this.

[15:00] Joining facility, we have to look at it differently. We have to sort of change the paradigm for what we consider acceptable, not exceeding the regulatory standards, but nevertheless presenting impacts the public health should not be acceptable. And that's why we have to look at this differently.

[15:19] I'm going to just wrap up my comments so we can get into questions if there are some by saying that

[15:25] I think that the oil and gas industry has been one that many people who deal within the industry know that

[15:34] they have not had the extent of regulatory reforms that many other facilities did.

[15:41] And it had to do with the fact that when a lot of the reforms that were enacted at the federal level and the state level,

[15:50] when those reforms were made, there were certain different treatments that were done to oil and gas.

[15:57] And there were probably lots of good reasons and maybe not so good reasons as to why the oil and gas production was treated differently.

[16:05] But it's time for us now to look at how do we catch up because I don't think this is a matter of saying we can't have oil production within

[16:13] the city or county of Los Angeles.

[16:16] I think it's really a matter of deciding how do we do it in a way where it does not degrade

[16:22] on the health and well-being of our citizens.

[16:25] The answer to whether that could be done, I don't know the answer.

[16:29] I can just tell you that in a lot of the sites that I've been called out to most recently

[16:35] one, it's the Furman Street Wells, I don't know, Chairman Shannon, did you get a copy

[16:43] of a, I sent a two-page or over here talking about her an assessment we just did on the Furman

[16:49] Street Wells? Okay. Yeah, I think we sent it to a willy gentleman by the name, I'm not sure

[16:56] what his name was but we sent it to him today because I wanted you all to have it but I do

[17:00] have a copy here so I'll leave it with you but it represents an assessment we did last week

[17:04] because we were called out due to activities within the city of L.A. to abandon some wells

[17:11] and it was actually creating quite an exposure to the people in the surrounding community.

[17:17] This was an effort to try to deal with a problem but it actually exacerbated the problem

[17:21] because it wasn't conducted properly.

[17:26] So I'm going to conclude my comments.

[17:28] I would more than happy to talk about any one of the facilities

[17:32] that we've looked at, but I rather than go on on this.

[17:37] I'd just rather stop at this point and see if there are any questions.

[17:40] Great.

[17:41] Thank you so much.

[17:42] And we really appreciate you coming out.

[17:44] I have a few questions if I can start.

[17:46] And then we'll move on to the other commissioners.

[17:50] I have a few questions about Elisa Canyon and we haven't really had anyone come in present on that particular problem that happened and I wanted to start with the well itself, which was I believe SS25.

[18:06] So my understanding was that the number of caseings in that well was two.

[18:11] Is that correct?

[18:11] Well, I don't know enough about this, the physical nature of it, but suffice it to say that

[18:18] like most of these production wells, there is a, a center bore hole that casing, a well

[18:25] casing is placed in. And then there's an annual or space in that annual or space, I think

[18:30] was utilized for conveying. So you actually had two holes that were used for the movement

[18:37] of gases.

[18:38] And is it true that the number of casings went up, so the newer wells usually have more

[18:46] casings as opposed to the one in SS-25?

[18:49] Sounds right, but I couldn't answer that for sure.

[18:52] I'm not an expert in that area.

[18:54] It has a county, because I know that you talked about an inventory and that's something that

[18:58] I'm obviously very interested in and know that we talked about of the various oil wells.

[19:03] And I'm wondering if the county is looking at other wells that have a similar profile to the one that blue and a lease of canyon.

[19:12] We are. In fact, there's two things going on there. The Board of Supervisors did convene what they're calling an oil and gas strike team.

[19:22] And the purpose was to put together a inventory of oil and gas facilities within the county unincorporated area to begin with.

[19:30] and then to go through and check them do an assessment to see what we find just based on that.

[19:36] This is an effort that is being chaired by the Department of Regional Planning but it's got

[19:41] participation from Public Health County Council and a number of other organizations.

[19:46] I think it'll be a very interesting initial step assessment. I'm sorry. What was your question?

[19:54] My question was just if you were looking at other wells that have the similar profile to Lisa

[19:59] can in.

[20:00] So, that strike team was one thing that the county did. And the second thing we're doing is that we are county has filed suit against so-so-cal gas, because we were concerned about what was going on at Aliso Canyon, but we were also concerned about other facilities that are operated by this operator and we wanted to learn as a result of this case whether or not we had similar problems elsewhere.

[20:30] So, obviously we're concerned about other wells within the Liso Canyon, but we are concerned

[20:35] about other facilities that are operated or have been operated by Southern California gas.

[20:40] Can you tell us what departments and agencies were involved in the evacuation of the residents in that area,

[20:49] and also about park closures and school closures?

[20:56] Well, the public health department continued to get complaints, and it looked like this massive

[21:07] hate to use the word leak, a member of the community told me one time, please don't use

[21:11] the word leak, it's not a leak, it's a blowout, but when this massive blowout took place,

[21:19] I think the expectation for members of the public and others, it was going to be wrapped up.

[21:24] is going to be sealed within a few days.

[21:28] And when it looked like it was going to go on

[21:29] for more than a few days and then more than a couple of weeks

[21:33] and then months, if it came clear that we needed to give relief

[21:38] to people who were being bombarded by these odors

[21:41] and were suffering the ill effects of them.

[21:45] So what we, the County Health Department had instructed

[21:48] So Cal Gas to provide temporary relocation for any residents that were being impacted until this massive release of gas could be capped because we really didn't know what we were dealing with at that point.

[22:03] The agencies that were involved in that, there were a number, the Fire Department, Public Health,

[22:11] the Division of Oil and Gas, Geothermal Resources, the California Office of Environmental

[22:18] Health Hazard Assessment, and I'm talking about agencies that were there to assist in the

[22:24] assessment as well as the re-location effort as well.

[22:29] There were a number of county departments that focus on consumer affairs that were involved

[22:33] and that as well. But it was, we had a responsible party who, for, for a while, had, you

[22:42] know, provided that relocation housing.

[22:45] And then, on the city end, obviously, there were council members offices, England, there's

[22:50] office in Jingland, there's office, I think, was involved as well. And I'm sure that supervisor

[22:56] are real offices where as well. So they were. Staff time as well. Yeah. Okay. When you're

[23:05] looking at the inventory of the wells and a mapping of the wells and I know you're

[23:11] looking at the county and we're looking at the city, obviously. Are you going to

[23:15] doggar for that information? Is it, are there other agencies that you utilize in order to

[23:22] the mapping? Well, a lot of that information is available, a question is how completed it is and how easy it is to compile it.

[23:31] We actually have a consultant that's working under contract with the Department of Regional Planning that is providing these maps to us.

[23:38] And I think most of them are gained through the state agencies.

[23:44] But the information is fairly available and I think it's very telling when you look at the maps that show where are all the old oil wells.

[23:54] The ones that are active as well as the ones that were active but are no longer active.

[24:01] And then can you speak to the closure of schools and parks in the area?

[24:05] Right. We never implemented at County Public Health, a mandatory evacuation because we believe

[24:14] that the major concern that members of the public had at the time was fire and explosion

[24:20] in the fire department. It assured us that because this was vending to the air, there wouldn't

[24:25] be a fire and explosion. But as time went by, first few weeks, it became clear that the

[24:33] If it was just from the Mercapten or if there was something else in the gas that was causing these symptoms, they needed to have relief.

[24:41] And we extended that ultimately to the schools, because the schools at some students actually was more faculty that were expressing symptoms as well.

[24:53] And we didn't, again, we didn't make a finding that

[25:00] We needed to close the schools, but because our advice to the school district is when you have people who are suffering from this exposure, if they're getting headaches, what happens is in a classroom or at the school you'd have a number of people saying, I don't smell anything, I feel fine, and you would have some who are obviously distressed.

[25:23] And so our recommendation was the people that are being affected by this, even though the numbers that we're looking at, we can't tell them that these numbers in themselves would cause that.

[25:34] The best way to deal with that is for them to be removed from the immediate exposure until the well was capped.

[25:41] And we extended that school district said, fine, we're going to make the voluntary decision to close our school because we can't just take a bunch of people out.

[25:49] we'd have to permanently close and relocate the school for the time it takes to get back to normal.

[25:56] And so they did go ahead and close the school down.

[26:01] There were two schools, there were two schools and then the students were relocated to

[26:05] another.

[26:05] Two other schools, they went to maybe two or three receiving schools until the schools were

[26:12] then reopened.

[26:13] OK, and I know at least one park was closed that I found because there was oily residue.

[26:21] I think it was, I think it was first, I think what happened when somebody came out and did an assessment,

[26:27] said it was fine and then the kids were playing there and someone from Mitch and Glinder's office.

[26:32] The staff member had gone there and found oily residues so they closed down the park again.

[26:36] Right, that was a county had received a complaint.

[26:40] County Public Health staff had gone out to investigate the complaint, did not find any oil oily residue.

[26:48] Subsequently, a city official did go out and close the park, and that's all I can tell you.

[26:55] I can give you a report if you'd like it. That's all I can tell you about that incident.

[27:00] And then the residents who were evacuated went to hotels in the area and sometimes places farther away from their work.

[27:10] And so, I mean, I'm guessing that we would find this fairly disruptive to their lives for several months.

[27:16] I'm unbelievably disruptive. That was clear from the people we had talked to.

[27:21] These are people that when you meet them at community meetings, it really reminds you what impact this has on people,

[27:28] because you could sort of see it in their eyes. They had had enough, and it was really remarkable.

[27:34] We have very well-trained public health staff, public health nurses, medical doctors, and they were all affected by the stories that they had heard from these residents.

[27:46] And we, you know, every once in a while you would hear, well, we don't understand why people are being impacted as if they were making it up.

[27:54] And then when your staff sits down with these individuals, actually goes through their histories, it's obvious they're being impacted by conditions in their environment.

[28:02] And then in the cleanup of their homes, I know that there was a court order to have their

[28:10] homes cleaned.

[28:11] Is that correct?

[28:11] There was.

[28:12] And then it was it properly done.

[28:14] And so I think there was a second court order for, I guess, a different company to come in and do

[28:20] a more thorough cleaning, or maybe the same company to do a more thorough cleaning.

[28:24] Well, the short version of that is that the judge did order cleaning before those people

[28:30] that were relocated would be forced to come back to their homes.

[28:34] He did not want to see them come into their homes until those homes were cleaned.

[28:39] Now, for the people that were already in their homes, the judges ordered didn't deal with that,

[28:45] but the county directive did, the public health department issued a directive saying, you're

[28:50] going to clean all the homes that have been impacted, but what we're doing now with regard

[28:55] to the homes that weren't cleaned properly, because we think about a half of them were

[28:59] clean adequately with the protocol. That, as well as the other homes in Porter Ranch that

[29:07] need to be cleaned and have, we're not part of the judges order. We're back in court on

[29:12] those two issues.

[29:15] John. I'm in commission or his search. Thank you. John. Yes, sir. In talking about

[29:21] how these inspections are carried out, clearly the threat of fire and the odors, that's pretty

[29:28] obvious that those are concerns.

[29:30] But what about the quality of life issues around the sites?

[29:34] The noise, the working hours, the heavy equipment being brought in.

[29:38] Last time we were here, several people in the community talked about that as the kind of impacts

[29:44] that from a day to day, quality of life is kind of more important, not that they aren't.

[29:51] And if you will fear of a blowout, but the trucks and all that, what discretion do you

[29:58] you or any other agency have.

[30:00] To deal with those kinds of issues. Well, we'll see. I really appreciate that question, and I'm going to send you a document that we prepared for, not this particular type of site, but another one where we said, look, we can do a conventional risk assessment, which looks at chemical levels and whether those chemical levels will cause an exposure that could reduce a health effect.

[30:25] But we said that's not enough for some of these facilities.

[30:28] We got to look at these broader quality of life issues.

[30:32] And we did it quite well in one site and I'll send you that document.

[30:37] But you're absolutely right.

[30:38] We've got to look at the broader impacts on people's health and welfare.

[30:44] And I would say that noise is one of them.

[30:46] Oder is a big one.

[30:49] Sometimes it's just the feeling that people, you know, in your home,

[30:53] You can't escape some of these nontoxic exposures that are impacting you, because it's

[31:02] your home.

[31:03] So it's the one place people go to to try to escape all the stuff that they're entering

[31:08] and countering.

[31:09] And when you don't have that rest at home, it does have an impact on your quality of life

[31:13] and on your health.

[31:14] And some of the wells are pretty industrial.

[31:19] I guess you could say in their style or how they look.

[31:23] And then there are certainly some, and they tend to be more often,

[31:26] and the more comfortable parts of town,

[31:29] I guess you could say where they're really concealed.

[31:31] They're trying to make them look like a building.

[31:34] Is there any, how does that get dealt with?

[31:37] I mean, is that what is it just wealth or is it?

[31:41] I think you're pointing to an equity that has to be addressed.

[31:46] And I'll just give you the bottom line on that.

[31:48] we find that in areas like along the Pico corridor and the Beverly Hills area, when you do

[31:55] have these facilities that are paneled or offered in some way, we have less complaints,

[32:04] less complaints, and I'll give you another visual, which is we know what they look like when

[32:12] we're driving down Pico.

[32:13] Well, some of what we've seen in the center of the city, and I'm talking about the Furman Street example of last week, we've got oil pumpers in the backyard.

[32:26] They've got a small little fence around it, but the fence has no longer integrity, so kids have access to going in there, and kids have access to small drums or containers of oil.

[32:40] So, you know, those are conditions that shouldn't be tolerated.

[32:45] And in terms of sorting out jurisdictional questions about that,

[32:49] you mentioned what's the oil and gas agency?

[32:52] I think it's a state agency, and presumably they're dealing primarily with issues

[32:57] involved getting oil and gas out of the ground.

[33:00] Absolutely, they're looking at what's going on below the surface.

[33:04] and the fire department, at least tangentially, is concerned about explosions and so on.

[33:10] So the Department of Public Health presumably, which has a broader mandate, would be the agency to address

[33:19] these collateral but important issues of people's health, if you will.

[33:24] I would say at this way, the regulatory agency that issues the permit should be making sure that

[33:30] the society is operating in a way that does not jeopardize the health of the public.

[33:35] But if they fail to do that, which they have in some examples, public health has no choice

[33:41] but to intervene.

[33:43] But we're often we're intervening without the clear regulatory authority, and when people

[33:49] ask us because we get challenged by this, they ask us, by what authority are you coming

[33:53] in here?

[33:54] We say the broad authorities of the health officer.

[33:57] And we feel that strength.

[33:59] We feel that strength.

[34:00] The permit is issued by the oil and gas authority or something.

[34:04] Well, it is, but there's also a local permit that's issued as well.

[34:07] So I think, by which agency?

[34:09] Well, it depends.

[34:10] I mean, in some cases, it's the Koopa agencies, but depending on which jurisdiction it could be

[34:17] various agencies.

[34:18] But the point is, is that I think this isn't a question of whether we've got adequate authority.

[34:24] I would really like us to be at a point where we're enforcing

[34:28] to the full extent of the law. And then we say, it's not getting us enough. So let's increase the,

[34:34] but it's hard to go and argue for additional regulations when you're not even enforcing the regulations

[34:40] that are on the books. So we have a lot of work to do in this area and there's plenty of blame to go.

[34:44] I'm sure there's financial pressure on the other side from the producers and so on.

[34:48] Absolutely, because some of them are small operators and so it's a dilemma.

[34:54] Any other questions?

[34:57] Commissioner Hawkes.

[34:58] Thank you so much.

[35:00] I'm out for your very detailed report and for speaking on behalf of the Commission.

[35:07] I just have, I appreciate the concern. I just have a lot of questions because I feel like this is

[35:12] great in information from the Department of Public Health, however, we haven't had an opportunity

[35:15] to hear from the industry as well, as far as, you know, gas company, Edison, DWP, and I'm trying

[35:22] to figure out, I'm hearing the pattern of, if you came in issue, A.K.M.D said it wasn't

[35:27] issue. But Park became an issue. They came out and investigated Park was an issue. But then

[35:33] yes, I can't so came to close it down. So I'm just trying to understand what the variables

[35:39] are to make sure either we are in compliance over not. And I know that gas company at

[35:45] a Sunday WP, every utility is heavily regulated. And I'm just trying to figure out where

[35:50] are we failing or where are the issues that completely have gone the radar. We're now you

[35:55] have to step in. Like, is it a rapid epidemic? Is this something that's continuously happening?

[36:00] I mean, you see the issues, like, outside that's going on for about 20 years is being one issue.

[36:04] However, you have the issue of at least a canyon as well, which is just recent.

[36:08] So I'm just trying to get understand, and maybe that's my concern is that I'm just trying to get,

[36:12] you know, as a, you know, being appointed as commissioner, getting the whole picture.

[36:17] And I'm trying to figure out where the violations, what hasn't been addressed,

[36:21] what has been erroneously neglected, what has been found that the entity response will have

[36:28] been addressed is kind of our, or I'm trying to get it.

[36:31] Great question, and I'll be brief.

[36:35] The extent to which there are regulatory actions on these facilities, and I'm talking about

[36:43] the very basic.

[36:44] When you have a set of standards, there is a routine inspection that has to take place to

[36:48] see whether or not the facility is operating in accordance with the standards.

[36:53] The state regulators that are doing this work are not doing it frequent enough.

[36:59] And as I said earlier, I think they're more interested in, and as John had mentioned,

[37:03] they're more focused on what's going on below the service of the ground than what's going on

[37:08] on the surface.

[37:08] So what I will tell you, and it's just my opinion after working in this area for 40 years,

[37:14] there isn't enough regulation in this industry.

[37:17] There's a lot of self-regulation, but we can't rely on it.

[37:22] And if we just want to look at the Aliso Canyon example,

[37:26] and let me just tell you that when I first got started in the environmental field,

[37:29] some of my colleagues worked at the gas company,

[37:31] and they had a stellar reputation for environmental compliance.

[37:36] It's, I think these things don't always stay the same.

[37:40] Sometimes they change, but if you think about the condition of the well

[37:45] And the fact that in testing other wells,

[37:49] they're finding that there are some problems.

[37:53] These were problems that could have been predicted.

[37:55] And that's what makes it sad,

[37:58] is that we could have predicted the potential

[38:00] for a blowout like this.

[38:02] And that's why that's a field that's still not under pressure

[38:05] and producing because we can't guarantee

[38:08] the same thing won't happen again.

[38:10] So I just, I would just not mince words and tell you,

[38:14] I don't think there's been proper regulation, and I don't think it's necessarily that the

[38:18] regulations aren't strong enough.

[38:20] They're just not being enforced.

[38:24] Mr. Sharp.

[38:27] Thank you for taking the time to join us tonight again.

[38:30] One of notches your second attempt to address the commission, so thanks for your time

[38:34] and effort.

[38:35] I live a handful of blocks from firm and street, and was appointed by the Council District

[38:39] in that community to represent those residents, and so I'm keenly aware of the protective role

[38:47] that your department's playing in this regard for myself, my neighbor.

[38:49] So thank you for that.

[38:52] My question is rooted in our jurisdiction,

[38:55] which is that we are a pointy body, the city of Los Angeles.

[38:59] And I'm hopeful you could illuminate to move us to a point

[39:07] of being able to contribute, meaningfully, to the city process.

[39:10] Whether there are other municipalities under the county

[39:13] Los Angeles, umbrella that have adopted or, as you've pointed out, more effectively, enforced

[39:20] and implemented statute or regulatory approaches that prioritize the public health and welfare,

[39:27] 88 cities in the county and unincorporated areas of the county.

[39:29] There must be a range of approaches to this.

[39:32] And if you could leave us with a handful of examples of other municipalities that we ought

[39:36] to be paying attention to for their regulatory approach, that would be of use.

[39:41] Matt, it's a great opening and I will probably have information for you on that later, but currently I don't.

[39:50] And I think some of it has to do with the fact that this is one of those activities that is closely regulated at the state level.

[40:00] I believe that although there are certain things the fire department can do, if somebody wants to come in and really improve and enhance the protections for these facilities, I think they're going to run into some roadblocks with the state.

[40:16] But let me check to see whether some local jurisdictions may have already increased the degree of regulation and have much more effective programs.

[40:26] I don't think this is a sad thing is I don't think this is a major change.

[40:32] I really think it's keep the regulations the way they are and have people have agencies

[40:38] report out onto what degree the facilities are complying with the existing regulations.

[40:44] I will bet you'll find that there is a high rate of substantial non-compliance, but it would

[40:50] sure be nice to have that report.

[40:52] That's one of the things we're doing in the county is we are asking the regulatory agencies

[40:56] to tell us we're we're looking not just at facility by facility we're starting to look

[41:00] now at highly impacted highly burdened communities and what we want to do is give the

[41:06] state regulators a map and say give us a report out on all of your regulated facilities within

[41:14] this boundary because this is a highly burdened community and we're going to do everything we can

[41:19] to improve the level of risk within that community.

[41:23] I think our capacity to be an effective partner for your team in that process is magnified

[41:29] at the city level.

[41:31] Totally.

[41:32] A point from the extent to which we could receive updates information regarding the applicable

[41:37] city departments and or city legislative vehicles that could be deployed to most effectively

[41:43] protect residents health that would be at area where we would be most useful.

[41:47] We'll do.

[41:48] I think a lot of these, this lack of regulation sometimes by the state agency, I've had

[41:52] operators tell me, look, the DTSC you name it.

[41:57] They're not doing a job and it's not even helping us.

[42:00] OK, so that's the thing is that I think, in some cases,

[42:03] you could probably get the industry to not fight some of these things

[42:08] if the regulatory agency was doing it in a methodical, logical way

[42:14] as opposed to just trying to come up with a political answer

[42:17] to the heat that they're feeling.

[42:19] So, I think we all want to see sensible answers, and we could probably get support for them

[42:26] because nobody wants to go through, I mean, nobody wants to go through what these communities

[42:32] and what the people responsible for the communities go through.

[42:37] It's just that when you have lacks regulation for so long, people start to make a bet

[42:42] as to whether or not you're ever going to come in and tell them to start complying with the law.

[42:46] And we don't want industry, marginal industry, because not all industry thinks that way, but we don't want anybody thinking that those laws are going to be ignored.

[42:58] Any other questions?

[42:59] Actually, I have a follow-up question, Commissioner Hawkes.

[43:03] Is this a situation lack of parties no longer in complying with the regulations?

[43:13] Is that something that is that you can point to that they can show?

[43:19] concretely, the utilities aren't following the regulations and these are their violations and you've tried working with them, and they're not

[43:27] complying

[43:27] just trying to see that the linkage is there is there like a no a no a

[43:32] conformity is there a non

[43:34] ability to work closely with the department to address the issues. I think we'd have to and again, this just I want you to know that the public health department is

[43:45] stepping ahead on these because

[43:47] We see that public health is being impacted, and when we talk with the regulatory agencies

[43:53] because again, we don't go in and do a routine inspection within these facilities.

[43:57] When we talk with the regulatory agencies, they're actually interested now in hearing from the health officer.

[44:02] So I think we're all waking up to this, and whether we have a regulation on the book to enforce,

[44:08] we still can inform the agencies that do have the regulations about the impact that the lack of compliance

[44:16] has on the public. So I think there's plenty of, there's plenty of work here for all of

[44:22] us, and I would say that I believe there are some instances where the responsible parties

[44:27] are no longer in existence. And so the government, in the case of the Furman Street, at least

[44:33] two of those wells that two of the three that were problematic last week, are really an award

[44:40] of the state for lack of a better word, and the state is having to expend the money to

[44:45] and correct them. But it doesn't make the job any less urgent. And I think we have to

[44:52] show that public health urgency in order to give the state government agencies the ability

[44:58] to go to their administration and say...

[45:00] We've got some bad situations, and we're going to need to go, we're going to need through the budget process to be able to deal with us on more than a 30-year time horizon, because they've given a certain amount of money every year, and they can't even stretch the surface with it.

[45:17] So I can't answer your question about where are the clear concrete examples that I know they're there of noncompliance, because we're not going in and routinely assessing for compliance.

[45:29] That is the designated state regulatory agency that does that.

[45:35] Commissioner.

[45:36] Just a question.

[45:37] Follow up.

[45:39] Some of the environmental impact, I mean if you're going to put up a building in Los Angeles,

[45:45] you have to tell them how many trucks are going to be coming and what time and you're limited

[45:49] when the hours work and all.

[45:52] Do you know if those kinds of types of regulations exist with relation to oil and gas

[46:00] production. Well, I think that if you're looking at a new project, we're probably going to be

[46:09] a whole lot better today, asking those questions. And when I first got at the head, got back

[46:18] to the health department,

[46:21] one of my people used to be big on reviewing these types of developments,

[46:26] And he was really zeroing in on noise, and I asked about air and he said, well, the air district, that's their subject matter.

[46:33] I go, no, it's got to be ours.

[46:35] But I don't think it says methodical as it needs to be in this area.

[46:41] Well, you know, I share, you know, for new wells.

[46:46] It'd be interesting on existing wells.

[46:47] Presumably, they periodically bring in more pipe to change it.

[46:53] In other words, they're kind of in progress all the time they're there for seeing them.

[46:58] So in the sense, the environmental impact could-

[47:01] Is ongoing.

[47:02] Conceptually be applied on going rather than just at the initial.

[47:07] And I think that once we start looking at these facilities, I think it'll be evident to us how we can improve

[47:14] the level of risk or reduce the level of risk and make conditions little more conducive to people living.

[47:23] I have one more question.

[47:25] There are any more.

[47:27] The safety valve on SS-25 had been removed.

[47:31] I think sometime in the 70s, but apparently many people were not aware of that.

[47:37] Is that something that we expect to see on these wells?

[47:41] Or is that something that is not a requirement?

[47:46] Obviously it's good to have to err on the side of caution, but is it a requirement?

[47:49] And how do safety valves get removed without, I guess, government agencies have the knowledge of that?

[47:59] Right. Well, my understanding of that well is that no, it was not required.

[48:04] It did have a safety valve, which many years ago had broken.

[48:09] And they decided we're not going to replace it because it's really not within the well is not located within, I think it was 300 feet.

[48:19] from the nearest residents, so they didn't replace it.

[48:24] Now, think about what that release did to the environment,

[48:30] at Massive release.

[48:32] So they were really looking at the wrong thing.

[48:34] When that standard was put together, it was really trying to say,

[48:37] how do we make sure that if there's a problem at that well,

[48:39] we don't get explosive gases going into a home,

[48:43] and then causing an explosion?

[48:45] So that's probably why they thought of that.

[48:47] But somebody should have said, well, what

[48:50] happens if that well without that relief valve

[48:53] below some day?

[48:55] And how long will it take us to get the equipment in here

[48:57] to abandon it?

[48:59] And I think they would have gone through this whole process

[49:01] and say this could take us four months.

[49:03] And had they done that?

[49:04] This is this perpetual environmental impact assessment

[49:07] you were just talking about?

[49:09] Had they done that?

[49:10] Somebody might have said, my God, we're really exposed here.

[49:13] Let's see their station equipment nearby,

[49:15] or let's put in those valves so that we can push a button and have it sealed off closer to the reservoir.

[49:24] So we live and learn on these things hopefully.

[49:27] Is there an inventory through a state agency where it actually shows which wells have these safety valves in which ones do not?

[49:35] I hope so.

[49:37] I think so. The state has a number of procedures and tests they have to do before they

[49:46] could re-energize that field if they ever do. But because remember what they did there,

[49:53] this wasn't just your typical oil reservoir, this was a depleted oil reservoir that was converted

[49:58] into storing natural.

[50:03] We're not going to go away from this one. We want to make sure that before there is ever any talk about repressionizing that field that they've done the test the state has already specified they need to. And hopefully that'll be enough, but we're going to have to ask that question.

[50:24] There are any other questions?

[50:27] Okay, thank you so much.

[50:28] Thank you.

[50:29] Thank you.

[50:39] Okay, we will move on to public comment.

[50:50] Okay, I don't have any cards for public comments for this particular item.

[50:54] So we will move on to item two,

[50:59] which is a discussion in action on requesting the city council.

[51:04] Oh, no, I'm sorry.

[51:06] reading the minutes.

[51:08] Discussion in Action on Resolution by Commissioners, Shannon, Sharp, and Vic relative to

[51:15] expressing the support of the Los Angeles City Health Commission for 1,500 foot buffer zone,

[51:21] an oil and gas drilling in residential neighborhoods.

[51:26] So commissioners in your packet is a copy of the resolution.

[51:38] And what I'll do is I'll read the therefore be it resolved for those who are listening,

[51:43] or who will be listening on audio, so therefore be it resolved that in order to address

[51:49] health impacts, noise, pollution, and other consequences of drilling activity, the Los Angeles

[51:55] City Health Commission recommends that the city of Los Angeles establish and enforce

[51:59] a 1,500 foot buffer zone between oil and gas drilling and nearby homes, schools, places of

[52:05] worship, parks, and other public spaces, and therefore be it further resolved that a copy

[52:11] of this resolution, be sent to all members of the Los Angeles City Council, the President

[52:16] of the City Planning Commission, the President of the Board of Fire Commissioners, the

[52:20] Chief Legislative Analyst and the City Attorney.

[52:31] So we will, right, so we will have discussion among the commissioners, and then we will

[52:35] move to public comment, and then after public comment, we can move the agenda.

[52:45] So is there a motion?

[52:47] Okay.

[52:48] Okay.

[52:50] Is this prospectively or for existing oil and gas expression?

[52:57] Yeah.

[52:57] So I did get an email from someone asking if we could do a substitute motion,

[53:06] which would be for 1500 feet around oil wells, gas wells,

[53:11] and the fall line extending downhill from such wells.

[53:15] So another dot would,

[53:18] of the intention was for it to be existing,

[53:22] but I think somebody had basically felt

[53:25] that it didn't necessarily cover that

[53:28] within the actual resolution.

[53:31] I mean, it seems to me be difficult.

[53:33] I mean, notwithstanding,

[53:35] we may want to do it.

[53:36] It seemed to me to be retroactively

[53:40] Difficult, if not impossible, to establish a retroactive relocation of those wells, you know.

[53:48] I mean, we've heard last time we were here, of course, that virtually outside people's homes.

[53:54] And I'm sympathetic with I just don't know how you just tell the operator of that well, just pick it up and move it 1500 feet.

[54:02] I don't think that's going to happen.

[54:03] So, I guess that kind of discussion is going to come up and I don't know if we want to

[54:11] address that within the context of this or not and then just another point we say residential

[54:17] neighborhoods which is a suppose we could, that is a bit of a term of art in terms of

[54:23] whether residential means something specific because then later on it talks about public

[54:28] spaces, places of worship and so on, and I agree that it's not a good place for wells,

[54:35] but those aren't exactly residential neighborhoods.

[54:38] So I just a little maybe wordsmithing here, I guess, is when I'm dealing with a little

[54:45] bit.

[54:46] Okay.

[54:47] Would you like to make a substitute most of you to make that more clear?

[54:53] I think we're still on a discussion, correct?

[54:55] Yeah.

[54:57] It's not a motion at this time.

[54:58] Okay, do we want to entertain emotion?

[55:00] In order to have discussion first, discussion first, okay.

[55:05] But I had several, thank you, commissioner Hawkes. I had actually a lot of concerns about this resolution. First of all, I understand the spirit of the request.

[55:18] However, I believe like former commissioner has mentioned, the fact that if you're dealing with, you know, like you mentioned, 70% of the city's active oil wells are within 1,500 feet of homes,

[55:28] schools, hospitals, and places of worship.

[55:31] So how does that work?

[55:33] How does that implement it?

[55:35] The other issue in the resolution, also discusses

[55:37] that we've heard a variety of tests,

[55:38] the money, however, we still have not heard

[55:40] a variety of tests, the money from the entities

[55:43] that will be directly impacted.

[55:44] We've heard from communities, we've heard from county

[55:46] department, however, we haven't heard from any of the public

[55:50] or I mean from LAWP, we haven't heard from Edison,

[55:53] we haven't heard from gas, or any of the other entities

[55:55] will be directly impacted by this.

[55:57] just to be fair and balanced, I want to make sure as a commission before we make a decision

[56:02] whether or not to proceed on something like this that we have every entity represented so that

[56:07] we can ask those questions in addition to although I appreciated Mr. Butler's testimony that was great.

[56:14] There were a lot of other answered questions. There was a lot of let me get back to you on the report.

[56:17] There were a lot of questions that were answered. So I personally, at this point, don't feel comfortable moving forward.

[56:22] And then I'm also question, where do we get the 1500 foot set back issue from?

[56:26] Like, where is that number from?

[56:28] Is that the number, you know, proposed by LA County, AQMD?

[56:33] I just feel like there's so many questions on this issue.

[56:36] And to be honest with you, I only saw this resolution as of today.

[56:40] And I didn't have time to adequately prepare and read and have a lot of these questions

[56:45] answered.

[56:46] So for me to move forward on improving a resolution that I just saw within a couple of hours

[56:50] Without feeling like I had, you know, every entity here or so that we can discuss it, just makes me look at how this gives me pause.

[56:57] And I'm not saying to something that we should have the shit or shouldn't have stopped in just feeling like there's a lot of holes in this process that I would like to figure out how one, I do like the idea that we're as a commission to get a discuss idea of taking a position on things.

[57:09] So I think we need to be a protocol set up for that. But too, I just feel like there's a lot of unanswered questions regarding this resolution and trying to figure out how we got to all of these numbers.

[57:18] Okay, I can answer at least a 1,500 foot setback, so the only regulatory precedence that I know of,

[57:27] or that's been brought to our attention, was for two cities.

[57:31] One is Dallas, Texas, and the other is Flower Mount, Texas.

[57:35] That both have a 1,500 foot setback.

[57:38] So there is regulatory precedence, it's the only regulatory precedence that I know of.

[57:43] So it's not something that we were just making up.

[57:47] It's actually something that's been vetted through two municipalities.

[57:52] And for one, has had four lawsuits against it, all of which were dismissed by the courts.

[57:59] So that's the background that I know on that.

[58:03] In terms of hearing from I suppose LEDWP and so Cal Gas, I think the charges that we were

[58:11] have been from the city council, which weren't charges really was a request, was to look

[58:15] at the health impacts of residents.

[58:19] And so we've been looking at that, I don't know how they specifically would be impacted

[58:24] other than from maybe a business standpoint, which maybe something that you want to look at

[58:31] or not look at, but I don't find it to necessarily be, you know, the charges of this particular

[58:39] commission which is looking at health impacts specifically and trying to do as best for

[58:45] the residents of the city. So while I think if I were a council member I might take a lot of

[58:54] things into consideration. I think for the purposes of this resolution it was dealing specifically

[59:00] with health impacts and setbacks and looking at regulatory precedents and what we have had

[59:11] two hearings on this already or at least people coming to speak. Get two different hearings so

[59:16] the 1500 foot setback has come up at least on from three different speakers that we've had

[59:22] come here and speak to us. I don't remember anyone raising an issue about a thin but I do know

[59:28] And I did ask where the 1,500 feet came from, and it was from Dallas, and since then I've

[59:34] done a lot of research to make sure that that is true in two municipalities now in Texas,

[59:40] which is a fairly virtual producing state, have enacted a 1,500 foot set back.

[59:48] I'll follow a question.

[59:49] How did the city of Dallas, or did these two Dallas entities be referring to?

[59:55] How did they address the issue of existing wells?

[1:00:00] I don't think those particular ordinances actually were applicable to existing wells.

[1:00:09] But this resolution is referring to existing wells that correct.

[1:00:13] Right. Well, this resolution is referring to a 1,500 foot setback. The intention was due to the health impacts that we've heard,

[1:00:22] basically from community members and two different hearings from Mr.

[1:00:27] Ballomo today, is that what is in the best interest of residents, what are the health

[1:00:33] impacts, is it fair for them to be living in these conditions and what can we do to alleviate

[1:00:40] that?

[1:00:41] I mean, I know that people are also concerned about the business angle of this, which, when

[1:00:48] You hear that 8,000 families were evacuated when you hear that people weren't able to get to

[1:00:55] their jobs, when you hear that parks have been closed, when you hear that faculty members

[1:00:59] at schools were detrimentally impacted, that's also a business impact.

[1:01:07] And so, you know, and health-related issues are also an impact to a family, to their ability

[1:01:12] to make money, to go to work, and so, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's on both ends.

[1:01:22] I can't, Commissioner Hawkins, I'm sorry. And and please don't, don't, and interpret my

[1:01:26] question line of question as looking at more as if it's an impact. I'm just looking at more

[1:01:29] holistically, as far as addressing the issues. And that's my question. And like I said, somebody

[1:01:34] who's worked on environmental justice issues for a while, I understand and I get it, but to me,

[1:01:40] It always comes down to making sure you have every person who's impacted and also the folks who are at the hands of whatever the issue is you need to have everybody in every stakeholder at the table before you can move forward.

[1:01:53] And that's just what I was getting.

[1:01:55] It's not about a business angle.

[1:01:56] It's not about being a prophet or anything like that.

[1:01:58] It's just the issue of been making public policy or recommendations public policy.

[1:02:02] Why it is important to have every entity at the table.

[1:02:05] That was basically what I was trying to get up.

[1:02:07] Thank you.

[1:02:09] I would also like to say that maybe, rather than a resolution, it would be a recommendation

[1:02:19] and that it would be a date, you know, that we'd have to have some kind of date on this.

[1:02:26] So, and since we're going to be charged with a report, that's a big function of what we're

[1:02:35] to do, that this might be one of a recommendation, rather than a separate resolution.

[1:02:43] That might also be another path forward.

[1:02:49] Mr. Vick?

[1:02:51] This is going to actually agree with Commissioner Hakez.

[1:02:54] I just facilitated an event in my day job, which I'm not representing right now this time.

[1:02:59] to make that clear, but where there was some folks that came and talked about environmental health issues

[1:03:04] and there was someone that was representing sort of the other side, and I think it was important

[1:03:08] that that person was in the room because the folks that were advocating for some protections

[1:03:14] for the community and the residents were able to, I think, give him some things to think about

[1:03:19] because he had made a couple of comments that were quickly and swiftly sort of dealt with

[1:03:23] by the, the, the advocates in the room.

[1:03:25] So, I think it is important for that voice to be heard, even if it's just for them to come here and hear what the residents and the community members are dealing with in the advocates that are working with be hard.

[1:03:37] So, the spirit of this resolution is fabulous. I think it's in line with what a lot of folks that are working on is are about.

[1:03:44] But, yeah, I do think that perhaps having that other side come in and at least under here and maybe not that they haven't heard it before, but I guess to be balanced would be appropriate.

[1:03:56] It's a great commissioner, hashrich?

[1:03:59] Yeah, I'm becoming more persuaded that we need to hear a bit more.

[1:04:04] I'm also still concerned about since it is 70% of them are within that.

[1:04:09] We could probably have some small producers come in here and say that if this is put into place,

[1:04:15] say, be out of business and so on.

[1:04:17] I mean, we'd like them to be out of business, but I think we ought to hear them say it.

[1:04:23] And I know that one other commissioner who's not present commented to me after the previous meeting that nobody had clearly established a specific health impact.

[1:04:36] There's certainly quality of life impacts, but the clear link for, and now I'm sure there are some folks that are affected by it,

[1:04:45] still to make the assertion at this point in a resolution that it's only the health impacts

[1:04:51] may be a little premature,

[1:04:55] so I appreciate the lively.

[1:05:00] It's a change of views. It's helpful. I look forward to hearing from some of the stakeholders that have taken the time to join us tonight, and would love to reserve a moment to regroup our discussion after we've heard from input from those that have gathered around here, as there's unique expertise in the audience that I don't want to suggest.

[1:05:20] I'm a resident within one of these 1,500 foot zones around the Furman Street. Well, so I'm sort of keenly aware of this from a number of vantage points.

[1:05:29] But I certainly use the lens and I think it's helpful

[1:05:32] that we're lifting this up to try and forge a sort

[1:05:36] of a common approach through which we're seeing the problems

[1:05:38] and therefore any potential solutions.

[1:05:40] I certainly see the scope of my responsibility here

[1:05:44] to be narrowly determining whether the evidence presented

[1:05:47] to us in any personal professional judgment

[1:05:50] of accumulated prior to joining the commission

[1:05:52] enables me to make a health protection recommendation.

[1:05:56] I guess, certainly the lens switch.

[1:05:57] I look at it, I am optimistic that the council members and the mayor in the city departments

[1:06:02] are better positioned than we are to assimilate a variety of other important considerations

[1:06:08] in the formulation of the public policies that are to be promulgated, but I certainly attempt

[1:06:14] to only in this context assess the health impacts and at least to me it has been persuasive

[1:06:21] in the remarks to date that the extraction activities and particularly the residential dwelling

[1:06:29] where someone may be there 18, 24 hours a day even as a senior are absorbing an adverse

[1:06:36] health consequence. I believe there have been important legitimate concerns raised about exactly

[1:06:41] what the causality is, whether it's the hydrocarbons or other industrial activity on the site.

[1:06:46] But to me there's no question that there are simply incompatible uses in how the city has been

[1:06:51] own and its responsibility. I feel as my responsibility here to when given set opportunity

[1:06:56] to illuminate that it's important for policymakers to consider these health impacts in their

[1:07:01] ultimate formulation of policy. In this particular case it just seems that the industrial hydrocarbon

[1:07:06] uses incompatible with the residential areas. This is occurring right where I live now and I'm

[1:07:13] hopeful that we can be supportive of in the right form potentially this or some version of it

[1:07:20] efforts to align the uses of industrial activity with residential in particular as the council

[1:07:28] formulates policy on this.

[1:07:30] I just want to say very quickly.

[1:07:33] I think I see this from the point of view of prevention and early intervention approach

[1:07:40] because we know what's happening and looking towards the future.

[1:07:46] I think the motion in some sense serves to me as something that could be utilized with

[1:07:57] prevention or intervention, but I do agree to that other aspects need to be brought

[1:08:03] into play.

[1:08:07] But we would have to rely on a lot of assistance from the county and other agents to get

[1:08:15] most of the questions and answers, but I do see it as a good predictor on a going forward basis.

[1:08:24] Some of the contents of the motion.

[1:08:29] Okay.

[1:08:31] Timeline, why is we have two more meetings for this make up of this commission?

[1:08:39] We have a lot of speakers coming in September because there were a number of issues that came

[1:08:44] up that the commissioners wanted to address and a lot of, unfortunately, a lot of the speakers

[1:08:50] that we wanted to come were not available either last month or this month.

[1:08:56] So we do have a lot of people coming in September, so I don't know that we could pretty

[1:09:03] sure that we can't agendize that unless people want to stay for a very long time in September

[1:09:10] for the meeting. So I think that's something to take into consideration for everyone. And we do need to

[1:09:17] issue the report. So if we're not on record for specifically specific policy issues for the report,

[1:09:27] it becomes a little problematic. So just putting that out there. Any other questions or comments from

[1:09:35] commissioners and I just want to just address that issue. I understand the

[1:09:38] construction time sensitivity, however we were all entrusted by our council

[1:09:43] members to make sure that we serve on this commission and that we service

[1:09:46] commission at the almost representing them in their constituents and making

[1:09:50] sure that if we do make a decision policy wider moving forward, that we should

[1:09:54] have all the facts from getting out. So I don't mind if it goes into several

[1:09:58] hours, that's fine with me.

[1:10:00] Because I don't want to move forward and just feel like it's a time constraint. I made a commitment to this commission and I believe all my other fellow commissioners it is well. So I'm just wanted to put that out there as well that it's it's okay if we need to put that and maybe the meeting is a little bit longer and we have all entities represented and then I'm totally okay with that. So thank you.

[1:10:21] I don't have any comment cards for this particular item. Is anyone holding comment cards?

[1:10:29] Please come forward.

[1:10:44] There are any members of the public who would like to address item three.

[1:10:48] Two?

[1:10:48] I mean item two?

[1:10:50] To see several folks here.

[1:10:57] So we should move to motion.

[1:11:00] And the way that I see this sort of unfolding is we can...

[1:11:08] They're making motion to pass the resolution,

[1:11:11] make a motion to amend it, or make a motion to postpone to a date certain.

[1:11:26] Shall we can address this or not?

[1:11:29] Caucus sticking.

[1:11:33] Yes, I would just first of all say it I'll turn in my card in one second.

[1:11:37] How much we appreciate the amount of time that the commission has put into studying this issue and hearing from the community.

[1:11:42] We were also, I'm a shop preacher, by the way, with the Liberty Hill Foundation, and our foundation has been greatly concerned with this issue as we have heard from communities throughout the city about the health at safety impacts and neighborhood quality of life.

[1:11:56] So, we also have just found out about the resolution and your hope to pass something substantive on this issue just on Friday.

[1:12:05] So we really even had a chance to thoroughly look at the resolution.

[1:12:09] I know that we thought it could be strengthened around the notion of clarifying the new and expanding and current oil wells.

[1:12:17] It's a long discussion, but we really want to salute your effort to hear our plea for a buffer zone to separate these industrial uses from from sensitive land uses.

[1:12:29] So with that said, you know, whether it's tonight that you pass the resolution, or if it is in another, at the next meeting, you know, I don't want to speak on behalf of the whole coalition, but I think our overarching goal is we would love to see the health commission pass a resolution like this.

[1:12:47] So that's kind of I think where we are and I invite other members to speak, we're trying to figure this out.

[1:12:53] I did want to respond quickly on just a couple of things that came up.

[1:12:57] First of all, with regard to Commissioner Hock has this question on the 1,500 foot buffer,

[1:13:01] I was the coordinator of this publication that drilling down report that Liberty Hill put

[1:13:06] out about a year ago, and in addition to the two Texas examples, I just wanted to say that

[1:13:12] I found here, I remembered, the South Coast Air Quality Management District also has established

[1:13:18] to 1,500 foot radius for purposes of air monitoring and responding to odor complaints from

[1:13:24] oil drilling operations with a heightened level of response time and corrective action.

[1:13:29] So that's in the ACMD protocol from 2013.

[1:13:33] Number one.

[1:13:34] Number two, Dr. Jim Sad, who was here, I think, for your main meeting, and only had one

[1:13:38] minute to testify.

[1:13:41] Because the minute a letter, and I will distribute it, I brought hard copies of it.

[1:13:44] And he will also be, and we have Dr. Shama Sunder from Oxidental College here tonight, too,

[1:13:50] will be completing some research in the next 30 days with regard to the 1500s foot buffer

[1:13:56] proposal. So, that's coming. So, thank you for the time. Sorry, we're no great. Thank you.

[1:14:02] Thank you. Just make comment on that particular point. I appreciate the comment about the 1500

[1:14:08] feet that did say for Air Monitor, and that doesn't say that you preclude the operation from

[1:14:14] I mean, that's just a kind of clarification that I think we need to do to make this a little stronger.

[1:14:23] Time is with me.

[1:14:26] Okay.

[1:14:27] Actually, I just wanted to Chris Ramakaskin.

[1:14:29] I just wanted to point, I'd love to hear more about the letter.

[1:14:32] And, you know, but I'm talking about like that's what I mean.

[1:14:34] I just want to follow up questions that be good to have.

[1:14:36] I had a time so we can dissect it a little bit.

[1:14:38] We'll go do a deeper dive into.

[1:14:40] Thank you.

[1:14:43] Can you tell this again what our options are?

[1:14:46] Okay, the way that I see it unfolding and obviously anyone can make a motion outside of these, but I think one would be to move to pass the resolution as written, move to amend the resolution.

[1:15:01] Moving to postpone, bringing the resolution forward to a date certain, although at the October meeting, which the date will be changed because it falls on a holiday, we will be looking at our annual report and most likely the report recommendations on oil and gas that the council has requested.

[1:15:26] So,

[1:15:30] in some cases we may just be looking at this particular policy issue in the context of the report that comes out, which I would rather have us bet this issue and this policy statement prior to the report because at that point it's unclear what we would do if the report were rejected by the commission.

[1:15:57] I moved to postpone the resolution until October 2nd.

[1:16:02] Can I amend that as well or no?

[1:16:07] Well, it's been moved in seconded.

[1:16:09] So it would have to, unless you want it to put through a substitute motion.

[1:16:13] And then the substitute motion, if that passes, becomes the main motion.

[1:16:17] Got it.

[1:16:18] Substitute motion.

[1:16:19] I would like to postpone to it later time, but make sure ensuring all entities are invited

[1:16:23] to attend a testify at that point.

[1:16:27] second. Okay, so we'll have to vote on the substitute motion. So all in favor, is there any discussion?

[1:16:34] Okay, all in favor of the substitute motion please. Yes, I'm just for purposes of the record to make sure that the instruction is clear that it could be briefly

[1:16:43] enumerated what some of the other additional entities are that would be valuable contributors so that can be at least considered.

[1:16:52] No, I'm asking right now, just for discussion purposes, when we say other entities.

[1:16:57] I'm who I would like to identify.

[1:16:59] Yeah, definitely the utilities directly impacted,

[1:17:04] as well as, you know, and also an open it up to Liberty Hill to go to the discussion,

[1:17:08] and the other entities.

[1:17:10] So we have community, we have entities directly impacted, and any other interested entities.

[1:17:19] So everyone's cool.

[1:17:20] We say additional entities.

[1:17:21] Okay.

[1:17:22] So that would okay, so all in fate is there any discussion on this okay all in favor of the substitute motion, please say aye

[1:17:31] Okay, so that was a vote on the substitute motion now the substitute motion becomes a main motion

[1:17:36] So unfortunately we have to vote on it again

[1:17:40] As our main motion

[1:17:41] So the main motion being that we will take resolution up again at a time when all stakeholders can be present including

[1:17:49] utilities, Liberty Hill, other community partners, so all in favor, is there any discussion?

[1:17:57] Okay, all in favor.

[1:17:58] I'm sorry.

[1:18:01] Are we going to specifically say the October meeting?

[1:18:04] Or is it?

[1:18:05] I don't think that's a good idea because I think our October meeting will be vetting our annual report.

[1:18:11] So if we can make it happen in September, as long as people are willing to stay late and we don't lose our quorum.

[1:18:19] Our biggest, you know, the biggest worry for me is that we would lose our quorum.

[1:18:25] So as long as we are resolving to do this, we can attempt to make it happen in September.

[1:18:32] There is subcommittee formulated as a subdivision of this body.

[1:18:36] There is a subcommittee, yes.

[1:18:37] Look at this that could potentially provide some information to commissioners in advance

[1:18:43] that would potentially synthesize in the form of, you know,

[1:18:47] There seem to be some questions asked today that maybe a small group could convene and

[1:18:52] provide some information that would reduce the risk that I think is legitimate that

[1:18:55] you're raising that this just goes on to one that we wouldn't have enough people to vote on it.

[1:18:59] I think that's an important risk and I'm wondering if there's something we could do between now and what

[1:19:03] I believe September 12th, Ms. Rosales, is our next September 12th?

[1:19:08] There's something that could occur between now and then to prepare so that the discussion could be

[1:19:16] Subcommittee is the venue or if there's some other consolation of Triad or a team that could

[1:19:22] try and at least enumerate a couple of these kind of from a Q&A standpoint that could help

[1:19:27] mitigate what's a legitimate concern that you've brought up.

[1:19:29] Right, so my understanding from the motion is that we're inviting people to come and testify

[1:19:34] as part of our speaker presentations, giving them a certain allotment of time and then questions.

[1:19:42] So invariably that will take a bit even if the subcommittee prepares a report in advance.

[1:19:51] All right, so the report which is being augmentation of right.

[1:19:53] There's need to be a report.

[1:19:54] I'm just trying to find a way to efficiently bring together enough content that you know with.

[1:20:00] We can, at least, formulate a view, even if there's a number of kind of two-minute remarks.

[1:20:06] Okay, and there could also be a situation where we do invite people from the various entities, I'm guessing the LADWP and so-called gas, and they're not able to make the meeting, in which case, what do we do?

[1:20:20] do we just hear from some people in September and then maybe have a special meeting in order to hear from the rest of the entities or

[1:20:32] certainly be most useful for me. I can't speak for others is to receive this sort of correspondence where someone puts their views together in kind of a two-page

[1:20:41] If someone can't come if they can provide a reaction response to this draft resolution, folks can read that with enough advance time, you know, acknowledging Commissioner Hakez requests for a little more lead time.

[1:20:53] Written comment is just as useful to me.

[1:20:55] So that would be in the spirit of your motion.

[1:20:57] Is that correct?

[1:20:58] Commissioner Hakez?

[1:21:00] We get to receive information at least for at least 48 hours at the least.

[1:21:05] Okay.

[1:21:05] So it doesn't have to actually be present here.

[1:21:08] in addition to. So if they can be here, that'd be great for the presentation. If they want

[1:21:12] to submit the report ahead of the their presentation to make their points more concise

[1:21:16] and that's fine. I think one limitation needs to be extended into if they have information

[1:21:21] they want to afford the commission prior to. I think that's as a possibility of making sure

[1:21:25] the commission receives it at least 40-40 hours per year. Okay, but my question was, what if

[1:21:30] they cannot come to present to the commission? I think we just need to select the date and that's

[1:21:36] It's going to be the day to afford.

[1:21:39] So if they can't make it, then at least the invitation has been extended, we have asked

[1:21:44] that they present a two-page, at least a two-page report back in the form of a letter.

[1:21:53] And then that would meet the spirit of the...

[1:21:55] I just want to make sure that I understand the parameters.

[1:21:58] If I make, I just make sure that you mentioned DWP in some of the and gas company.

[1:22:04] And what the opportunity for spokespersons for the oil and gas industry directly, they may

[1:22:11] not show up.

[1:22:12] They may blow it off by the elite show that the intent was there to invite them.

[1:22:18] And similarly, there were mentioned a couple of other agencies involved, such as the state

[1:22:23] oil and gas folks.

[1:22:24] Now again, they may not want to show up, but it would be useful to hear from them as to what

[1:22:28] their view is about what they do or don't do in enforcement.

[1:22:32] In addition to, I would like to recommend eight UMD as well that was also brought up today.

[1:22:38] And those in attendance that chose not to address the microphone you're welcome to provide written comments in advance of the hearing it to further inform us of your views.

[1:22:48] Okay, so there's a motion on the table.

[1:22:51] Do I need to repeat that or are we fairly okay?

[1:22:55] I think I've repeated it twice now.

[1:22:57] All right, all in favor of the motion please say aye.

[1:22:59] I proposed.

[1:23:02] Okay, great.

[1:23:04] So.

[1:23:04] I'm going to clarify.

[1:23:05] So it'll be at the September.

[1:23:07] Well, I'm going to attempt to make it in September as long as people are willing to stay,

[1:23:12] because I think October is cutting it too close.

[1:23:16] And then point out clarification.

[1:23:17] How did Candie, how did the invitations?

[1:23:20] Will you be sending those out to the other stakeholders?

[1:23:23] It's.

[1:23:24] It's either me or one of the other commissioners that send out the invitations.

[1:23:28] it usually depends on who has connections.

[1:23:32] In this case, it'll probably be me.

[1:23:34] Can you also send the commissioners

[1:23:36] a copy of the invitation?

[1:23:37] Of course.

[1:23:38] Great, thank you.

[1:23:40] It becomes public record then, just like, you know.

[1:23:45] And if we could clarify the date for the October meeting?

[1:23:54] Yeah, so, Kelly, do you want to speak to the survey

[1:23:57] that you've been doing to change the date

[1:23:59] for the October meeting?

[1:24:02] We're trying to show that I don't think we're going to do that.

[1:24:04] We'll move the agenda and we'll talk about that at the end where we take up future meetings.

[1:24:09] Sorry about that.

[1:24:13] Okay, so we've had public comment on item two.

[1:24:16] Item three is items for future discussion.

[1:24:19] Now we can talk about the next meeting.

[1:24:22] Candy, can you under items for future discussion?

[1:24:26] Can we talk about the meeting date for October?

[1:24:29] The dates were selected were October 17, October 24, to see who's available, but there's

[1:24:38] been one, two, three, four, five commissioners that have not responded.

[1:24:47] Seven of the other commissioners said they're available on October 17.

[1:24:51] One member isn't available, and for October 24 there's also seven members that are available.

[1:24:58] but there's one

[1:25:01] Okay, so in both cases we're one away from quorum, so maybe we can send out another email to the commissioners who haven't responded, and then we'll see where we get quorum, or the majority, the highest number of people who can make it.

[1:25:20] Okay. Great. Okay. So for items of future discussion, we have a number of issues that we've

[1:25:27] wanted to take up and we're just trying to find a date where the actual speakers can

[1:25:34] come on the date that we actually have our meetings. One is have the lead person from the CLA

[1:25:43] homelessness to come and address the commission. We wanted somebody to speak on health access

[1:25:50] issues, post-ACA. There was someone that we've been trying to get for the past few months

[1:25:57] on the birth of doctors and specialists in the city of Los Angeles.

[1:26:09] So I think those are

[1:26:10] Or at least three speakers that we would likely need to look at for September.

[1:26:16] But we also have work groups who will start meeting, and there will be, I think, holes

[1:26:22] in information that need to be filled.

[1:26:24] And so we will likely have other requests for speakers coming for September.

[1:26:29] It doesn't have to be today, obviously.

[1:26:32] But if your work group meets and you find that there are specific issues that any clarification

[1:26:38] on it with like speakers, if you could let us know as soon as possible.

[1:26:45] And also to just the status of the report.

[1:26:49] Yeah, that should be an item. And even the, from the minutes last time we had the motion to

[1:27:00] request to the council to leave the word all, and I wanted to say that's in the words. That's in the work.

[1:27:06] So I don't know when that will come up at Council.

[1:27:08] I haven't heard back.

[1:27:10] We also discussed the idea of revisiting the subject topics

[1:27:14] that we originally came with, and we're

[1:27:16] also discussing this meeting, and I agree as a commission,

[1:27:20] which items were going to go out and highlight in the report.

[1:27:22] Since there was a number, I wanted to make sure

[1:27:24] and verify that the commission is okay with the proposed subjects

[1:27:28] or they wanted to reduce or increase.

[1:27:32] Okay. So some of that can actually be done in the working groups. So the working group

[1:27:39] some cells can decide which issues they would like to bring forward for the report or not.

[1:27:47] So I think at that level when people are discussing what goes into the report or what goes

[1:27:53] into the draft, it's probably easier in a smaller group of people who are specifically speaking

[1:28:01] on that issue or have specific expertise on that issue,

[1:28:07] but that's just sort of I think how

[1:28:09] we had originally envisioned it in back in November or December when we had established

[1:28:15] work groups.

[1:28:16] The last meeting we had, we discussed that we would, as a commission, we would revisit now that

[1:28:21] we're looking at the reports.

[1:28:22] I mean, that was my understanding.

[1:28:26] Unless, like I said, I was looking at the minutes.

[1:28:29] I suppose.

[1:28:29] I don't know.

[1:28:30] There's no detail in the minutes.

[1:28:32] We had Dr. Boyce, I believe, or Wayne Boyne's?

[1:28:36] It was my motion, or my request, so I'm saying that it's David.

[1:28:42] Just to clarify, so I'm tracking, referring to when Dr. Boyne's presented from Cal State

[1:28:49] Northridge, he asked us for some direction in guidance.

[1:28:53] We talked about, you know, from that report, we mentioned that there were originally eight

[1:28:59] I don't select a correct, and so at that point we said do we want as a commission revisit

[1:29:04] Are these eight focuses we want to focus on or do we want to reduce from that or add and that's that was what was you know

[1:29:10] I proposed and I believe was it was the proved on at the last meeting

[1:29:16] Yeah, I don't remember that. I'm sorry

[1:29:18] And it's not in the minutes the eight items the same is the working groups just right right so there are eight working groups

[1:29:25] and my basic feeling is said if people don't want to populate those working groups or if the

[1:29:30] working groups don't want to bring anything forward for the report than that likely would take

[1:29:38] care of that specific issue as opposed to agendizing it on a, I honestly don't remember

[1:29:44] that coming up but instead of agendizing it on a commission agenda, it seems that the individual

[1:29:51] work groups could just decide either not to bring issues forward within that specific.

[1:30:03] Or not.

[1:30:07] I'm just like it was just kind of my focus, just to make sure that because I mean if you're going to dress one of the issues and be homeless, this is going to be a substantial portion of that.

[1:30:14] And understanding we have a few months and those work and groups have to work with the university. So I just wanted to be the spirit of my discussion was to ensure that we have a report that is in reflective of the major issues direct, you know, impacting and substantive versus

[1:30:31] is just a lot of, you know, a lot of them quantitative, which is qualitative, was my concern,

[1:30:37] which is why I raised it. Okay, any other discussions about future agenda items?

[1:30:46] Can I just bring up a real life initiative?

[1:30:51] For instance, community has involved in...

[1:30:54] I prefer this location, yes.

[1:31:03] I'm approaching health services, but someone to come to talk about health posts before the

[1:31:11] care.

[1:31:13] That was the one that I mentioned, so the next meeting we're looking for.

[1:31:18] You want to ask Dr. Katz, you want to ask Dr. Katz to come back or Mark Galley from

[1:31:28] Mark Galley?

[1:31:28] Sure, if you want to send me an email on suggestions and speakers, that would be great.

[1:31:34] Okay. Okay. I'd love to hear from Dr. Katz anytime.

[1:31:39] I can ask where I can.

[1:31:42] Okay.

[1:31:45] Any other future agenda items that anyone is interested in bringing forward?

[1:31:51] Okay. Item four, then, is public comments.

[1:31:56] We have Adam Cohen from Needs Health Care Foundation.

[1:32:00] I'm quick. Good evening. My name is Adam Cohen. I am the... I'm a new title.

[1:32:04] the Director of Advocacy and Policy Research at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

[1:32:09] As of July, sorry, actually as of August 8th, I believe today there have been 27 cases

[1:32:15] of meningitis in Southern California, half of which are in Los Angeles County, and half

[1:32:20] of those occurred based on Los Angeles County data occurred among men who have sex with men.

[1:32:26] And so for organizations that provide healthcare services for LGBT, community members, this

[1:32:31] is very disconcerting and raised many alarms and I ask that the Health Commission issue a statement

[1:32:37] to ask the LA County Department of Public Health to vaccinate, make recommendations to

[1:32:42] LA City Council. This is a great opportunity for the LA City Health Commission to take

[1:32:46] a position, outbreaks like the meningitis outbreak currently and still occurring is the

[1:32:53] exact reason why this Health Commission was formed. Thank you.

[1:32:57] Great. That actually was another agenda item that I had for September

[1:33:00] along with Zika virus and to get an idea of where we are with both of those things

[1:33:06] the county. So we'll have one, two, three, four, five. So we'll have at least six

[1:33:13] presentations or items and the six one being multiple presentations on oil

[1:33:20] and gas.

[1:33:25] Okay, motion to adjourn, please.

[1:33:30] Okay, moved in seconded to adjourn on

[1:33:32] I'm a baby.

[1:33:33] Hi.

[1:33:35] I'm a post.

[1:33:35] Thank you.

[1:33:37] Thank you.

[1:33:38] Thank you.

[1:33:39] Thank you.

City Health Commission - Aug 8th, 2016

Agenda

Transcript