Signal Hill’s report says extension is “environmentally superior” and guarantees the City’s oversight, but residents remain opposed to the project.
Over 50 residents sat, stood or squeezed into empty spots on the floor equipped with signs and strong words of opposition at a crammed public hearing in the Signal Hill City Hall Tuesday night. The subject up for review was a Environmental Impact Report on a 20-year permit extension the City is considering granting to Signal Hill Petroleum.
If approved, Signal Hill Petroleum (SHP) will be able to drill up to 46 new oil wells and build 46 accompanying well cellars across its seven drill sites over the next 20 years. SHP currently owns 62 oil wells in Signal Hill, and 95% of the Long Beach Oil Field comprising 1,550 wells.
The Signal Hill City Council Chambers were packed with signs reading “We will not be poisoned in our homes” as Community Development Director Colleen Doan went over details of the recently released Environmental Impact Report (EIR) draft.
Doan said the City hired Catalyst Environmental Solutions to compile and analyze data for the EIR, exploring the environmental and health impacts the 20-year permit would have on the Signal Hill community. The 300-page report took over two years to draft and was made public on May 6.
The EIR analyzed the effects the project would have on air quality, energy, biological resources, greenhouse gasses, traffic and other factors. All impacts were found to be “less than significant” or able to reach less than significant levels with proper mitigation.
Of the 50 plus residents in attendance, over 30 of whom gave public comments, no one spoke in favor of the permit renewal. Many residents spoke about the odor and noise of the drill sites near their neighborhoods and asked the City to investigate health impacts such as asthma in people who have lived in Signal Hill for years.
Local environmental groups such as Climate Brunch and the Sierra Club joined public speakers, while most attendees cheered, snapped their fingers and raised their hands in agreement.
The Signal Tribune contacted SHP via email on June 6 for a response to the public hearing and has not heard back as of June 7.
The No Project Alternative
The draft EIR included alternatives to the 20-year permit extension, such as a No Project Alternative, which would allow Signal Hill Petroleum to continue its current operations but not drill new wells. Similarly, Assembly Bill 1137 will be on the ballot in November, which would prohibit California oil companies from drilling any new oil wells within 3,200 feet of schools, residential areas and hospitals if it passes.
If the No Project Alternative is chosen, Signal Hill Petroleum’s current operations would still be able to continue, but without annual City oversight or the guidelines set in the conditional use permit. These guidelines mostly pertain to “community compatibility” such as noise and traffic in the areas surrounding drill sites.
The EIR states it is “reasonably foreseeable” that if SHP can’t drill new wells, it would redrill its existing wells more frequently than the current maximum of six per year. This would “potentially” have greater environmental impacts than the 20-year permit extension, according to the EIR.
“It sounds like Signal Hill Petroleum is holding these alternatives hostage,” a Signal Hill resident who identified himself as Charles said.
SHP would still have to follow guidelines surrounding emission thresholds set by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and California Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM).
The company has maintained that they implement their own mitigation measures more stringent than what is required by the City and State.
“A better, healthier future could happen for us and our children. It’s time for Signal Hill to phase out oil,” said Stephanie Alvarez, an organizer with Climate Brunch.
At the end of the hearing, Doan admitted that “it does sound kind of funny” for the 20-year permit extension to be deemed the environmentally superior alternative, and said the City will try to explain the issue more clearly in the final EIR.
Other Permit Extension Options
More alternatives to the 20-year permit extension were 2-year or 10-year extensions.
The 2-year extension predicts that Signal Hill Petroleum would build 10 new oil wells and cellars over this time period, since the company has “indicated” that they would only drill a maximum of five new wells per year. The EIR concluded that this option would reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gas related to new wells, but similar to the No Project Alternative, redrill operations would likely increase.
With a 10-year extension, Signal Hill Petroleum would still be able to drill 46 new oil wells at its proposed five wells per year. The draft EIR states that “it is reasonably foreseeable that the City would extend the CUP at the end of the 10-year permit period” since it has done so every time since 1998.
According to the draft EIR, Signal Hill Petroleum “would plan to drill two wells per year” if granted the 20-year permit extension. However, if given a 10-year extension, the EIR states “it is more than likely” that SHP would drill the maximum number of wells allowed per year (5), resulting in “potentially higher air and greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis.”
According to the EIR, the City has determined that granting the 20-year permit extension is the “environmentally superior alternative” since it gives Signal Hill oversight on the company while maintaining current conditions.
If given a 10-year extension, the EIR states “it is more than likely” that SHP would drill the maximum number of wells allowed per year (5), resulting in “potentially higher air and greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis.”
Signal Hill Petroleum is projected to produce 1,197 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year over the 20-year period, according to the draft EIR. The report compiled data on toxic air contaminants from a North Long Beach monitoring station 4.5 miles from the nearest Signal Hill Petroleum site and a Los Angeles monitoring station 23 miles from the nearest site.
The EIR lists a number of toxic air contaminants reported at these stations by parts per billion by volume, though it states there is no air quality standard for these materials. The highest recorded volatile organic compounds from the North Long Beach station include acetone, formaldehyde and methylene chloride.
“From a public health perspective given the existing evidence on adverse health impacts, it’s important to reduce exposures to harmful pollutants where people live, work and play,” said Elizabeth Kamai, an environmental epidemiologist. “
Next Steps
The decision will ultimately be made by the Signal Hill City Council following a finalized report and a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
The purpose of the public hearing was to receive feedback and questions about the draft EIR from residents. Doan said all comments from the public will be included in the final EIR, and Catalyst Environmental Solutions will attempt to answer all the questions posed.
Multiple residents requested that the council postpone the final decision until after the results of the November election, which includes SB1137. One Long Beach resident, Anna Christensen, asked that Signal Hill host another public hearing in a larger location and make a greater effort to promote it before moving forward in the process. Doan said the City will consider both options.
Residents can send in written comments on the draft EIR until June 24 by emailing cdoan@cityofsignalhill.org. All submitted comments will be included as an appendix in the final draft EIR.
The City expects for the project to go in front of the Planning Commission in another public hearing in July or August. The Planning Commission will give their recommendation to the City Council, which will host a final public hearing estimated to be held in September, but subject to change.
View a full copy of the draft EIR by visiting cityofsignalhill.org/612/Current-Projects.
Related Reading:
In the section titled “no project…”
you write “Similarly, Assembly Bill 1137 will be on the ballot in November, which would prohibit California oil companies from drilling any new oil wells..”
This sentence doesn’t make sense as written in this paragraph. Especially the word “similarity” seems to have no context.
Can you explain what this bill in “similar “ to and what it has to do with “the no project alternative?”