Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07.17.1989J,. <"' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 17, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:34 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ingell (excused) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked questions regarding whether this matter had been properly noticed and whether or not there was a quorum. Mr. Schubach stated that the matter was publicly noticed in the newspapers; however, the sites themselves were not posted. He stated that there was no mailing to surrounding residents because it is not a legal requirement. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the site had previously been µo:sted when the original assessment of whether or not an environmental impact report was necessary. He said that this posting was approximately two years ago, at which time a hearing was held to make a determination on the EIR. TO RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION FACILITY AT THE CITY YARD, 555 6TH STREET, AND AT SOUTH SCHOOL, 446 VALLEY DRNE Chmn. Rue discussed the issue of whether there was a quorum. He stated that he may have a conflict of interest in this matter. Mr. Lee stated that he had been advised that Chmn. Rue had previously entered into a lease agreement Macpherson Oil Company, which relates to this draft EIR. He stated that he would like to ask questions and base his opinion on the answers given. Mr. Lee asked whether Chmn. Rue has a lease with Macpherson Oil that potentially nets an income source of approximately $250 within a 12-month period. Chmn. Rue was unaware of the dollar amount of the income. He stated that he entered into the lease several years ago with Macpherson, when they first negotiated to do oil drilling. Macpherson paid $100 to Mr. Rue; there has since been no other payment by Macpherson. He could not foresee what the income might be, stating that it probably depends upon the success of this project. l P .C. Minutes 7 / 17 /89 ~. ~-.:.,. Mr. Lee asked whether the terms of the lease provide Chmn. Rue with an annual income as a result of keeping an option open under the lease. Chmn. Rue replied that he was not aware of such a term, explaining that he is not knowledgeable of the terms of the lease. He stated that it has been quite some time since he entered into this agreement. Don Macpherson, Jr., 1062 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, addressed the Commission. He stated that the lease is a ten-year lease, of which rentals were prepaid six years in advance. The amount of the prepaid rentals was approximately $100. Mr. Lee asked that in the event the oil drilling is approved and is subsequently successful, would there be any other income sources or business interests evolving from this lease. Mr. Macpherson replied in the affirmative, explaining that there would be royalty interest. Mr. Lee asked how many other properties have entered into agreements with Macpherson which are subject to this same matter. Mr. Macpherson stated that his area of interest involves approximately 1400 lots; however, he was not aware of the exact number today. Mr. Macpherson, in response to a question from Mr. Lee, stated that there are approximately 700 leases, noting that some of those leases may well be with multiple lots. Mr. Lee stated that it appears Chmn. Rue would have no gmi.1tct of interest in this matter in terms of his participation in this hearing. Given the significant extent of the effect of these potential oil drilling operations and the fact that at this point approximately ten percent of the City's land is similarly affected as is Chmn. Rue's, he did not feel there is a conflict because his interest is substantially the same as that of a significant portion of the public. Mr. Lee felt that Chmn. Rue would therefore be in a good position to proceed with this public hearing. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 11, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the environmental impact report, subject to the condition that an adequate and accurate response be provided for each comment received from the public and all agencies. In 1984 two oil drilling exceptions were approved by the voters. Ordinance No. 84-7 58 excepted the City maintenance yard from a drilling prohibition and allows the City to drill into the tidelands and other on-shore areas within the City. To the extent that monies can be diverted from the tidelands trust, such monies will be used for open space and parkland purposes. Under Ordinance No. 84-759, the school district has the right to drill from the South School Site to oil and gas deposits on shore. Once the ballot measure was approved, the City began drafting an oil code to regulate oil and gas development by new developers. After several drafts which were reviewed by the Oil Recovery Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, a 2 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 ··, .~· comprehensive oil code was adopted regulating new oil and gas development. Any driller must obtain a conditional use permit from the City, and drilling must take place from one or both of the voter-approved sites. After the oil code was completed, the City filed an application with the State Lands Commission to allow for oil and gas drilling. The Commission required an EIR prior to application approval. The City Environmental Review Committee prepared an assessment of the impacts of drilling for oil. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was then proposed for the purpose of obtaining bids for the preparation of the EIR. Ultrasystems was eventually contracted to prepare the environmental impact report. The School District also had Ultrasystems prepare an EIR for drilling at the South School site. After preparation and review by the City staff and school staff of the two EIR's, both the City and the School District determined that a joint EIR would be appropriate and consequently had the two documents merged into one. The joint development was found environmentally superior to two separate operations. Once the draft document was complete, it was distributed to State and County agencies and to City departments for review and comment. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Don Macpherson, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he would be presenting a slide show as he gave his presentation. Mr. Macpherson showed a slide depicting a suggested park setting along the railroad right of way, of which the oil revenues would be funding for. A hydrocarbon recovery site was developed in 1956. Approximately 60 wells were drilled at that site. The Hermosa Beach drill site is shown to the north of the City maintenance yard. The project would include a similar type development program whereby wells would be bottomed, both on shore and in tideland area. Mr. Macpherson discussed Ballot Measure P in 1984 and Ballot Measure L in 1987, both voted on by the citizens of Hermosa Beach in favor of oil drilling with the use of the revenue to purchase parks and open space. The estimated revenue is approximately $61 million over 20 years, of which $22.5 million would be dedicated for parks and recreation funds, $19.5 million for tideland related revenue funds, $17 million to private lot owners within the City, and approximately $2 million to the Hermosa School District. Mr. Macpherson discussed the utility user tax by the City, of which the oil revenue may lead to an early retirement of. The utility user tax was levied by the City to purchase the right of way, and oil revenues are dedicated to purchase parks and open space such as the railroad right of way. Mr. Macpherson showed a slide depicting an example of another urban drill site in Beverly Hills located on the Beverly Hills High School property right next to the Century City Medical Center and Hospital. It is also surrounded by high-rise and low-rise residential. It is an example of a soundproof electric project which is being conducted in 3 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 ,. -, ... today's technology, and it is the type of project being proposed here which can be done with no adverse impact to the community. Mr. Macpherson stated that the project is broken down into three phases. The first phase is the test phase. During this time, the City yard would be the only property used in the project. The site preparation would be approximately one month. Afterwards, the drilling of three wells would take place. It takes approximately one month to drill a well. After the three wells are drilled, the testing phase would begin. The wells would be produced to determine their productivity rates for the further development design. During the drilling operations, the project would be operated by the drilling equipment, which will all be electrified; therefore, there will be no noise or diesel motor noise emanating from the site. Mr. Macpherson stated that all work will be in accordance with the oil ordinance which regulates truck traffic as well as other aspects of the project. After the test phase, the development phase would begin. During this period additional wells would be drilled from the City yard, and the production facilities would be located on a small portion of the South School yard. The area shown on the slide depicted the South School yard. A one-acre site was voted upon, and the voters favored developing the South School site. This would be one acre out of approximately 4.6 acres. The production facilities would only be utilizing approximately one half of one acre on that yard. During this period, the truck traffic will be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM. All the equipment is electrically operated. The facilities will be soundproofed, and the drilling operations are regulated by the State of California Division of Oil and Gas, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Hermosa Beach City Ordinance. The project phasing would include the test phase, which is approximately one to nine months; the development phase, which would be one to 39 months; and the production phase, which would be approximately 20 years. Mr. Macpherson showed a slide of the City maintenance yard from Loma Drive and 6th Street looking east. During the drilling, which is approximately one to 39 months, a wall would be erected, and a soundproof rig would be installed. Mr. Macpherson showed a slide depicting the yard from Ardmore and 6th Street looking west. During the drilling operations, a wall would be constructed around the school yard, trees would be installed, and a sound proof rig would be installed. After the drilling period of one to 39 months, the production phase would begin. Mr. Macpherson showed a slide depicting the long-term view of the project. The only site that will be seen is the wall and the trees, which will remain. After the drilling is completed, the rig is removed and will not return. Mr. Macpherson showed a sample view of the City yard during the production phase looking across from Ardmore and 6th Street to the west. In summary, the project is revenue over a twenty-year lifetime, with $61 million dollars of revenue to the City, public, and schools; of which $22.5 million is dedicated to the purchase of parks and recreational facilities; $19.5 million related to tideland-related funds; $17 million to the private lot owners; and $2 million to the Hermosa Beach School District. 4 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 .. .-t. •' Mr. Macpherson stated that these projections are based not on his own projections, but rather on the reserve calculations of an independent analysis done by the City. All the economic benefits are based on the reserves figured by Mr. Richard Hester. Macpherson Oil believes that the estimates are very conservative, and the revenues will actually be much greater than projected here. Mr. Macpherson stated that a possible use of revenue is the purchase of the railroad right of way and open space, retirement of the utility users tax, and repair and improvement of the pier and other beach access related expenditures such as parking, beach maintenance, etc. Chmn. Rue requested that people specifically address the environmental impact report at this time, stating that the merits of the actual project are not at issue at this time. Mike Levine, attorney representing the Pacific Villa Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission. He stated that the condominiums are located at Valley Drive adjacent to the South School site. He questioned Chmn. Rue's participation in this hearing, noting that he felt there is a conflict of interest in light of the fact that $17 million could be going to leaseholders. Mr. Levine questioned whether Section 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that the school site shall be open space. In 1984 an initiative was passed requiring the South School site to remain as open space. He felt this was not to be changed unless there is a vote of the people. He studied the Hermosa Beach code, and the permitted uses do not include what is being proposed at this time, such as drilling, storage tanks, and City maintenance area. He said these uses can be allowed only by a vote of the people on that site. He requested that the City Attorney look into this matter. Mr. Levine felt that the EIR addresses the question of a possible nuisance. He stated that this will create a nuisance, and the report even recognizes this fact. He felt that there could be liability to the City. Comm. Peirce asked Mr. Lee to clarify the 1984 vote. He asked whether the 1984 ordinance must be changed by a vote of the people or whether it can be changed by the City Council. Mr. Lee stated that if this were a designation of land use undertaken by an initiative, an ordinance that sets the zoning for a particular property, an amendment to that zoning would have to be by an initiative as well. However, he understood that there was an exception within the initiative which allowed for this particular type of use. He noted that he has not had an opportunity to review the ordinance to verify whether, in fact, that exception has been carved out. He stated that he would study the issue further and bring back an opinion on the matter. Comm. Peirce felt that there would need to be a zone change to allow oil storage on this site. Mr. Lee felt that the 1984 ordinance carved out an exception which would allow this use. However, he must study the matter further. If there is no exception, there would need to be a vote of the people. Mr. Schubach stated that the previous City Attorney determined that because of the exception in the initiative, there can be oil drilling at the school site and the City yard. Based on the opinion of the former attorney, this matter is now being pursued. 5 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 ~ . .... < Mr. Schubach stated that it might be necessary to have an ordinance to implement the initiative. He said that it may be appropriate to add the use to the permitted use list of the open space zone as well; however, a zone change would not be necessary. Mr. Levine referred to the ordinance and stated that Section 84-759 addressing oil drilling at the school site does only that; it says nothing about storage tanks or maintenance at the site. He stated that at the same time this was passed by a bare majority, 90 percent of the City voted to maintain the school site as open space. According to Section 4016 of the Election Code, the one with the larger vote prevails. He requested the City Attorney to look into this issue. Chmn. Rue asked Mr. Lee to research this issue and report back to the Planning Commission. George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and read into the record his entire five-page letter to the Commission which was received on July 17, 1989. Chuck Hilley, 209 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, president of the Pacific Villa Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission and stated that the draft EIR should not be certified because it is inadequate, and it should be certified as a final version. He recommended that a new EIR be prepared and another hearing held. He passed out a copy of his written review of the document. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that this proposal will be favorable to the City. She has read the entire EIR, and she disagrees only with the plans to build a maintenance yard at the school site, since there are other available locations. Ms. Burt continued by discussing other oil wells in the City, and she gave background information on those wells. She also discussed the advantages which would be reaped by drilling oil wells in the City. Ms. Burt stated that the EIR was done at the direction of the City, not the oil company. She stated that the document is comprehensive and better than any she has seen in the City in the 30 years she has been here. Les Berry, 237 Valley Drive, voiced opposition to the EIR based on the following reasons: (1) it is a bad report and obscure; (2) it raises more questions than it answers; (3) it should be returned, completed, and resubmitted to the voters. Ken Conklin, 501 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, recommended that the EIR not be certified for the following reasons: (1) it is incomplete, inconsistent, and contains errors; (2) the noise monitoring did not take into account all the areas where the noise would be particularly loud based on the shape of the valley and the way the sound travels; (3) the EIR recommends that trucks make trips to and from the maintenance yard between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM daily --this would be a truck every five minutes along Valley Drive; (4) the report does not fully address the ramifications of truck noise; (5) the EIR refers to "windy conditions", but is very vague; (6) the EIR does not address the health impacts related to dust and fumes during construction and during the life of the oil production; (7) the EIR makes no mention of liability in the event there are injuries caused by dust or fumes; (8) safety factors in terms of a blow-out are addressed in the EIR as an "insignificant adverse effect." He felt any blow out would be a major event; (9) the report does not address the socioeconomic aspects of changing a residential area into an oil producing area. 6 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 .. , Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, stated that the current City maintenance yard is not well maintained. He stated that he has submitted an extensive report dated July 17, 1989, which he prepared on the draft EIR. He continued by explaining how he prepared his report. Mr. Morley expressed concern over the quality of life. He questioned the consequences of the actions being proposed. He noted that the City cannot sever itself from liability as a result of this project. He noted that oil workers as well as locals could die as a result of this. He worried that hydrogen sulphide fumes could escape and cause death. Mr. Morley stated that there was a lack of publicity in the press regarding this hearing. He therefore felt it would be appropriate to continue this matter so that more people, especially professionals, can comment on the EIR. Mr. Morley questioned how the conclusions were reached in the EIR, and where the basis is for assumption. He suggested that the matters be pursued in depth. He requested that the matter be continued so that additional input can be obtained. Mr. Morley stated that most proponents of oil drilling seem to feel it is necessary to "get" all the oil before Redondo Beach gets it. He stated that there is no urgency in this matter; the oil will still be there in thirty years. He stated that there is no loss of revenue if this action is not taken now. Mary Berry, 441 Second Street, urged the Commission to delay certification of the draft EIR so that additional issues can be addressed such as: (1) traffic and the significant change which will occur on Valley; (2) safety of children crossing Valley Drive because of all the truck traffic; (3) will crossing guards need to be increased throughout the City? Florence Sachs, 225 Valley Drive, noted concern over the proposed oil rig, which is proposed to be 15 stories high. She questioned how something that tall will be blended into the environment. She discussed the oil wells at Beverly Hills High School as depicted during the slide show. Her children went to that school, and many times they were unable to participate in sports activities because the oil was spewing all over the fields. Ms. Sachs questioned selling out the paradise of Hermosa Beach in exchange for "open space" when the City already has open space. She stated that logic is lacking in this proposal. Shelly Ann Schaeffer, 426 33rd Street, Hermosa Beach, confirmed that she also attended Beverly Hills High, and many times there was oil spewing out onto the playing fields. She stated that the comparative analysis which was made during the slide presentation was flawed because the surrounding area of Beverly Hills High is very different from Hermosa Beach. Lloyd Spears, 261 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, complained that the EIR reads as though it were written by a public relations person for Macpherson. He felt that the report casually dismisses environmental and safety concerns. Brent Harris, 416 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over: (1) the EIR makes no mention of electric trucks or soundproofing of oil rigs as mentioned during the slide presentation; (2) statements concerning the operation time of 8:00 AM until 7:00 PM, which he feels are excessive, since the bulk of residents return home at 5:00 P.M.; (3) hydrogen sulphide which is a very toxic gas and should be deemed as such; (4) the EIR 7 P .C. Minutes 7 / 17 /89 . ~ .. •'• ' makes no mention of who will pay for the cost of relocating the maintenance yard --he hoped the oil company would pay; (5) toxic waste under the City yard, of which there is no mention in the EIR of impacts of disturbing that site, cost of removal, or the impacts to the residents; (6) he disagreed with relocating the maintenance yard to the school site because it is inconsistent with the zoning which is open space; (7) gasoline tanks on site at the City yard which may possibly be leaking and could cause damage to the water supply. Mr. Harris stated that it is not clear whether the production facility and maintenance area will be under ten percent as required to be allowed on the open space area. Mr. Harris agreed with previous comments made about using oil drilling revenue to acquire open space when the City already has open space, noting that the school site is 4.6 acres of open space and one of the largest areas of open space in the City. To allow oil production instead of open space use at that location makes no sense to him. Richard Corvelli, 3408 Sanwood Street, Lakewood, representing the State of California Division of Oil and Gas, an agency of the Department of Conservation, stated that he would be available to answer any questions as they arise. Cindy Wagner, 433 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, requested that the draft EIR not be approved at the present time. She stated that she purchased her home because she did not want to live anywhere near an industrial area. Don Little, 215 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, stated that the EIR makes no mention of repairs to Valley Drive, noting that it cannot accommodate heavy truck traffic. He also noted that blow-outs can spew everywhere. The report minimizes blow-outs; however, they can be quite dangerous and should be addressed in the rep.ei:t .. Ken Marks, 223 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the safety of the oil drilling operation. He stated that he has worked as a roughneck plant operator for the oil companies, and he continued by describing tactics which were used for oil projects he has worked on. Mr. Marks stated that oil companies will do almost anything to get their projects approved. He felt that the money being promised will probably never be seen by the City. Mr. Marks noted concern over any hazardous effects from this oil drilling. He noted concern over the noise and traffic. He stated that Valley Drive is already very congested. Mr. Marks noted concern over Chmn. Rue's oil lease and questioned how he obtained the lease. Chmn. Rue noted that the City Attorney advised that he can participate in this hearing. He stated that he will look at this matter as a resident of Hermosa Beach. Mr. Marks noted concern over this project, stating that oil companies will do anything to get their projects approved. He did not believe anything that has been said by the oil company. Harry Smith, 423 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that the EIR is a complete fabrication, noting that it says there will be no noise or air pollution, and the safety will be great. 8 P .C. Minutes 7 / 17 /89 ... ;- Pamela Davis, 275 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the safety of her cat. She noted that the EIR makes no mention of the noise impacts related to people who work at home during the day, such as she does. She noted concern over noise, safety, and her property value. She felt that the EIR's blase tone does not address these concerns. Scott Warren, 3006 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, felt that Ultrasystems made an attempt to be comprehensive in their study, and they addressed many issues; however, some could be addressed even more. Mr. Warren discussed hydrocarbon sulphide, stating that to his knowledge there have been no problems with it in Redondo Beach. He did not feel there would be any difference between the wells in Redondo and in Hermosa since they are in the same oil bearing unit. Mr. Warren stated that there are natural offshore oil seeps which have existed for thousands of years and which would be relieved by oil drilling. He said that the drilling would relieve pressure on the oil seeps. He continued by discussing other oil seeps in Santa Barbara. Mr. Warren stated that the underground storage tanks at the maintenance yard contain hazardous waste, and this project needs to address that issue. He felt that if the oil company were required to clean up this area, it would be a potential benefit of cleaning up an existing problem. Chmn. Rue discussed traffic mitigation and stated that 800 barrels would trucked back and forth per day. He asked how many barrels a truck holds and how many trucks up to 800 would that be before the pipeline would be built. Don Demars, Director of Environmental Services of Ultrasystems, stated that he has reviewed the written comments which have been received. He stated that there were many valid concerns which merit a response. He noted, however, that several issues must be studied before answers can be given. Mr. Demars stated that he would recommend that all comments and questions of the Commission and public, as well as written comments which have been received from the public, be addressed. He recommended that these comments be responded to in writing. The written concerns and responses can then be appended to the draft EIR which will go forward as a final EIR. Mr. Demars stated that he would like to hear the questions and comments of the Commission, and he will respond in a written document. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the procedure for EIR's, stated that he concurs with the recommendation of Mr. Demars. He stated that the written responses would be prepared and brought back to the Commission at a future meeting once the document is finished and copies are printed. He stated that it is difficult to predict how long this will take. He therefore suggested that the hearing be continued for several months. Chmn. Rue asked whether it would be possible to renotice the hearing of this matter as well as to post the sites. Mr. Schubach recommended that this matter be continued to a date certain. The matter could also be noticed prior to the hearing. However, if this is posted as a new hearing, it 9 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 . ,, ~ .,, :- would be necessary to take additional new comments which would need to have written responses. He cautioned that this could take quite some time. Mr. Schubach stated that the public would have an opportunity to review the responses and return at the continued hearing to comment on those responses. Mr. Schubach recommended that there not be a new hearing with additional comments, noting that this has not been the policy of the City Council in the past. Chmn. Rue voiced his comments: 1. Emergency responses --what agency is responsible for emergency responses, and who would bear the cost of such responses. 2. Noise and the possibility of using the noise meter --who would pay for the noise monitoring, and how often would it be done. 3. Odors and discharge into the air --how are these problems monitored, and what agency would monitor it. 4. Site of the 135-foot drilling rig which will be there for three years --He wants to see a projected drawing or schematic depicting how far it can be seen and what kinds of shadows it will throw. 5. Run-off water treatment --where and how will the treatment be taken care of. Comm. Ketz noted her comments: 1. Public safety and what kind of public plan would be developed in the event of a blow-out or gas leak and how gas leaks would be detected. 2. Noise section should be broken down into site preparation, exploration, drilling, testing, and permanent production (as was done in the air quality section) This would be clearer as to which noises would be permanent. 3. Traffic and the ability of the streets to handle heavy trucks. 4. EIR mentions several different periods of time for the duration of the oil derrick. This issue needs to be addressed and clarified in the EIR. 5. Clearer definition of the type of covering to be around the facility. Comm. Peirce stated his comments: 1. Truck traffic and the restoration of Valley Drive. He wanted to ensure that the oil company is responsible for the restoration and maintenance of Valley Drive for trucks as a mitigation measure. 2. EIR makes no mention of truck spillage, droppings from motors or tanks themselves. 3. Page 10 of the EIR discusses an oil/gas separator, but no mention is made of noise and odor. 10 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89 'J,. - ... • ---4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Surface run-off of oil on the ground itself is sketchy in the report. He wants clarification on this issue. EIR does not address the issue of how much open space will be lost, what the effect will be, and what the mitigation measures will be. Page 126 mentions property values, but no information has been presented. He wants comparable data from other cities. Compliance to and enforcement of oil safety measures. He wants this issue clarified. Who will pay for the City yard location. The EIR needs to show a credible plan depicting the location of the trucks and so forth. Noise as it relates to people who work in their homes during the daytime hours and what the impacts will be. He felt that trucks coming and going for 11 hours seems to be excessive. The EIR does not list the impacts of the noise. 10. City yard and ensurance that it will be cleaned up and maintained before the drilling starts. Chmn. Rue thanked the members of the audience for their testimony and input. Mr. Schubach suggested continuing this meeting to the second meeting in September so that there is adequate time to receive comments, respond to comments, review the documents, and r'eturn them to the Commission. Mr. Levine asked how much time the citizens will have to review the responses to comments. Chmn. Rue stated that there will be approximately a four-week review period. Copies will be available in the library, as well as many offices in City Hall. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Department will loan out copies of the document. Chmn. Rue, in response to a question from the audience, explained the procedure which will be followed in regard to the comments and responses. Comm. Peirce suggested that when this matter is heard again in September, new comments can be heard; however, those comments will not necessarily require a written response. Mr. Lee clarified the process followed for certifying an EIR, explaining that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council, who will then make the final determination. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to: (1) continue this hearing to the second meeting in September; (2) direct that a newspaper notice be placed before the hearing and signs be placed on the City yard as well as the South School site. 11 P .C. Minutes 7 / 17 /89 'I!( • .. r AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ingell Public Hearing continued to the second meeting in September by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 9:27 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 17, 1989. D~ 12 P.C. Minutes 7/17/89