Two council members are angry about being ignored regarding a new proposal for a liquefied natural gas facility.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Mayor Pro Tem Pamela Conley Ulich and Council-member Andy Stern blasted a city of Los Angeles official last Wednesday at a hearing at the LAX Marriot for failing to notify anybody in Malibu about the session on the proposed OceanWay liquefied natural gas facility. Although the facility would not be visible from Malibu, and will pipe LNG through the city of Los Angeles and into Inglewood, its closes mainland area is 21 miles away from Point Dume.
“We never got notice and you knew we were the closest ones,” Conley Ulich said during the hearing. “What was that about? I’m very disturbed. I’m very upset that you have no courtesy to the people most affected by this project.”
Stern added, “Why aren’t we in a local Malibu place, Webster School, Malibu High? I long for the BHP Billiton days when we at least had the respect where they came to the place where the people are affected.”
Last week’s hearing, which served the purpose of seeking comments for the drafting of the project’s environmental impact report and environmental impact statement, took place before a panel that included representatives from the U.S. Maritime Administration, U.S. Coast Guard and the city of Los Angeles Public Works Department. Because the project includes pipelines going through a Los Angeles city-owned beach, Los Angeles officials get to vote on it. This includes the City Council (a decision the mayor can veto; the council can overturn a veto with a three-fourths majority), the Airport Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission. The State Lands Commission, which voted on the recently rejected BHP Billiton LNG project, does not get to review this project. The California Coastal Commission has a vote, and the governor can veto the project or make changes to it. The U.S. Maritime Administration has that authority as well.
Tanya Durrell, a public affairs official for Los Angeles, said in an interview this week that Malibu officials were not notified about the hearing because they “were not from a responsible or cooperative agency” involved in the project.
Stern said this week upon hearing Durrell’s reasoning, “When an agency seeks public comment, it should go as far and wide to get those comments, not just settle for some technical definition that excludes interested parties.”
Durrell said Malibu officials would be noticed when hearings begin on the EIR/EIS.
The Oceanway LNG project is being proposed by Woodside Energy, an Australian company that states on its Web site it is “Australia’s largest publicly traded oil and gas exploration company.” The project calls for two regasification ships to receive LNG from overseas carriers. After being warmed, the natural gas would be piped ashore through the city of Los Angeles and LAX to a receiving station in Inglewood.
More than 100 people attended last week’s hearing, with most of them speaking against the project. Many of the opponents were active opponents of the defeated BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port project.
“LNG is wrong in our backyard,” said Alan Sanders, conservation chair for the Sierra Club and a Ventura County resident ” And it’s wrong in your backyard too. I would hope that the consultants will take heed from the comments that are made today, which are really similar to the ones made about the [BHP] Billiton project.”
The opposition comments included concern about the ships’ danger to whales and possible danger from the pipelines that would transport the LNG fuel ashore. Some people said it also made LAX an increased target for terrorism.
Several people living near the airport, and officials representing various trade unions, spoke in favor of the project.
“I applaud OceanWay for designing a system that places the community’s interests and concerns at the forefront,” said Mike Arias, president of the Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa del Rey. “They have designed a natural gas import project that will be located so far from our homes that most of us will never know it’s there.”
The application for the OceanWay project can be found at the United States Department of Transportation’s Docket Management System Web site, www.dms.dot.gov. The docket number for this project is 26844. The site can also be used to submit comments on the project. Comments must be made by Oct. 15.