Nonsense

Riverside, CA

#42 Jul 23, 2013
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, and so I must rely on the statements of lawyers in this issue.
As with virtually all the information I post here, it isn't MY 'unsubstantiated claim', but what has been stated for the last 6 years at different Montebello city council meetings, including the one study session the city council had concerning the MHSP.
The city's special attorney has stated that the (would-be) developer would be liable for problems associated with the building site for 10 years, and thereafter the city would be liable, and that claim has been repeated by various councilmembers over the years without contradiction or correction by the city lawyer present, and if you had been at city council meetings here, you would know that the city attorney (and the city's special attorney) has no misgivings about telling city councilmembers and staff when they are saying or advocating something that is not legally correct.
Perhaps some of the posters that are more cognizant about case law might post case law for you for this issue.
"Sorry, I'm not a lawyer..."

I figured as much. You're long on 15 dollar words to make two-bit assertions without any basis in the law. However, I am an attorney. The 10 year strict liability period is for construction defects only. Liability issues related to the development site (soils, etc.) rest exclusively and indefinitely with the landowner.
Nonsense

Riverside, CA

#43 Jul 23, 2013
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
<quoted text>When we moved into the Sun Ray Estates part of the La Merced area, we had to be careful about walking on the grass near the street, or we could end up knee-deep in heavy, heavy crude.
One of my old fourth of July tricks in the 1970's was to stick a shish kabob skewer into the parkway ground and then light up the sticking crude to make a flickering sword of fire.
The Union 76 company used to come out in the 1960's and 70's and dig up the parkway and do something under the ground whenever the oil would bubble up. This happened at least 4 times in front of my house.
If that is what has happened in places where oil production no longer exists, what must be happening behind the Iron Curtain that PXP threw up after buying the Hills?
If crude was oozing up through the lawn in your neighborhood, why are you still living there? I mean...if it's so dangerous and all.
Nonsense

Riverside, CA

#44 Jul 23, 2013
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
<quoted text>Some of us have taken the time to read the developer's legally binding documents.
Condo supporters prefer their non-legally binding advertising.
The undisclosed, insufficient, innacurate, and incomplete issues have been raised by those who submitted about 1,500 pages of criticism of the DEIR at city council meetings for the last 3+ years.
Some of us have been paying attention to ALL aspects of the proposed condo development.
I still notice supporters of the proposal still refuse to address any of the dangers this uniquely dangerous project poses.
Your non-lawyer limp is showing again. There are no legally binding documents prior to a project's approval. In matters of land use and entitlement, documents such as specific plans, etc. become legally binding AFTER a legislative body (city council, county board of supervisors) have approved them. At any point before that approval, those documents can be changed, modified, etc. They are certainly not legally binding until approval by a legislative body.
Nonsense

Riverside, CA

#45 Jul 23, 2013
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
A Newport Beach developer for a Houston, Texas oil company wants to build 1200 (mostly) condos on Montebello's last open space. Is there anyone who really thinks that is safe?
I don't know. Why not ask the several hundred thousand people who have been living adjacent to and on top of active and inactive oil fields for decades in Long Beach, Brea, Huntington Beach, Signal Hill, Inglewood, Wilmington, Torrance and - oh, yes - Montebello (to name a few)?
Trash talk

Los Angeles, CA

#46 Jul 23, 2013
Nonsense semantics
The must be of such veracity upon which they may be relied.
Not misleading or fraudulent.
about all they can get away with is inadequate.
CEQA requires certain "elements"
The current document is just so much cut and paste boilerplate designed to slide past Tom Calderon and his planning commission and Rosie Vaszquez and the gang of three.
Unfortunately if a developer does produce one of these inadequate (insert other descriptions here) documents the only way to deal with it is a lawsuit.
Then the proponents only fix what a judge specifically requests, leaving much unenforceable.
The first document should never have gotten out of the planning commission if it had gotten that far.
Fortunately it was obviously such a non starter that the City (whose document it technically is- not the developers) back to the drawing board.
It would have been better all around if the City had selected the most outstanding consultants in each field in the first place. At this point the new document will still be "crafted" by PXP's hand selected "consultants".
Some of which are quite good I might add but they know which side of their bread the butters on.
Trash talk

Los Angeles, CA

#47 Jul 23, 2013
"I don't know"
Nonsense
The record is clear for the PXP Baldwin Hills Oil Field and many others.
The residents enacted a Community development plan to manage and control the oil field operations
Montebello needs to do the same before consideration of any developers end run around the general plan and zoning code.
Theolona Ranger

Los Angeles, CA

#48 Jul 23, 2013
The Sierra Club hired Jan Chatten Brown of Chatten Brown And Carstens to comment on the previous EIR.
I suggest you read them.
As trash talk intimated the School issue affects all of Montebello.
Transportation to School is a long term issue that will cost the district money and be the responsibility of a later board after any developers fees are dissipated by a current board.
There must be transportation analysis and mitigation a long term funding solution.
Just one of the hundreds of unresolved issues.
The offer to buy a shinny yellow school bus or a shiny new fire truck is chump change.
Theolona Ranger

Los Angeles, CA

#49 Jul 23, 2013
For those thinking of other uses for the hills.
Get the new General Plan done and put those uses in context of what the City as a whole needs.
Spot development with the old general plan, no mater what it is, is bad planning.
A community Development code is a necessity for the oil field as is a hillside development code.
Both LA City and County have recently adopted hillside development codes/ guidelines.
Montebello needs to do the same BEFORE considering specific plans.
Zaphod Beeblebrox

Montebello, CA

#50 Jul 23, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an attorney.
I am the President of the Galaxy.

Welcome to the INTERNET.
Trash Talk

Los Angeles, CA

#51 Jul 23, 2013
Open Space and Parks have the advantage of abundant fresh air.
Visit the overbuilt Rideout area in whittler with raised floors.
The evil gasses build up under the houses
All kinds of corrosion
Power ventilation 24-7
But odors and whatever gas from the Ventilators really stinks and burns the nose and eyes.
Homeowners have no recourse.
I tried to repair some very expensive stereo systems from that area one time- had to junk them
All green with corrosion.
Aluminum coils of refrigerators do not last- lots of problems Montebello does not need.
Look and Learn
TAX MAN

La Habra, CA

#52 Jul 23, 2013
Not just corp greed think about all the new taxes that the city will get, that is why city expand. corrupte poltitians, getting more tax money to bribe more people to vote for them. just that simple
ila wrote:
sure MADNESS if you ask me. But is that not what BIG CORPORATE greed is all about, never mind the health and welfare of the people living on top of such a mass as long as the pockets of such greedy people are lined with green and i don't mean environmental green, they know nothing about that. I guess they think that their children will be living in mars, so why worry about the earth.
Trash Talk

Los Angeles, CA

#53 Jul 23, 2013
Tax Man has a point
The new one time fees are considerable and inure to the current politicians and chamber of commerce/ real estate booster types.
All is wonderful
The taxes, however, are inadequate to support and sustain condos.
However that is the problem of the next generation of politicians, homeowners, school boards, voters.
Think ahead folks.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#54 Jul 23, 2013
Trash talk wrote:
Don't speak nonsense
Just recall the landslides in Laguna beach where the geotechnical consultant, the engineers and the developer all bailed and the City was left holding the bag.
Just one example- happens all the time.
now for your curtsey comment- good one
"There are too many other issues that are undisclosed? Really? If they are undisclosed, how is it you seem to know about them? "
EIR has many areas, where the subject is raised but there is no, or inadequate, or misleading answer- usually very long.
On the other hand there are obvious "undisclosed"
Take Safe routes to schools
There obviously will be children
Which school and how do they get there.
No mention of transportation, Busses.
The traffic analysis makes no mention of moms taking kids to schools by the hundreds.
It goes on from there.
The hardest part about reading through the EIR is seeing what they left out.
Dealing with obvious fabrications like the Financial Impact report is comparatively easy.
Several things left out are: Emergency evacuation plan, Fire response plan, Comprehensive anthropological examination, complete earthquake evaluation, position and danger from high-pressure gas line and hazardous waste pipeline.....

That's just what I could remember off the top of my head. Lots and lots more.
Wonder Why

United States

#55 Jul 23, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite applicable law/case law that puts authority to your unsubstantiated claim that the city and its residents assume financial liability.
I wonder if you are the would-be developer's lawyer, consultant or employee. Please do your own legal research. Info is also available from the L.A. County Assessor's office and the SEC.
Wonder Why

United States

#56 Jul 24, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sorry, I'm not a lawyer..."
I figured as much. You're long on 15 dollar words to make two-bit assertions without any basis in the law. However, I am an attorney. The 10 year strict liability period is for construction defects only. Liability issues related to the development site (soils, etc.) rest exclusively and indefinitely with the landowner.
The LANDOWNER is Montebello Land Company LLC, a subsidiary of Freeport McMoran, the company that bought PXP. Its only asset is the surface rights to the land on top of the Montebello Oil Field. If the proposed project were built, Montebello Land Company would receive the profits, devolve them unto their parent company (Freeport McMoran), then be essentially without assets, that is busted, broke. They could be sued but would have no assets from which to pay any judgment. Bankruptcy would probably follow. That's the purpose of an LLC (limited liability corporation), to protect the company's owners from liability.

Why's an Orange County lawyer (posts from Costa Mesa) so interested in Montebello?
Wonder Why

United States

#57 Jul 24, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. Why not ask the several hundred thousand people who have been living adjacent to and on top of active and inactive oil fields for decades in Long Beach, Brea, Huntington Beach, Signal Hill, Inglewood, Wilmington, Torrance and - oh, yes - Montebello (to name a few)?
Check out the articles in the Orange County Register and Orange County Weekly that have reported on the complaints of Huntington Beach residents who live on abandoned oil fields. These complaints include health problems and, in one case, an abandoned oil well opening up again on a homeowner's property.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#58 Jul 24, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sorry, I'm not a lawyer..."
I figured as much. You're long on 15 dollar words to make two-bit assertions without any basis in the law. However, I am an attorney. The 10 year strict liability period is for construction defects only. Liability issues related to the development site (soils, etc.) rest exclusively and indefinitely with the landowner.
I don't make any assertions. I just repeat what the city's lawyers and councilmembers say. What you say would be true for any normal development, however, a development built on top of an active oilfield apparently has different rules according to the city's lawyers.

If you have some legal expertise in oil field operations, and the city's special attorneys are misleading them, please attend today's city council meeting and set them straight.

Oil field operations law apparently pretty much lets an oil field operator do whatever they want to do without many legal constraints. As a lawyer, you must be aware of the giant legal battle between PXP (the current owner of the Montebello oilfield), and the cities and residents on top of and near the Inglewood oil field that has been going on for decades? Actual physical damage was done to homes and health damage to residents, but only recently have any of the plaintiffs had any legal success.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#59 Jul 24, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
If crude was oozing up through the lawn in your neighborhood, why are you still living there? I mean...if it's so dangerous and all.
Perhaps you didn't read my posting, but I said that the oil oozed up in the 1960's and 70's, and that an oil company had fixed it several times. I haven't seen surface oozing in 30 or so years.

At the time, the dangers associated with oil field operations weren't widely discussed or known.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#60 Jul 24, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
Your non-lawyer limp is showing again. There are no legally binding documents prior to a project's approval. In matters of land use and entitlement, documents such as specific plans, etc. become legally binding AFTER a legislative body (city council, county board of supervisors) have approved them. At any point before that approval, those documents can be changed, modified, etc. They are certainly not legally binding until approval by a legislative body.
I see you don't appear to have much experience in large real estate developments. According to lawyers with development experience I have spoken to, including the city's attorneys, if a developer submits fraudulent documents and/or reports in support of an application, they can be sued and held legally liable whether the development is voted on, not voted on, or even abandoned. To me, that makes them legally binding documents.

Again, if the city's, and other attorneys are incorrect in their opinions, feel free to correct them.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#61 Jul 24, 2013
Nonsense wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. Why not ask the several hundred thousand people who have been living adjacent to and on top of active and inactive oil fields for decades in Long Beach, Brea, Huntington Beach, Signal Hill, Inglewood, Wilmington, Torrance and - oh, yes - Montebello (to name a few)?
I'm mainly interested in those who live on top of active oil fields, as that is what the proposed condo development is about. Do you know of any such housing developments? Of the ones you mention, as far as I know only those in the Inglewood oil field come close to being applicable, as they are directly adjacent to hundreds of operating oil wells, but even they aren't built directly over well holes as those in the proposed Montebello Hills development would be.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Montebello Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Financial Plus Investment (Jul '08) 1 hr El Modelos Maxim 2,461
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Bruin For Life 28,762
La Mirada City Council election 1 hr Oldfart 33
Pacheco Trying to Bring in Housing for Homeless 3 hr Three Amigos 10
Pacheco Hits Royal Coaches for Lunch Today 4 hr Pig Pacheco 5
Burbank police officer commits suicide on publi... (Oct '09) 4 hr fuckere101 180
A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06) Sat Skew da Poich 4,504

Montebello News Video

Montebello Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Montebello People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:09 pm PST