What is the Worst Feature of the Prop...

What is the Worst Feature of the Proposed Montebello Hills Condo Development?

Created by 42 yr North Mtb resident on Jan 4, 2014

87 votes

Click on an option to vote

Structural City Budget Deficit up to $1 million

Polluted Oil Dust from 10 years of Grading.

Increased Traffic on already Busy Mtb Blvd

Increased Traffic on already Busy San Gabriel Blvd

Decreased Property Values for existing Homes

Cancer, other Diseases risks by Oil FieldEmissions

Unlimited Liability to City from Potential Claims

The Killing of Half of Animals and Plants in hills

Loss of Significant Potential Parkland Resource

Loss of Natural Area for Future Generations

Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#41 Mar 3, 2014
Wonder why wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting that L.A. Is moving proactively to protect citizens health by halting (at least until more info on possible dangers is available) oil well stimulation techniques. Meanwhile, here in Montebello we have the Chamber of Commerce, and other folk who think they (or their organization) would benefit, demanding that housing for vulnerable families be built on top of the active Montebello Hills oilfield. Where is their concern for the health dangers these families would face from the chemicals and fumes that result from oil production?
Where is the Sierra Club's concern for the "health dangers" thousands of families would "face fro the chemicals and fumes that result from oil production" if its vision of some great park were to happen?

http://angeles.sierraclub.org/environmental/i...
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#42 Mar 3, 2014
The Sierra Club's vision is for a park that would be built after all oil production activities stop.
This would happen when the oil field is no longer operating.

By law, when an oil/gas well has reached the end of it's productive life, the company responsible for the well is required to permanently plug it in what is called a "well abandonment" process. The owner of the well remains responsible for it's maintenance in case of future leaks or other problems.

For example, in Culver City, a small dog park was built on a portion of an oil field that was no longer in use. In 2010, city workers discovered that an abandoned well on the property was leaking fluid and methane gas. The park was closed and the responsible companies were contacted. The park remained closed until repairs were completed.
City of Culver City - Official Courtesy Notification
http://culvercitydogpark.org/downloads/Public...

One of the biggest problems with the proposed Montebello Hills housing development is that the company who owns the mineral rights in the oil field plans to continue it's oil extraction and production activities even after the proposed homes are built. Some of the proposed homes would be located as close as 150 feet away from ACTIVE oil/gas wells.
Long Beach Observer

West Covina, CA

#43 Mar 3, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the Sierra Club's concern for the "health dangers" thousands of families would "face fro the chemicals and fumes that result from oil production" if its vision of some great park were to happen?
http://angeles.sierraclub.org/environmental/i...
Who's talking about the Sierra Club? Last I heard, it was the people of Montebello who want more parkland. It's the residents of Montebello who have concern for the health dangers of active oil production. It's the voters of Montebello who want the city not to have a millstone around their necks that this condo project would be. It's the residents who want a great park.

The real issue is saving the city from the financial, liability and health disaster these condos could bring, not some red herring distraction.
Concerned Bystander

Whittier, CA

#44 Mar 3, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the Sierra Club's concern for the "health dangers" thousands of families would "face fro the chemicals and fumes that result from oil production" if its vision of some great park were to happen?
http://angeles.sierraclub.org/environmental/i...
Where is the Chamber of Commerce's concern for the health dangers thousands of families would face if the condos were to come?
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#45 Mar 4, 2014
ytw wrote:
The Sierra Club's vision is for a park that would be built after all oil production activities stop.
This would happen when the oil field is no longer operating.
So when would that be? 2050? 60? 70?
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#46 Mar 4, 2014
Montebello Hills Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
Appendix V
Analysis of Impacts of Oil Operations on Montebello Hills Specific Plan Residential Development

P.3

3.0 Description of Ongoing Oil Field Operations

As discussed above, PXP is modernizing and upgrading the existing oil operations at the site as part of the ongoing oil operations, which will continue to operate through the oil overlay zone under the MHSP. It is expected that these ongoing operations could continue for another 50 years or more. The remainder of this section provides a description of the ongoing oil operations that could continue for the next 50 years or more.

http://www.cityofmontebello.com/dept /planning_n_community_developm ent/planning_division/montebel lo_hills_specific_plan.asp

PXP = Plains Exploration & Production
In 2013, PXP was bought by Freeport McMoRan.
http://www.fcx.com/news/2013/053113.pdf
ytw

Alhambra, CA

#47 Mar 4, 2014
Name Withheld

Alhambra, CA

#48 Mar 4, 2014
Fluctuations in the price of crude oil, rising production costs, a faster-than-anticipated rate of resource depletion, increased government regulation, natural disasters, accidents, and other unknown factors will influence the decision to abandon an oil field. It's possible a combination of these factors may influence a decision to abandon the Montebello field much sooner than expected.

Freeport McMoRan may decide it's more cost effective to concentrate it's attention on current oil production activities in the Montebello field rather than risk hurting their profit margin by pursuing an unpopular surface development plan with a predictable increase in public scrutiny.
Concerned Bystander

Alhambra, CA

#49 Mar 4, 2014
With the trend for the foreseeable future being an increase in petroleum product prices, it is more likely that the 100 or so wells on standby might be reactivated, especially if new fracking technology improves the ability to extract previously unreachable oil and gas.

Then there would be 200 or so wells producing, with the concurrent increased risks from well leakage.

While there is a chance that the field might be played out sooner, it is more likely that the field might still be producing after the 50 year mark.

What could happen is that part of the oilfield could be decommissioned and become a park and other parts could continue producing, as has happened in Baldwin Hills, Culver City, and other areas.
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#50 Mar 5, 2014
Name Withheld wrote:
Fluctuations in the price of crude oil, rising production costs, a faster-than-anticipated rate of resource depletion, increased government regulation, natural disasters, accidents, and other unknown factors will influence the decision to abandon an oil field. It's possible a combination of these factors may influence a decision to abandon the Montebello field much sooner than expected.
Freeport McMoRan may decide it's more cost effective to concentrate it's attention on current oil production activities in the Montebello field rather than risk hurting their profit margin by pursuing an unpopular surface development plan with a predictable increase in public scrutiny.
It's not clear how much Freeport McMoran executives actually know about the situation in Montebello. The head of the would-be development company, Cook-Hill Properties LLC, is Also the head of the Freeport McMoran subsidiary, Cane River Development Co. lLC, to which Cook-Hill reports. The contract between Cook-Hill and Freeport McMoran's subsidiary, Montebello Land Company LLC (which holds the surface land rights), Requires that the same person, Lodwrick Cook, hold both of these positions. It also requires that Cook-Hill report to Cane River. Talk about a bottleneck.

Additionally the head of Freeport McMoran's Oil And Gas Division is James Flores. Mr. Flores appears to be a longtime associate of Lodwrick Cook. Lodwrick Cook, at least in the past, wielded a lot of clout in the business and political communities. In such situations sometimes friendship and crony interests trump those of a company's shareholders.
Concerned Bystander

Alhambra, CA

#51 Mar 9, 2014
I understand that the Montebello oil spill and other Freeport McMoRan (Formerly PXP, the current owner of the Mtb Hills) activities were cited by supporters of the fracking moratorium recently passed the LA City PLUM committee.

If PXP, now Freeport, hadn't applied to build condos in the hills, their transgressions in Montebello might have gone under the radar.
Compassion for the family

West Covina, CA

#52 Mar 17, 2014
How can anyone who believes in God sanction death and disease on others for money?
Concerned Bystander

West Covina, CA

#53 Apr 2, 2014
With the recent shaking, the unlimited liability to the city is starting to look like the likeliest danger.
reality check

Rosemead, CA

#54 Apr 2, 2014
pay me now AND pay me later and the liability
except for some up front baksheeshes (sucker money)
but by the time it's time to pay the piper the current officeholders will be long gone leaving the next generation to hold the bag
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#55 Apr 4, 2014
ytw wrote:
The Sierra Club's vision is for a park that would be built after all oil production activities stop.
So the Sierra Club wants my community to sit and wait 50 years for a park that quite possibly might never happen. In the meantime the city continues to stagnate and decay because we have no new meaningful housing to attract new generations, no new sources of revenue to shore up our finances and adequately staff our police and fire department, and no new parks for TODAY's youth to play on. Nope, the Sierra Club would have us sit around - probably until after most of us are long gone - and hope for a park on land we don't own and can't afford to buy.
trash talk

Rosemead, CA

#56 Apr 4, 2014
No reason to wait till all oilfield activities stop.
I support pumping oil
I also support re-opening the hills to public access
The Gnatcatchers can co-exist with people nearby
They cannot exist with condos

see you next week
Witty Whittierite

Whittier, CA

#57 Apr 4, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Sierra Club wants my community to sit and wait 50 years for a park that quite possibly might never happen. In the meantime the city continues to stagnate and decay because we have no new meaningful housing to attract new generations, no new sources of revenue to shore up our finances and adequately staff our police and fire department, and no new parks for TODAY's youth to play on. Nope, the Sierra Club would have us sit around - probably until after most of us are long gone - and hope for a park on land we don't own and can't afford to buy.
Golly! Maybe you want homes and parks in the middle of a refinery, too? If the land is too dangerous to build on, you don't care? Also, who wants the city to buy anything? Should your name be Straw Man Arguements, or is this another of your Red Herrings??

I know you dont know much about the condo proposal, but if you look on your city's website, you will see that the developer says that the County Assessor values all the hills at about $8 million. Why can't the city afford to buy that? I wonder why this land is so cheap? Maybe because of all the pollution from a hundred years of oil production, or has Noguez struck again?

I'm glad my city, Whittier, doesn't yet have these exact issues to worry about.
Compassion for the family

Alhambra, CA

#58 Apr 4, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Sierra Club wants my community to sit and wait 50 years for a park that quite possibly might never happen. In the meantime the city continues to stagnate and decay because we have no new meaningful housing to attract new generations, no new sources of revenue to shore up our finances and adequately staff our police and fire department, and no new parks for TODAY's youth to play on. Nope, the Sierra Club would have us sit around - probably until after most of us are long gone - and hope for a park on land we don't own and can't afford to buy.
You may have the answer to my question. How can anyone who believes in God sanction death and disease on others for money?
Red Herring

Montebello, CA

#59 Apr 7, 2014
Witty Whittierite wrote:
<quoted text>Golly! Maybe you want homes and parks in the middle of a refinery, too? If the land is too dangerous to build on, you don't care? Also, who wants the city to buy anything? Should your name be Straw Man Arguements, or is this another of your Red Herrings??
I know you dont know much about the condo proposal, but if you look on your city's website, you will see that the developer says that the County Assessor values all the hills at about $8 million. Why can't the city afford to buy that? I wonder why this land is so cheap? Maybe because of all the pollution from a hundred years of oil production, or has Noguez struck again?
I'm glad my city, Whittier, doesn't yet have these exact issues to worry about.
I don't believe the land is too dangerous to build onů.no more so than some of the other communities that have been recently constructed near or on oil fields. I've mentioned them before. Promontory in Signal Hill, for example.

Have you seen Montebello's streets lately? It's like driving on the moon in some spots. Our fire and police departments are understaffed. Our city is understaffed. Our parks are in terrible shape. And you want the city to spend $8 million for an oil field so you can make it a park? Maybe Whittier has that kind of money. Montebello doesn't.

You worry about Whittier, I'll worry about my city.
Witty Whittierite

Whittier, CA

#60 Apr 7, 2014
Red Herring wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the land is too dangerous to build onů.no more so than some of the other communities that have been recently constructed near or on oil fields. I've mentioned them before. Promontory in Signal Hill, for example.
Have you seen Montebello's streets lately? It's like driving on the moon in some spots. Our fire and police departments are understaffed. Our city is understaffed. Our parks are in terrible shape. And you want the city to spend $8 million for an oil field so you can make it a park? Maybe Whittier has that kind of money. Montebello doesn't.
You worry about Whittier, I'll worry about my city.
As the warden in 'Cool Hand Luke' said: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Can you answer even one of the issues raised here with any actual facts? Can you answer any issue I have actually raised? Your beliefs are between you and your God. I prefer to deal in facts. It is a FACT that there are about 300 oil wells below or near the condo proposal area, an unprecedented number. It is a FACT that active AND inactive oil wells are dangerous to life and health. It is a FACT that the State oil regulatory body recommends that NO homes be built near active or inactive oil wells.

You have yet to cite a single development that I can verify is built on an active oil field, or has no problems, and that includes the mythical Promontory, that you are unable to supply even a single informational link for.

I don't have any opinion or even any desire for your city to buy the land. Why do you keep raising that Red Herring Straw Man issue? Try to concentrate on reality.

As to Montebello's streets, yet another issue that doesn't relate to the danger of building on top of a lively active oil field, or anything else I said, building a residential development that would COST your city money hardly seems to be any help.

Even Henderson doesn't argue that it is safe to have homes near operating oil wells. He only has support here because the proposed wells in our city's hills are much further away from residences than your city's deplorable proposed condo development.

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
Get Vivian Romero out of MONTEBELLO!!!!! 1 hr Conspiracy Theories 45
Shame on you Vanessa Delgado so many lies! 1 hr Conspiracy Theories 49
So Art Thinks he Owns Our City Streets! 2 hr No more 9
Delgado STOP sending so many Flyers Enough!! Mon Enough 3
FYI we are All MATCH 90640 May 21 tic toc 10
FBI Arrest 2 Men will ties to Jack & Vanessa!! May 19 Out With Delgado 9
Montebello Audit May 19 done 20

Montebello Jobs

Personal Finance

Montebello Mortgages