Bradley’s Role in Oil Drilling

Referring to Mayor Tom Bradley’s most recent apologia for OKing drilling in the Pacific Palisades, it’s significant that he made the remark “the plan is different this time” and that “their proposal has resolved a lot of the problems he had with it,” before the City Council voted on it.

My sense of these remarks is that he wanted and looked for reasons to approve the plan long before he read the proposal. The fact of the matter is that nothing is new or different about the drilling plan. In fact, the Planning Commission said both before and after the decision was made by Bradley that it was unsafe then, it is unsafe now and nothing has changed about Occidental Petroleum’s plans to drill except the ridiculous claim that they will indemnify the city in case of an accident, which is laughable if it weren’t such a tragedy.

As for a drainage system, it always has been a possibility that we don’t need Oxy to pay for. The city has the money and could install such a system any time. Why has everyone ignored the fact that “No Oil” has raised pledges to cover a drainage system from citizens of the Westside at any time?

It also seems rather punitive of Bradley to conclude that since other neighborhoods had oil drilling that the “affluent, politically influential Palisades should not be spared.” I take that to mean that if there is one beautiful spot left in Los Angeles it should be brought down to the level of other neighborhoods that are not so beautiful. That way Los Angeles could be just one big toxic dump. I thought the ocean and the beaches were for everyone in Los Angeles.

LOIS and JAMES GARNER

Los Angeles

We, who were members of the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Citizen’s Advisory Committee (the group that drew up the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan, worked for its passage by the Los Angeles City Council, and followed it through to the enactment of zoning ordinances which implement the provisions of the plan), are deeply distressed by the article written by Mayor Tom Bradley (Editorial Pages, Jan. 25), justifying his proposal of the Occidental oil drilling application.

The mayor states that “After weighing the issues which distinguish this application from the application in 1978, I made my decision based on the facts today.” The mayor states that his conscience dictated that he approve the Occidental oil drilling application because there presently exist wells on the beach in Venice and in parks and residential neighborhoods of the city. However, those wells on the beach existed prior to any of the environmental safeguards in force today. The original drilling permits for the Venice beach were approved in the 1960s and the three additional wells recently approved for Venice by the California Coastal Commission make use of the existing site and equipment--scarcely a comparable situation.

The proposed Occidental site is not only on the beach, but at the toe of a landslide, next to the only north-south roadway along the coast, and in a residential and recreational area.

If the mayor did not encounter citizens who complain of the noise, odor and traffic generated by the operation of oil wells in residential areas, we can direct him to a number of active citizens’ groups that have complained about such operations for years! The fact that little heed is paid to them does not mean that they do not exist.

The mayor states that the Occidental proposal to “dewater” the slope will make it more stable, yet in its 1978 application Occidental stated that such a dewatering system might make the slope more unstable and the final verdict from the experts is not yet in on this controversial and much debated contention.

The mayor also stated that Occidental has offered to indemnify the city for any damage that may be caused by the drilling, recognizing the possibility of damage, and yet the city attorney’s office has publicly stated that it is doubtful (except under special circumstances) that a private company may legally bear the responsibilities normally borne by the city; nor can the applicant indemnify the city against the costs of suits brought in response to actions taken by the city.

The Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Plan, which is a legally adopted part of the Los Angeles General Plan, proposes that “no industrial use” shall be permitted in the district. Though the present Los Angeles Planning Commission made no reference to this aspect of the plan, the previous Planning Commission in 1978 did reiterate the incompatibility of the application with the prohibition of industrial use. The current Planning Commission’s “Findings” published on Oct. 4, 1984, state that the application is (1) inconsistent with the Open Space Lands designated on the Community Plan map, (2) inconsistent with the Natural Resources Conservation Element of the Community Plan, and (3) inconsistent with the low density residential and recreational zoning for this area designated in the Community Plan. It is to be remembered that the 1978 Planning Commission approved the application and that the mayor vetoed that approval; while this time, the Planning Commission rejected the application and the mayor chose to approve it.

With respect to whether or not this approval will open the way to breaching the sanctuary, which presently protects the Santa Monica Bay from the issuance of state or federal oil drilling leases, only time will tell, but it is a great risk to take and we find it hard to justify approval of the project in defiance of the Community Plan and in neglect of the present and future needs of the citizens of the entire City for industry-free recreation for relief from the urban environment.

All of the following CAC members wish to be signatories of this letter:

TOM ADAMS, Pacific Palisades; KURT ANKER, Los Angeles; EDWARD ECKELMEYER, Los Angeles; RICHARD EMERSON, Santa Monica; RUBELL HELGESON, Pacific Palisades; VAN DYCK HUBBARD, Los Angeles; CHARLES KANNER, Beverly Hills; ART KEYSER, Los Angeles; MELVILLE J. KOLLINER, Los Angeles; BETSY LATIES, Los Angeles; RAY MONTGOMERY, Los Angeles; RUTH MORTENSON, Los Angeles; BETTY NEWMAN, Pacific Palisades; JAMES SOLOMON, Santa Monica, and DOLORES WOLF, Encino.

The City Council’s and Mayor Bradley’s decision to permit Occidental to drill in the Pacific Palisades should surprise no one. It is testimony to the power of money and the effectiveness of a well-financed professional campaign in which Armand Hammer called in his chits. Isn’t that the American Way?

What is truly contemptible is the intimation that support by the Jewish community for drilling in the Palisades would encourage Hammer to explore for oil in Israel, ergo, Israel’s oil supply (and survival) is dependent upon drilling in the Palisades. What could be more preposterous and insulting to the Los Angeles Jewish community?

Israel needs all the help and friends it can get, including Armand Hammer. We Jews give support to Israel out of our heritage, because history has taught us Jews of the world must have a homeland, and because a part of us lives and dies with what happens in Israel. We ask nothing back. Whoever perpetrated that ugly propaganda to support Hammer drilling in the Palisades was talking for themselves only and not for this writer or for the Los Angeles Jewish community.

IRVING ZIEGER

Los Angeles

On behalf of No Oil’s board of directors, thank you for printing the story (March 18) of Occidental Petroleum’s cunning blitzkrieg of City Hall to obtain permission to drill for oil in Pacific Palisades.

We believe that as the public learns more about this dangerous project and about Occidental’s insidious maneuverings in employing and bestowing favors on the major power brokers in the city, the project will be stopped.

JOYCE CHERNICK

President, No Oil, Inc.

Pacific Palisades

Armand Hammer’s concern about the danger of nuclear war is not reflected in his action to pollute Pacific Palisades.

How unfortunate that politicians like Sen. Alan Cranston and Mayor Bradley are such spineless puppets. A well-heeled corporation can change our magnificent Palisades area into a slimy oil field. How tragic!

L.J. DIONNE

Laguna Niguel

Almost every letter in The Times (March 25) regarding Armand Hammer and the Pacific Palisades oil development mentions Hammer’s manipulation of the politicians. No politician can be manipulated unless he (or she) wants to be manipulated. So put the blame where it belongs.

JO FROST

Los Angeles