Panel May Delay Vote on Pipeline : Mobil Oil: The proposed 92-mile line--from Kern County to Torrance--has generated widespread public opposition.

Faced with objections from government officials and continuing public opposition, the Los Angeles Transportation Commission on Thursday considered whether to postpone a decision on a proposed oil pipeline that would run under streets from Santa Clarita to Torrance.

Los Angeles transportation engineers had recommended that Mobil Oil be allowed to replace its existing pipeline, saying that traffic jams and detours during the 18-month construction period are the price that must be paid to avoid continued oil spills from the aged, leaky line.

The proposed pipeline would run 92 miles from Kern County’s oil fields to Mobil’s Torrance refinery. It would generally follow the route of the existing line, which has ruptured eight times in the past five years, several times covering city streets with gooey rivers of crude oil. The most recent break, which occurred Feb. 1 in Santa Clarita, spilled more than 63,000 gallons of heated crude oil into the Santa Clara River.

The final environmental impact report on the project, commissioned by Mobil for the city, recommends that the proposed pipeline be routed west of Santa Clarita, largely allaying concerns expressed by officials there.

Opposition to the project was expressed to the commission, at a meeting in Van Nuys that drew about 50 people, in letters by Los Angeles Councilman Hal Bernson, state Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Commission.

In a Feb. 26 letter to the commission, Bernson urged the board to reroute a two-mile section of the proposed pipeline from Balboa Boulevard to San Fernando Road because of concerns about increased traffic problems on Balboa Boulevard.

The alternative route that Bernson suggested, which would shift the route partly into Councilman Ernani Bernardi’s district, was rejected in the environmental report. The report said Bernson’s proposal would cause more traffic disruption than the present Balboa Boulevard plan.

A spokeswoman for Bernardi said he is concerned about the impact on residents if the route is changed to San Fernando Road.

Katz urged the commission to reject the final environmental impact report, saying it did not sufficiently consider noise and traffic problems.

Construction noise “would be like standing next to a very large motorboat gunning its engine without a muffler at full speed,” Katz wrote. “We cannot allow Mobil’s procrastination and desperation about their pipeline and their profits to disrupt our businesses, drive us out of our homes or gridlock our streets.”

Marilyn Morton, president of the Environmental Affairs Commission, urged that the transportation commission postpone its decision for one month to allow her commission to review the project.

Residents objected to the increased capacity of the pipeline and to noise and traffic tie-ups at major intersections that would occur while the pipeline is being built. Although the new pipeline could carry about 30,000 more barrels of oil a day, Mobil has maintained that the company will not increase production at its Torrance refinery. But Barbara A. Fine, vice president of The Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns., which represents 58 homeowner groups in the Santa Monica Mountains, said she was skeptical of the company’s plans.

The environmental impact report concedes that during the construction phase there would be bumper-to-bumper traffic or gridlock at some major intersections along the route for up to three weeks, along with noise and reduced access to cross streets.

“It’s not just the dust and the dirt and the noise and the traffic we’re worried about--it’s safety in case of spills or explosions,” said Sonni Maccarone, who lives on Woodley Avenue on the proposed route through Sepulveda.

Kenneth Cude, an engineer for the city’s Transportation Department, said the probability of additional breaks in the existing pipeline should take precedence over any temporary traffic problems. An analysis of alternatives in the environmental report said there is a 99.8% chance the existing pipeline will rupture in the next five years and cause another spill, compared with a 10.5% chance over a five-year period with the new pipeline.

“The choice is to continue to put up with it breaking and causing a mess on city streets or replacing it with a state of the art, modern pipeline that would be much safer,” Cude said.

In addition to Los Angeles, other jurisdictions through which the pipeline would pass, such as the city of Inglewood and the U.S. Forest Service, also must approve the project before it could proceed.