S2. E13. The Wilmington Oil Field (Part 3)

Transcript

📍 Hey, there you are. Thank you so much for listening to the Harbor Area Podcast.

This is the third and final episode in our Wilmington Oil Field series. A story about a community that has lived for more than a century in the shadows of oil wells, refineries, and broken promises, and about the people who refuse to accept that as normal. In the last two episodes, we talked about what’s happening on the ground in Wilmington, what residents are living with, and how systems that are supposed to protect public health too often fall short.

We also talked about the power of organizing, of showing up, and of naming harm when harm is treated like business as usual. In this final chapter, we’re gonna talk about accountability—what it actually looks like, where it fails. We’re gonna talk about something just as important as the problems: what the options are, what the pathway forward looks like, and how change actually happens.

We also connect this conversation to a report published by CBE titled Phillips 66, Before the Last Drop, which lays out community-centered recommendations for what a just and equitable transition can look like.

You’ll hear about the role of education, youth organizing, and the law.

This isn’t just a story about oil. It’s a story about power, persistence, and about what it means to fight for a future that’s safer, cleaner, and more fair than the past we inherited.

This is the final episode of our Wilmington Oil Field series. Let’s get into it.

I’ll name drop our report on Phillips 66, Before the Last Drop. It talks a lot about: what are the steps? What are the options? What do we need to do? Before the Last Drop just talks about like—what are the community recommendations? How do we involve people here and make sure that this happens equitably and safely. 📍

So here’s the big picture. A new report called Before the Last Drop looks at what happens when refineries shut down, starting with the Phillips 66 refinery here in Wilmington, California, and the short version: we’re wildly unprepared. Unlike power plants and other energy sites, refineries basically get to close with almost no real end-of-life rules.

These places are massively contaminated—soil, groundwater, everything—and cleanup takes years and costs a fortune. But right now, there’s no strong system to guarantee it actually gets done right or paid for. The report warns that if we don’t plan ahead, three things happen: workers get hurt economically, communities get shut out of redevelopment decisions, and we risk another toxic disaster like the Carousel tragedy, where families got sick and died after a bad cleanup.

Phillips 66 is already idling in Wilmington.

Developers are already talking about shops and warehouses, but none of that means anything until the land is truly cleaned up. The report calls for stronger rules, worker protections, real community input, and serious oversight. Bottom line: refinery closures are coming faster across California. The question isn’t if they close. It’s whether Big Oil walks away clean or leaves the mess behind for our communities to pay for. 📍

What are you doing in regards to education at CBE? Oh yeah. That’s a huge component of the work at CBE. It’s organizing, law, and science. These are the ways that we interact as an organization. We equip the youth with these tools. These are the agencies that interact with all this industry around you, and here’s how these industries impact your health.

This is the point emissions. This is what they do. And we talk about carcinogens that come out of these idle wells, orphan wells, when they’re not plugged properly.

This is what you can do to stop it. And it’s tremendously empowering.

📍 Tara, does CBE take money from industry? No. No. Why is that important? ’Cause it’s a conflict of interest. And I will say like this—this actually very much affects my side of the work on the law. Yeah. Because, you know, we do bring lawsuits, and sometimes we win those lawsuits. And sometimes you win penalties. Mm-hmm. And so we, as an organization, never take that penalty money directly because that is—yeah—it just doesn’t align with our values.

It reminds me of a similar issue that’s going on with the discussion in transitioning fossil fuels: government budgets having this reliance on this industry money from taxes, and then how to replace that tax base.

But anyways, if we win any penalty money, we’re redirecting that to another organization to put back into the community. Rose Foundation is one that keeps this work going. Yeah. Very often, when it comes to penalties from lawsuits, as often as possible I’m trained to direct those into what are called supplemental environmental projects.

Mm-hmm. So instead of just like, you know, “here’s the cash,” it’s like: this goes into a program that’s designed to address, in some way, the impacts that were at the heart of the litigation. So, for example, the lawsuit that I spent most of my time on, broadly across my eight years at CBE, was this lawsuit against the AB BNI foundry in East Oakland.

Mm-hmm. We brought a lawsuit under California’s Proposition 65, which is those warning labels you see everywhere. We were able to bring a lawsuit finally after many, many years of investigating. We were advocating at the Air District, where I spent years trying to develop some kind of case against the foundry, and what broke it open was actually— 📍

I was mentioning health risk assessments earlier. Mm-hmm. And the Bay Area Air District did a draft facility-wide health risk assessment, and what they found was that the foundry was potentially emitting hexavalent chromium into the East Oakland community, which was just less than like a mile downwind from this foundry.

And if that chemical is sounding a little familiar, that’s the one chemical at issue in that Erin Brockovich case, right? And it’s like super, super bad—incredibly toxic. The limit on that is super low. Like, very little of it needed to have detrimental effects—for example, cause cancer, reproductive harm. So that was the basis of our lawsuit. Eventually, we settled it a couple of years ago, and that went into a supplemental environmental project that included funding going to the Roots Clinic in East Oakland, as well as funding a mobile asthma clinic to serve the community.

Healthcare’s key in these environmental justice communities, ’cause even here in Wilmington, there’s a huge lack of access for healthcare. And it’s propped up by community clinics and folks here in the neighborhood taking care of one another and clawing tooth and nail for the resources they need.

And so that kind of money going in—it’s serving a community that is not served. The foundry had already been giving some money to that clinic, but this was substantially more.

And it’s unfortunate that it does often take legal action to get some semblance of accountability. Sure. Like, I wouldn’t call that case accountability because what they ended up doing before even the case was over was they announced that they were closing. They were moving their operations to another facility in Texas. And they blame the environmental regulations. That was not our goal—to make them close. It’s like reducing pollution is also something that we can fight for. So that it’s not just that dichotomy of jobs and the environment. It’s like: you can do this in a cleaner way.

And so many times the industry doesn’t take that option because they would rather just do it dirty, and then when they get caught, they pick up their bags and go and do it somewhere else. And it’s just frustrating. But at the very least, that settlement can feel like such a pittance compared to decades of impact that was having. But I’m also—I’m proud. I’m proud to have that gone into something that materially benefits the community in some way. Right on.

📍 What does accountability actually look like in practice? And where does the system fall short?

Oh, wow. That’s—yeah, I was getting into that. You were like skimming it. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Fines are like—I’m trying to think of that saying—if you’ve got a deep pocketbook, you can just pay the fine and continue as you were. And I know that very often it turns into a cost of doing business, as opposed to a punishment. Yeah. And businesses love it because it’s like, okay, that’s something we can budget for. That’s something we can plan around. And that is why they hate litigation, because those costs are a bit more unpredictable, but it’s something that they also budget for.

Well, here’s another fact: CalGEM issued an order to pay a civil penalty to Warren E&P dated September 4th, 2025. And the order describes a spill incident. But then it talks about CalGEM imposed $14,500 total penalties for three violations of a pipeline spill in the last two years—for an organization that makes millions. Multimillion.

Yeah. They’re getting a fine for $14,500. What a joke.

Yeah. That’s a slap on the wrist at best. And also, it’s somewhat rare for CalGEM to issue one of these orders to pay a civil penalty. 📍 Usually they’re more doing a notice of violation, or it’s like these little steps leading up to it.

This is also a different spill than the one we were talking about. Sure. And at a different facility. This is, I believe, at their—so, the facility we’ve been talking about is what they call the Banning Lease, or the Wilmington Town Lot Unit, WTU, or their central facility. And they kind of have, historically, had wells around Wilmington. They would bring it all to that central site on Anaheim, including from this site—they have the North Wilmington Unit. And so I believe that’s where this spill you just referenced is, at that unit, which they’re planning to close completely. It’s a number of spills from the same actor.

Yeah. And it’s like, okay, pay $14,000. Yeah. So I haven’t even seen a fine for the January spill that we were referencing—the geyser, the shooting geyser of oil. You know, again, notice of violation, but I haven’t seen something similar for that. But that doesn’t really deter the behavior. They’ll say that they’re going to do better in the future. Generally, it’s up until they get caught again.

And do you think if it were a million-dollar fine, it would change behavior? 📍 Because that’s a lot more money, right?

Mm-hmm. So you would think, but it’s still a matter of discretion of enforcement. Mm-hmm. And so, like I said, it is somewhat rare for CalGEM to even go this route. Usually they reserve it for more egregious examples. Mm-hmm. And so they probably think the January spill is like, “Oh, it wasn’t that much oil.” I mean, people were trapped in a restaurant trying to clean their cars with dish rags. It’s horrific. Yeah.

But to your question, Joel—if it was a million dollars, it gives CalGEM, for example, a bigger stick to threaten with. However, whether they use that stick honestly, then you would likely see even more resistance from litigation. The oil industry is famously litigious—they fight every little single thing. I’m not gonna say that would be a bad thing. Stronger fines—definitely better.

But there are more tools than that available at regulators’ and enforcers’ disposal that could be improved, could be used. And unfortunately, by nature, generally there’s not enough funding at these agencies to do the best job at enforcement. And so they only really focus on the worst examples. It’s been somewhat improving over the years, but regulatory capture—agencies being more friendly or sympathetic to industry—and so just not wanting to exercise that authority.

Fortunately, something that’s been improving slowly at CalGEM—Mm-hmm—I’d have to give them credit there, but still leaving a lot to be desired.

And I’ll end on this question about the ideal-world type of accountability—like, when pigs fly—but dreaming big, it would be a collaborative restorative process where there is meaningful dialogue, but even more so, collaboration with neighbors, with folks affected, and there being some direct form of not just paying a fine to some agency, but very much tying a specific pollution event and having that be recognized, be acknowledged.

Collaboration on restoring from that harm, and then planning for moving forward and preventing it in the future.

Exactly. And that doesn’t necessarily mean just stop it all, close it all. I mean, again—long term—striving to do better. It means trying to reduce pollution as much as possible and having that be a core value and be reflected in investments and be reflected in company culture—again, when pigs fly. Which never happens. Even when these fines are paid, it’s usually lawsuits. But that’s what I imagine in a perfect world, and to be reflective in enforcement, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah, exactly.

To speak on the collaboration, so much of the burden of reporting and regulation is on community. These agencies that are meant to protect us and to be the vanguard in our personal health—these organizations should be taking that step up to lead and protect.

📍 Yeah. And one last thing I’ll say on the enforcement and government side is, referencing earlier the Spider-Man meme—don’t point at the other Spider-Man. Yeah. Be the superhero. You have the power as an enforcement agency. Use it, and use it well.

It’s seen a huge variety across the spectrum. So many times it comes down to individuals in government—so many falling somewhere in the middle of saying something great and then not taking action on it. That is very common. You have folks who are hostile to us. But there is the fear. It’s so rare, but I have met one or two folks in government who take their job seriously. Mm-hmm. Joel, allowed to say, you’re one of the two. Thank you. Take the job seriously. Like, sincerely want to help and protect the public with whatever authority is there.

And then being creative with what is available, and actually putting in the time and putting in the energy and being communicative. Communicating well with folks is another very unfortunate thing about folks in government. You don’t get a call back. You don’t get an email back. Right. Anyways.

Are there moments when you have personally felt either super hopeful or super exhausted, and what kept you going?

The ordinance to phase out oil drilling for the City of Los Angeles. Yes. Being able to be there at the CPC and speaking up, and seeing the unanimous vote to pass it on to City Council again, was a huge bolster for me because there’s great change happening here in the community with over a hundred years of oil drilling—this crazy legacy—to think that it could be coming to an end in these next couple of years. It’s incredibly heartening. Trying to drive that home to my students—the youth—it’s a hundred years of history, and your contributions have made a change that could revolutionize the way we’re gonna be living in these next couple of decades.

But we still gotta fight for it. Hold on. It’s not quite through yet.

And I’ll also speak to Stand LA as when I lose hope. It’s been a tough fight. The lawsuit setting us back from the ordinance, and having to go to Sacramento, and fighting for it all over again to get the jurisdiction with AB 32, 33. It’s ups and downs. It’s a lot of downs, but when you get your up, you’re like, “Oh man, okay.” But it keeps us going, you know?

The oil drilling work—I’ll say that’s the perfect example. Similarly, right before I transferred back to LA was when the ordinance passed the first time. Mm-hmm. December 2022. And I remember when hearing about that, I got really sentimental—just like, oh my God, this is a huge deal. Because it’s really an inspiring thing to see this actual commitment from a government to actually start the process of phasing out oil drilling. That’s monumental. And this is one of the largest—second largest—city in the U.S. And it’s like hundreds, thousands of wells.

I just remember being so inspired, and I wasn’t even directly working on it yet, and just feeling hopeful. And even a year prior, it had seemed an impossible goal. We were advocating originally for a setback, and there was suddenly just this shift, and working with the City Council being like, wait, I think we could just stop it all together and phase it out.

And so all of a sudden it was like what felt possible just shifted so quickly. And that’s such a great example.

And that obstacle with the court—even though the jurisdiction was always there—I don’t think that was the right decision, but whatever. That’s why we’re back here again, readopting. That issue it got overturned on is moot because of AB 32, 33. Mm-hmm. And, you know, we’re doing it again. And they’re gonna sue again and we’re gonna have that fight. And I think we’re gonna win. I think that’s essential to doing any movement work, whether it’s EJ or whatever part of the movement you’re in.

And especially these days, living in a fascist-like empire and people being abducted by secret police—stuff you’d never think would be happening. Well, you know, some may have thought it would never be happening. But it’s essential. There’s so much to get overwhelmed and depressed about, and just feel hopeless. And I’ve been there my fair share of time. I would say all of us at some point—and multiple points.

However, I think it’s being a little delusional, and despite being super cynical—and what I think is rational about the situation—just having that slightly irrational bit of hope. It’s like: we’re gonna win. Big picture, we’re gonna win. And then when you see the little things, you’re like, wait, we can do this.

Whether it’s the oil phase-out, whether it’s winning a lawsuit—we won a motion last week against one of these oil companies. They subpoenaed us in a piece of litigation we’re not even involved with, about a bill that we’re hardly involved with. It was part of the package with 32, 33, which is what we were really pushing for, and they’re sending subpoenas left and right to government agencies, to tons of nonprofits. Super, super broad subpoena asking for basically all of our documents about oil drilling—no time limit, nothing.

And last week we got that—use the legal term—we got it quashed. Yeah. Like, we quashed it. So basically the judge threw it out, and we were also awarded attorney’s fees, which is pretty rare. It was a sanction on the attorney, basically, the judge agreed it was super overbroad and oppressive is the term. What a great judge.

Yeah. Well, what’s so funny is it’s actually the same judge who overturned the ordinance last year—Judge Cohn in LA Superior. So, yeah, it sounds like there’s a change in the winds where—yeah. That’s so funny you said that, because I was about to get to that.

As an environmental justice lawyer in particular, the law is specifically set up for environmental injustice. We are trying to make it do something. It is designed to do the opposite of. And so it can feel like an absolutely maddening job sometimes, and especially these days when it’s like the entire profession of the law in this country is a mockery being made of it. And it is just like—so what are we doing here? Why are we following the rules when they don’t have to? And unfortunately, that’s the nature of power and law. But anyways, not to get too philosophical, but despite all my cynicism so many times across my eight years, it’s been so many times where it’s like: I think we’re right, I think the law is on our side, I think we should win this—and we don’t. It’s really made me feel very jaded about the law, and that includes the phase-out decision. And so then to even just have this little win—not that big a deal in terms of a legal process— 📍 it was like a breath of fresh air. Mm-hmm. And they can’t just get away with it. No. Literally like finally somebody agrees that this guy’s such a jerk. Yeah. Anyways, well congratulations to you.

Was there anything that you felt you weren’t able to communicate that didn’t come up in the questions that you would like to share?

I feel like we didn’t actually mention the phase-out. So CBE is one of the founding members of this Standing Together Against Neighborhood Drilling—Los Angeles coalition, Stand LA. It’s been around for more than 10 years now. Mm-hmm. And it’s a collection of environmental justice groups from across Los Angeles. Each of us were having our own individual fights against neighborhood oil drilling. With CBE, it’s the Warren site in Wilmington. With other orgs, for example, Esperanza Community Housing—South LA—there’s the AllenCo drill site. And with SCOPE also in South LA, there’s Redeemer Community Partnership. Black Women for Wellness organizing around the Inglewood oil field. There’s Holman United Methodist Church, also in South LA. Wow. There’s PSR LA, Physicians for Social Responsibility—shout out to them. Yes. Yeah. They help coordinate the coalition, bring some of that health expertise in.

I met you through them. There was some sort of Emma. Yes. Yes. Shout out Emma. Because again, Emma’s a rockstar in terms of that coordination—Emma Silver, right? That’s right. At PSR LA, major shout out to Emma, keeping us all on task. With it, it’s literally—managing a coalition’s hard. And that’s technically a slightly separate coalition in the county space. We—it’s much looser than Stand LA, like we call it. It doesn’t even have a set solid name, but we call it the LA County Oil and Gas Phase-Out Coalition.

A lot of the same Stand groups plus some others. And it’s a jurisdictional thing: Stand LA kind of focuses on the City of Los Angeles, and the county group on the county. And so several of us, like myself and Emma, sit in both.

And these coalitions were responsible for passing these historic phase-out ordinances in both the City of LA in December 2022, and then the County of LA in January 2023, which basically says: within 20 years, oil drilling shall no longer be done within our jurisdiction. And to get legal/technical, it becomes a non-conforming use—where it’s not supposed to expand, it’s not supposed to be intensified during that 20-year period, and it’s supposed to be gradually phased out. That was a huge win.

And then September 2024, last year, was that decision in court that overturned the ordinance, saying that it’s actually the state’s jurisdiction; local jurisdictions can’t do that—which I strongly disagree with. I think that it’s very much within their land use authority. And so now we are in the process of readopting these ordinances. And with the City of LA, that most recently was a successful vote through the City Planning Commission just last week—I believe two weeks ago.

Yeah. Awesome. Congratulations. Yeah. And so next step: it’s going to City Council committees, then the full City Council, and then the mayor signs it and it goes into law. Awesome. Awesome. Congratulations. Thank you. Seriously.

And then before we depart, can you please talk about Warren E&P and the oil geyser and the OZA hearing?

So set the stage here: the City of LA— I mentioned at one point—the City of LA, one way that it exercises authority over oil drilling is through zoning and through zoning permits. And so the Office of the Zoning Administrator is within the City of LA Planning Department. And basically they are kind of the—we use the term quasi-judicial—kind of administrative agency. So basically they kind of act like the role of a court, in a way, within the administrative setting.

It’s not like actually going to court—that comes later if it comes to that. But basically this is what—so you know, you have your zoning permit. What happens if you’re not following your zoning permit? Sure. Like who enforces that? Right? That’s this agency.

And so in the aftermath of that January 2024 oil geyser from Warren, the Office of the Zoning Administrator opened what’s called a compliance review of Warren’s zoning permit. This is the same permit that was last looked at when Warren first took over the site and drilled and really intensified and was talking about the splattering oil and all that in like 2007, 2008. That’s the last time the zoning administrator looked at this. What? Yeah. So it’s been almost 20 years.

And I was saying that there was not really an acknowledgement of the community in the conditions that were set. However, there were some conditions in there, for example, that said: if there is evidence that these conditions are not being complied with, the zoning administrator reserves the right to reopen one of these compliance review processes and take a look at the sufficiency of these conditions and potentially add conditions, change conditions, remove conditions—don’t want that.

They reserve the right to conduct that hearing for nuisance abatement or revocation purposes, so potentially have the ability to completely revoke or cancel the permit.

So basically there was a hearing that happened recently, in early November of this year. It was about a year of lead-up to that between when that was announced and when the hearing was actually held. And basically it’s a much more informal court hearing, and you have a zoning administrator overseeing the case. You have planning staff somewhat in the role of the prosecutor. They’re the ones that brought the case. They come and they craft a report like: here’s an example of all the violations, and here’s the evidence. And then that’s presented. The defendant—Warren—gets to argue their case on why actually they’re in compliance.

And they’ve got big law lawyers doing that for them. And there’s the opportunity for public comment as a public hearing. Mm-hmm. And I will say that, very graciously, the zoning administrator did not impose any time limits on folks. Fortunately, no one abused that allowance. And I found that’s so rare with public hearings. Usually you get one or two minutes tops. However, this was really an opportunity for folks to really speak their mind and really get into detail about how they’re being impacted.

And I will say there were half a dozen neighbors that were actually at the hearing, which is pretty remarkable. Yeah. Considering a hearing held in the middle of a work day—right in the morning, bright and early.

That’s what it’s all about: letting folks know this is happening, providing guidance, sharing your story, but giving folks the tools to talk about what they’re gonna be looking for—like name the chemicals of concern. Mm-hmm. It was really an amazing example of CBE’s triad model in action.

Basically, one big issue that we haven’t gotten a decision yet on—this hearing happened recently. But I will say already what this process helped bring to light is confirming reports from the community, documented extensively: this huge number of tanker trucks that were going in and out of the site that weren’t driving through previously.

Warren basically said, “Well, since 2008, they’ve always exported their oil directly to the refinery by pipeline.” And because of the closure, they said they have had to instead truck it to another refinery, and they estimate about 10 truck trips a day. Ten—like big rig tanker trucks—driving through this residential neighborhood. Mm-hmm. Every single day. Wow. At all hours—at night as well. Neighbors were reporting as late as like 2:00 a.m.—noisy, extra diesel emissions.

And this was never looked at even back in 2008 because that pipeline was in operation. It was listed as one of those best practices—like they’re using great technology that spares them from having to use all these polluting trucks. Mm-hmm.

And so that was brought to light because of course when they made that switch, they didn’t tell anyone. They didn’t tell the planning department. They didn’t tell the neighbors. It just started happening. And so through this process, we were able to get more information about that, and then thus able to ask questions and direct the zoning administrator to be like, “Hey, maybe you need to take a look at these trucks.”

Now they say that they’re in negotiations to pipe to a different refinery, and they hope to have it set up by early next year. Well, I’ll believe it when I see it. But the whole thing is just like: they just got to do that and didn’t have to really tell anyone, answer to anyone—or now they have to answer to someone.

Right. And that, to me, is something that heartens me about this type of enforcement process. Mm-hmm. And I really want to point to it as an example for if there’s anyone in government out there listening—in local government in particular—that land use authority, whether it’s zoning or building code enforcement or something, there is a creative way to do something.

I just really want to commend the folks over at the LA Planning Department—not to say that they’re perfect. We have our squabbles very often. And again, government—it’s a series of individuals. Mm-hmm. But I’m so proud of the community for, despite the decades of neglect, still taking time out of their day, out of their school day, to come testify—to keep that grain of hope. Mm-hmm. Because it’s so hard.

We did talk to folks who were like, “I don’t think they’re gonna do anything. What’s the point?” And honestly, fair. It’s sad, 📍 but it’s a rational viewpoint on it.

While—Tara and Morgan—I want to thank you so much for coming on the podcast today. Your incredible work, the wins that you have been attaining, speak to the values of you and the organizations that you represent. I want to thank Communities for a Better Environment for allowing these folks to come out here and share the work that they are doing.

Yeah. And if you wanna learn more and/or donate—yes—our website is cbe cal.org. And thank you so much.

Well, as we wrap up this series, I’m coming back to one simple truth: none of this change happens by accident. It happens because neighbors speak up, because students show up, because organizers, lawyers, scientists, and community members refuse to accept that pollution is just the price of living where they live.

It happens because people decide that their health, their dignity, and their future are worth fighting for. Throughout this series, we’ve talked about spills, enforcement failures, weak fines, and systems that too often protect industry before they protect people. But we also talked about something else: wins—real wins.

The phase-out ordinances, the lawsuits that force accountability, the hearings where residents tell their stories on the record, the youth who are learning how to name the chemicals, name the harm, and name the power structures behind it. Before the Last Drop isn’t just a report—it’s a vision for what comes next.

A reminder that a just transition has to be planned, funded, and shaped by communities who’ve carried the burden for generations; that equity and safety don’t happen automatically—they have to be demanded and built. Wilmington’s story is specific, but it’s also universal.

It’s about what happens when communities are treated as sacrifice zones, and what happens when those same communities decide they’re done being sacrificed. I wanna thank Communities for a Better Environment, Tara, Morgan, and everyone who took time to share their work, their stories, and their fight. I want to thank you for listening, for caring, and for staying with us through this series.

If there’s one thing to take away from all of this, it’s this: change is slow. It’s messy. It’s exhausting, but it’s possible—and it only happens because people keep showing up.

This has been our Wilmington Oil Field series. I’m Joel Torrez, and this is the Harbor Area Podcast. Thank you for listening, and we’ll see you in the next story.

Sources include:
Communities for a Better Environment (Before the Last Drop); Phillips 66 (October 2024 closure announcement); California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) enforcement orders; California Proposition 65; Bay Area Air District health risk assessments; Los Angeles City Planning Office of the Zoning Administrator; Stand LA coalition materials; LA City and County oil and gas phase-out ordinances; and public health and community advocacy organizations including PSR-LA and Roots Community Health Center.