SR-511-000 (10)
Councll Office CE~
Councll Meeting of J~9, 1985
Santa~ica, California
5//-000
/I/-A
JUt - 9 1985
TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Council Members
Mayor Chrlstlne E. Reed
Description of Santa Monica Bay ln Relationship
to Offshore Oil Drilllng
It 1S requested that the Council approve the defin1tlon of Santa Monica
Bay as currently adopted in the congressional offshore oil drilling
moratorlum area. The description, as worded in my letter of July 2, 1985,
to Congressman Mel Levine, was suppl1ed to me by his office as the offlcial
descriptlon of Santa Monica Bay in the adopted moratorium language.
To the degree that the Councll has in the past supported the congressional
moratorlum, this 1S the descrlption of the Santa Mon1ca Bay that we have
been supportlng.
Our Congressman, Mel Levine, is at present part of a team negotlatlng w1th
the Secretary of the Interior to exclude portlons of the offshore environment
of Cal1fornia from the Draft Proposed Five Year O.C.S. Leaslng Program
1986-1991. Mel has told me that it is important that we contlnue to support
the moratorium descrlptlon of Santa Monica Bay as that enhances his abil1ty
to negotlate effectlvely for a maximum amount of protectlon from oil dr1111ng
1n the bay.
I have been informed by Mel 's staff that this definition of Santa Monica Bay
was worked out for the first moratorium adoptlon several years ago and took
into conslderation the following points:
1. Extent of commerclal flsher1es,
/4-1/
JUt - 9 /981)
2. Sight line from shore to oil rlgs on the horizon, and
3. Need for an appropr1ate buffer zone due to local ocean
currents' tendence to bring spills back in to shore.
Attachments: Three letters concernlng Santa Monica Bay
.
.
--
~~u/9/nt/a~~
SIXTEEN EIGHTY FIVE MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401
Chnstrne E. Reed .
Mayor
July 2, 1985
Honorable Me1 Levine
United States Congressman
132 Cannon House Office Building
Washlngton, D.C. 20515
Dear Mel:
I regret very much that my letter of May 3 to Gordon Duffy is being
used in Washington as a justificat10n for an official position of the
Clty of Santa Monica. That letter was written by me personally and
expresses only my personal opinlon, which in fact, was stated incorrectly
due to a misunderstand1ng between me and technical staff.
The City of Santa Monica's posit1on, officially, has not changed over the
last several years regard1ng our support for the Federal moratorium. Our
orig1nal posit1on was developed in concert with our former Congressman, Bob
Dornan, and has been maintained cons1stently during your tenure as our
Congressman.
It is my understanding that the correct definition of Santa Monica Bay is
as follows: Santa Monica Bay not only includes, but also extends outward
from, the ObV10US area of Point Dume to Palos Verdes. Looking at a map,
the bay extends nine mlles west of Pt. Dume to the Los Angeles County/Ventura
County line. From there it extends 30 miles south from the shore. From
that p01nt it extends 39 miles east, then six miles north to Point Ferm1n.
Wlthin these boundaries are the Santa Monica basin and highly valuable
commercial f1shing resources that must be protected.
I am very sorry that I dld not question the technical staff more carefully
and fell into a trap that many laypeople fall into of not really under-
stand1ng that which I was defining. We, of course, continue to stand
solidly with you in all your efforts to protect Santa Monica Bay.
I had intended to have as many of our Council Members as possible sign this
letter, but because of your time constraints and our Brown Act regulations,
I cannot do that until after the matter 1S discussed at our July 9 Counc1]
meeting.
sl~~er,e1Y: I ,/J
/ I /L^ :' I\":j
GIl - - k.../ , --}l- / c \
CHRISTINE E. ~EED (" d s/
MAYOR
cc: Council Members
MEL LEVINE
27TH DISTRICT CAi..If:ORN1A.
.
.
WASHINGTON OFFICE
132 CANNON HOU$~ ON'ICE BUILDING
WASHING"TO"" CC 20515
TELI;PHONI!: 202-225-1l451
co""",rrrEES-
COMMITTl;e 0'" fOREIGN AFFAIRS
Q:ongre5s of the Hnited ~tates
!~OU5( of Rqmscntati\1c.s
Washington, B~ 205J 5
OISTRICT OFFICE
COMMITTEE ON 1"Tf:AIOR
AfiO INSlJLAR AFFAIRS
SELECT CQ'YIMITTEE ON NARCOTICS
ABUSE AND CQNTROL
5250 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD
SUITe 447
LOS ANGELES CA 900415
TELEPHONE. 213-215-2:0-35
:2 13-J93-413S iSANT... NlONICA)
SO'UTHERN CA;j,.IFOIl"lI.t, REGION"L WHIP'
Co-t:HAIRMMI MILITARY REFOltM CAUCU$
June 28, 1985
ChnstIne Reed
Mayor
City of Santa \'lomca
1685 \'laIn Street
Santa ~~omca, CA 901>01
Dear Chns:
I was recently made aware of a letter which you sent to former Cali forma Secretary of
EnVironmental Affairs, Gordon Duffy, regarding 011 drilling In the Santa Momca Bay.
Because of our past conversatJOnS on thiS ISSUe, I was shocked by both your deflmtlOn of
the geographICal boundaries of the Bay and your suggestion that 011 drIllmg should be
prohibited only SIX miles east of the shore. Because I have been unable to reach you by
phone for two days, and because of the urgent time pressure on thiS issue, I am Writing
you and your counCil colleagues Immediately.
Smce my electlOn to Congress I have fought successfully to WIn a moratOrium on 011
dnlling 24 miles from the coast. In additIOn, the geographical boundanes for which I
have fought extended beyond POint Dume In the north.
More recently, as I had discussed wnh you In your office, I have been mvolved In complex
negotiations With Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel to wm a long term exemption
from oil drilling for Santa MOnica Bay. ThiS exemption IS necessary In order to put an
end to the annual battles With the Intenor Department over Oil dnllmg In the Bay.
I was dismayed to read your letter for two reasons. First, It severely undermines my
negotlatmg pOSition With the Secretary of the Intenor. Your letter effectively
undermines my efforts to Win maximum protection for the environmentally sensitive
areas In the Bay.
It has always been my understanding that the Santa ~omca City Council not only opposed
all oLl dnllIng In the Santa MOnica Bay but also that no CLty CouncLl had ever defined the
Bay as "a straight lme from POint Dume to the tip of the Palos Verdes Penmsula" as you
have done In your letter. Further, I was not aware that the City Council supported a ban
on oil dnlling for only three miles west of the line you have earlier deSCribed.
.-\s you know, I recently met With you and the other \layors 10 the coastal cities WhLCh I
represent. Dunng that meeting we discussed thiS Important Issue. ,-\t no time dUring
that meetmg did you ever indiCate to me either that the CounCil had changed ItS positIOn
on the Issue, or that you had Written the letter 10 questIOn to Iylr. Duffy.
Frankly, your letter has senously Jeopardized my negotiating pOSitIOn, and threatens to
open Santa \loniCa Bay to 011 dnlling m the very near future. The area which you
exclude from the Bay, and Wh1Ch I have always fought to Include, IS well with10 the
honzon Ime, and 1S the object of Intense Interest on the part of the maJor oil compames.
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS
.
.
V1ayor Chns Reed
June 28, 1985
Page 2
I expect to TTJeet wIth Secretary of the InterIor Hodel agaIn the week of July S. I would
very much appreCIate some gUIdance from you and the CIty Councll on your posItIOn on
thIS matter. Is It the positiOn of the City of Santa V[onIca that the boundanes WhICh you
have descrIbed In your letter are, In fact, an accurate deSCrIptlOn of the areas you WIsh
to see exempted from all dnllmg? Was your letter of May 3 to Secretary Duffy your
personal OpIniOn or was It the offIcIal pOSItIon of the Santa \1onIca CIty CounCil?
It IS my hope that you and the CIty Councll WIll consIder thIS matter 10 as eXpedItlOUS a
manner as possIble. My negOtIatiOns have reached a very sensItIve stage and your
gUIdance on thIS matter IS CrItIcal.
I look forward to hearIng from you soon.
s,t~
\1el Levme
\lember of Congress
CC: Santa Momca CIty Councilmembers
. ."
,i ..:.'
~- . \ L..J}~' \!.y
~." ,v
.: .-/, .
~ ' " ". ,I.-
'I (;'
q;~r/~/thJ~bEm
SIXTEEN EIGHTY FIVE MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401
Chnslme E. Reel:!
.Mayor
May 3, 1985
Honorable Gordon Duffy
Secretary, Env1ronmental Affairs
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, Cal1forn1a 95814
RE: Comments of Draft Proposed F1ve Year O.C.S. Leasing
Program 1986-1991
Dear Secretary Duffy;
I a~ encouraged that the Draft Proposed Five Year Plan recently released by
D.O.I. proposes to slow the pace of lease sales. In add1tion, the reduct10n
1n the scope of offer1ngs offers some hope to coastal local governments
that we will be able to monitor and comment on offshore lease sale proposals.
I a~ very disaPPo1nted that the Proposed Program does not 1dent1fy sub-areas
w1th1n the Plann1ng Areas for spec1al condit1ons or treatment. Accord1ng to
1nforrratlOn you have glven me, 0.0.1. 1ntends to 1dentlfy these "special
sub-areas" dur1ng the prelease process for each lease sale. It should be
dear to the folks in M.M.S. that there are qU1te a few "spec1al sub-areas"
here 1n Cal1forn1a Wh1Ch have received protect1on by enactment of Congressional
moratOrl a. These 11 speC1 a 1 sub-areas" have a W1 de base of support among both
the general public and our elected off1c1als.
Here 1n Santa Monica we have a very paroc1ial 1nterest. Our beach and pier
attract and serve well over 10 mi1l10n people a year. The beaches around
Santa Mon1ca Bay serve as a maJor recreation resource for the cit1zens of
Los Angeles County and for vis1tors from around the world. Our C1ty is
attempt1ng to expand Our tour1st serV1ces. We have focused on tour1sm as
an act1v1ty to generate bUS1ness and to produce much needed tax revenues.
It 1S eminently reasonable for us in Santa Mon1ca to ask the Governor to
protect our best econOM1C resource -- clean, attract1ve beaches and an aDen
bay free of platforms. Why shou1d Cal1forn1ans have to go annually to
Congress to protect Santa MOnlca Bay, B1g Sur, and other "speclal sub-areas"
in our state7 These ~orator1a efforts 1n our state are b1-part1san and will
cont1nue to be so. Why can't the Department of the Inter10r recogn1ze th1S
,
.
.
.
Secretary Gordon Duffy
May 3, 1985
Page Two
~cal and Congresslonal concern and announce up front ln the Draft Proposed
Leasing Program the "speclal sub-areas" around the natlon that w'll not be
avallable for leaslng?
I belleve that the federal government owes to local government an economlC
analyslS of leaslng actlvity along wlth the legally requlred environmental
analysIs. In local government we fear loss of certaln buslness actlvlty,
such as tourlsm; heavy adverse lmpacts on our infrastructure; the potential
for high costs ln providing schools for new Oll-related worker populatlons.
These concerns are heIghtened because local governments are belng squeezed
flnanclally.
We see federal funds beIng wlthdrawn in the '86 budget. We see federal
activlties proposed WhlCh will either cost us money (new infrastructure) or
cost us revenue (tourism losses) or cost us a reduction ln our quality of
life (recreatlon resources). As you know from your meetlngs with local
elected offlclals (WhlCh I flnd very valuable) we are very frustrated by
our inability to get the lnformatlon we need from 0.0.1. The process is
terrlbly difflcult and does not lend ltself to a good exchange of informa-
tlon between 0.0.1. and local governments. I certalnly appreciate all
that your office has done to keep us informed.
I urge that the Governor support the exclUSIon of Santa Monlca Bay from the
leasIng program. For the last several years all of the cltles around
Santa Monica Bay have opposed 011 drllllng in the Bay. The Los Angeles
Dlvlsion of the League of Cltles has supported thIS posltlon. We expend a
lot of time and effort pasSIng annual resolutions and runnIng to Congress
for moratoria. In L.A. County we are asklng that credence be given to the
fact that Santa MonIca Bay 15 a very lmportant recreation resource and a
very lmportant economIc resource.
At your meeting on
Here's mine: Take
Dume to the tlp of
Santa MonIca Bay.
full mlles west of
May 2, you asked for a definltlon of Santa Monica Bay.
a map of the coast and draw a stralght 11ne from POlnt
the Palos Verdes Penlnsula and you will have delineated
There should be a prohlbltlon on 011 drlll1ng for three
that 11ne on the map.
I have not addressed several envIronmental Issues of major lmportance to the
Los Angeles region. Alr quallty impacts are crltlcal to us 1n L.A. County.
Excellent comments have already been made by SCAG which speclflcally detaIl
the aIr qualIty concerns of our region. I suoport and endorse those
com~ents and wlll not repeat them In thlS letter.
..
.
.
Secretary Gordon Duffy
May 3. 1985
Page Three
--
-1 am sorry thlS letter 1S a l,ttle past your deadline. I want to thank
you for all the effort you and your staff have made to keep local
governments lnformed on the oes issues. Your meetlngs and the materials
prepared by your staff are most helpful.
Wlth regards.
" ( r; -
~~ j~" ~
I
CHRISTINE E. REED
MAYOR
cc: Minerals Management Service
Department of The Interior (L.A. Office)