SR-14-A (4)
,""j
.
Clt~ Council Offlce~ER.svC
Councll Meetlng of October 23, 1984
Santa Monica, Callfornia
.
II./-A
OCT 2 3 1984
TO:
FROM:
Mayor, Council Members, Clty Manager
Council Member Chrlstine Reed
SUBJECT:
Chevron Applicatlon to Drlll Exploratory Wells at
Rlvlera Country Club
Chevron has applied to the City of Los Angeles for a permlt to drlll
two exploratory 011 wells at the Rlviera Country Club. As you know
the Clty of Santa Mgnica has a maJor water reservoir under the tennlS
courts at Rlvlera. There are distrlbutlon llnes from that reservoir
into our city.
We have conslstent1y opposed Occldental because thelr plpellne routes
were too close to our water faClllties. We must carefully examlne
the Chevron proposal because on the face of it it could also lmpact
our water facllitles. There lS a comment period on the exploratory
proJect which ends on November 12. We should make sure that the lnter-
ests of our Clty are adequately represented. The comment perlod lS to
asslst the Los Angeles Plannlng people ln "scoplng" the EIR for the
proJect. The court has already ordered that the EIR be llmlted to the
exploratory wells. The court speclflcally dlrected that impacts of
future production were not relevant. (I do not concur, but that lS
the rul1ng.)
/4 -1/
OCT 2 3 1934
~
~
.
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE: Aprll 19, 1985
TO: Mayor Reed
FROM: Clty Clerk
SUBJECT: Oil Drllling OpposItion
WhIle looklng for an attaehreent to your memo to Caunell
On the above subJect for eonslderatlon at the Aprll 23rd
meetlng, I found the attached statement WhICh former
Mayor Edwards read in October 1984 before the U. S.
COIDMlttee.
I dld not copy thls for the entlre Councll packet, but
thought you mlght WIsh to have It In your fIle when the
SUbJect lS before the CounCIl.
N1S:Jj
~J
Attachment
.t II ~_.
.
.
STATEMENT OF KEN EDWARDS
HAYOR OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
OCTOBER 12, 1984
The CIty of Santa Monlca has a number of concerns regardlng Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil development in Santa Monlca Bay.
Wh1le we are pleased that the Congress has continued the
morator1um on oes development 1n the Bay, this action only
extends protect1on for one year, after WhICh the Department of
InterIor (001) may attempt to re-open the Bay to DeS actlvltles.
Our CIty has cons1stently opposed lease sales 1n Santa Monlea Bay
because of the potent1al for air pollutIon, v1sual degradatIon,
and spllls d1sruptlng a maJor recreatIon resource of the Southern
Californ1a regIon the beaches wh1ch presently serve tens of
mIll10ns of people annually.
It has been very frustrating for us to have to ask that Santa
MonIca Bay be removed from cons1deration for Des developme~t
agaln and again. Some of our spec1flc concerns are set forth
below.
Moratorlum
The morator1um on Santa MonIca Bay lease sales should be
permanent. The economIC, scenlC and recreational resources of
the Bay should be permanently protected. The City of Santa
Mon1ca and concerned organIzations and residents of the Los
Angeles area should not have to address this issue t1me and
aga1n. A permanent mortorlum would prevent unproduct1ve
expenditure of t1me and money by 011 companIes, Federal, State
and local governments, and many 1nterested persons and
organ1zat1ons.
The C1ty believes that a Congressional 011 leas1ng restr1ctlon
imposed through a budget appropr 1at1on 1.S not the best approach
to offshore 011 and gas lease plannlng. Bowever, the DOl has not
responded to local concerns or Congressional act10ns 1n a
respons1ble lIlanner. The pattern of tract deletion at the early
stages of a sale and later re-activatlon of those leases
contlnues. Congressional act10n is the only way to ensure that
these areas can be protected. The 001 must conduct its leaslng
program 1n a manner that allows state and local governments to
adequately plan for handling the leas1ng 1mpacts. ThlS wl11
requ1re a meanlngful re-evaluation of the Slze, timing, and
locatlon of future lease sales.
Because of
CongressIonal
DOl's record,
limitations on
the CIty
offshore oil
supports contlnued
and gas leas1ng and
- 1 -
.
.
. - .
reco~~ends a permanent moratorlum on development in Santa Monlca
Bay.
Size of Sales
The Clty is seriously concerned about the pattern establlshed by
Lease Sale 80 of massive lease offerIngs WhlCh do not lend
themselves to careful impact analysls.
The Clty strongly opposes lease sales of a size llke Lease Sale
80 without an overall strategy for managing the pace and extent
of exploratlon and development. Lease Sale 80 was comprised _of
3.9 mlll10n acres and 690 leases, whIch made it the largest lease
sale ever held off the west coast of the UnIted States.
Currently, there are 192 active leases offshore CalIfornia
cover ing an area of approxImately 1,013,386 acres. The lease
sale encompassed almost three tImes the acreage presently leased
for operatIons offshore Callfornla. The environmental analYSIS
for thIS sale usee an "areawIde approach- WhICh covers acreage
near to shore, acreage up to 200 mlles offshore, impacts along
the mainland and offshore islands, and the entlre area from Point
Conception to the Mexican border. Because of this sweeplng
approach, local governments and state agenCles are forced to plan
for the cumulatIve lmpacts reSUltIng from exploratlon and
production actIvities for broad areas from repeated sales. The
Department of the Interlor has not used systematlc methods to
evaluate and mitlgate cumulatlve lmpacts that '01111 result from
the sales.
Need For Improved Plannlng Process
The latest Lease Sale events demonstrate the need for a
comprehensIve and coordinated oes planning process between the
Federal government, the State and local government. Greater
State and local government involvement 1n oes plannlng could help
to resolve potential oes lease sale problems at an early stage.
Such a mechanism should be developed before any cons~deratlon IS
glven to OCS development in Santa Monica Bay. .
The Department of the Interior has fa lIed to develop an overall
plan to accommodate tne increaSIng level of development Just from
the eXIstIng 192 leases in the oes offshore Call-fornla. ThlS
open-ended approach VIrtually ignores plannIng for the support
facilLt1es that are necessary to accommodate offshore 011
operations. The federal government has not imposed llmltatlons
on the number of marlne term1nals, tank farms, or support
facIllties. Instead, State and local governments are forced to
accommodate this development as lt comes through each new lease
sale. It is unwise to compound thlS sItuatlon, WhlCh lS not now
under control, by offerlng extenslve addl.t1onal leases for sale.
Air Quality
The City is also concerned about air quality impacts. . Further
DeS development should not go forward until adequate air qualIty
standards are promulgated. The Los Angeles air basln already
- 2 -
'"
.."
. .
.
.
air quality and no lease sales in Santa MonIca
in the absence of standards WhICh ensure
of DeS generated air pollution, which because
will affect air qualIty of the bas1n.
suffers from poor
Bay should occur
adequate m1t1gation
of preva1ling wInds
Tourism
Our CIty 1S endowed with a unique environmental settIng 1ncludlng
2.9 rn1les of beaches and spectacular views of the Santa Monica
MountaIns, Mal1bu, and Santa Mon1ca Bay. Santa MonIca's coastal
area is an important link connecting the Los Angeles metropolitan
reg10n to the Coast. The Los Angeles freeway system ends at the
Pacif1c Coast Highway just north of the Santa Mon1ca P1er,
br1ng1ng viSItors from the entire regIon to the City's beaches.
Because of excellent publ1C access, the Santa Mon1ca beach lS the
most heav1ly ut1lized beach in the Los Angeles County, w1th over
20 millIon vlsitors in 1980.
The Santa Mon1ca coastal area 1S an important local and reg10nal
env1ronmental, aesthetlC and economlC resource. Santa Monlca
provIdes an array of coastal recreatlonal and VISI tor-serVIng
facilitles. Ch1ef among these is the beach itself. Related
fac1lltles 1nclude the Santa Mon1ca P1er, Palisades Park, hotels
and motels, restaurants and shopplng fac1l1t1es. These
fac1lltles are J.mportant components of the local economy. The
C1ty'S potentIal for visitor-serv1ng facll1tles, ....1th attendent
econom1C and employment benefits, IS not yet fully realIzed and
plans are 1n progress to promote add1tlonal uses WhICh are
compatlble with the City's environmental and economIC development
goals.
The Santa Mon1ca Convention and V1sltors Bureau comrn1ss1oned
Pannell Kerr Forester to establish the econom1C 1mpact of tourism
on Santa Monlca. This study found that tourism 1S a d1verslf1ed
mult1-mill1on dollar industry 1n Santa MonIca. Total dIrect
visitor spending in this city is estimated at $207,000,000 - an
average of $567,000 per day. Last year 2,870,000 people v1s1ted
Santa Honlca. They stayed an average of 2.29 cays and each
person oaily spent an average of :?31.54. From records at the
VISItor Information Center, located 1n PalIsades Park, we know
that VISItors came from all 50 states and from over 80 countrIes.
Below is a chart that breaks down the overall annual lmpact of
Vlsltors 1n Santa Monica by ....here they stayed:
- 3 -
.
.
VISITOR HOTELI HOME DAY
VOLUME MOTEL VISITOR VISITOR TOTAL
Number 316,000 459,000 2,095,000 2,870,000
Ratio 11% 26% 73% 100%
Average Party
Size 1.73 2.12 2.50 1.35
Average t Days 2.8 7.8 1.0 2.29
Average per Person
Spent per Day $52.00 $32.40 $21. 30 $31. 54
The total taxable vis! tor spending in Santa Monlca IS
$195,900,000, and the est~mated tax revenue to Santa Monica is
$2,824,000. Or put 1n another way, for each dollar a Vlsltor
spends 1n Santa Monica, 1.34 cents goes dlrectly to our city.
A very large part of the jobs within the travel industry are In
the serv~ce industry category. Since tourIsm IS a
labor-1ntens l\'e industry, tr avel-and-tour ism hu:es large number
of teenagers, female heads of households, mlnorlties and the
elderly, many of whom m~ght have few or no speciallzed sl<llls,
experLence or educatLonal background.
It IS d~fficu1t:to determine the exact number of Jobs which are
dIrectly produced by tour1sm in Santa Monica. The fIgures shown
are only indlcatlve, not defInItIve, and are meant to gl.ve an
understand:l.ng .of the posslble dlrect impact of tourism in Santa
Monlca.
- c -
"
.
.
. .
.
.
Employment in Categories
Directly Generated from
Tour lsm
Ratlo of
Category
,Sub-Ca tegory Number Employment
Botel/Motel 750 100%
-.Eating/DrinKing
Places 1,850 50%
Gas Stations 100 33%
Food Stores 130 10%
MISC. ShoppIng
Go od s 90 20%
Auto Rentals 150 75%
'rOTAL 3,070 5%
TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL JOBS IN SANTA MONICA: 59,600
Source: Pannell Kerr Forster estimates from overall
prov lded by the Reg lonal Research lnst 1 tute of
CalifornIa, Los Angeles.
fIgures
Southern
ThIS study also showed that 64% of Vlsltors go to the beach, and
53% sIghtsee. ThIS compares to 48% and 18%, respetively, for
V1sltors to Los Angeles County. Clearly, the resources of the
beach and Santa' Monica Bay are a maJor part of Santa Monlca 1 s
attractlon for vis1tors. 011 drl111ng platforms 1n the Bay would
not only adversely affect vlsltors' aesthetic experlence of our
C1ty, but would also lead to potentIal harmful effects because of
011 sp1l1s, alr pollutlon, and damage to the Bay's biota. It IS
likely that Santa Monica's attractlon to vlsitors would be
dimlnlshed, and the local economy dlsrupted.
Marine Environment
The State of Callfornia has recently authorlzed a study of the
marine envlronment of the Bay. AB 2642, wbich was passed by the
legislature and signed by the Governor, dlrects the State
Department of Fish and Game to study marine life in the Bay. The
study is being performed because of 1nformation indicating a
decline in the quantity and quallty of marine life 1n the Bay.
The study wlll evaluate and make recommendat~ons on thIS problem.
We belleve that OCS development and potentlal pollutlon from
dr il11ng muds and 0:11 sp1lls ln the Bay could aggravate current
prOblems and lead to a deteriorated situatIon.
- 5 -
~.
- .
.
.
."., .
. . L -A.--'I _ ...~ _ ... ........._
,
Earthquakes
If perm~tted, DeS development in the Bay would be exposed to
potent~al damage from earthquakes. There ate several fault zones
under the Bay and we experience frequent (at least once a year)
earthquakes centered under the Bay. Earthquake damage coud lead
to pollution of the Bay and its beaches.
qn-Shore Cumulative Impacts
The DOI continues to offer leases at a tremendous pace, placlng-ft
heavy burden on the State of California and local governments to
plan for this development and to provide the necessary
infrastructure for water, roads, and other support needs.
Because the DOl still inSists on offer ing large areas for sale,
the questlon of cumulative impacts cannot be adequately
addresseo. Lease Sale BO is the most recent example of the
shortcomings in the areawide lease sale approach. The
envIronmental analysis of the 3.9 million acre Lease BO Sale
futilely attempted to cover impacts near to shore, up to 200
miles offshore, along the ma~nland, on offshore islands, and over
the entire area from Point ConceptIon to the MeXIcan border.
These problems must be solved before the DOr commits to even
mOre DeS leaslng, especially 1.n Santa Monica Bay. Repeatedly
holding huge sales ~lthout addresslng the cumulat~ve impacts
stemm~ng from these sales is not acceptable and is another reason
why OCS development in the Bay should not be permItted.
We belleve that a permanent moratorium on oes development in
Santa Monica Bay ~s the best course for your commIttee to
reco~~end. At a minimum, however, a fl.ve-year moratorium should
be imposed to study and identIfy potential lmpacts and mltigatlon
measures. The CIty of Santa Monlca ~ould partlclpate 1n such a
process if gIven an opportunlty to do so. It is clear that local
governments should be afforded a greater role ~n the DeS
deciSIon-making process, since the local envlronment, economy and
quallty of Ilfe would be dIrectly affected.
Thank you for the opportunity to co~ment on thIS matter.
KE:PG:KW:lw
- 6 -
l.
.
.
v~
CA:RMM:mbnoollr
Clty Gouncll Meetlng 4-9-85
Santa Monica, CalifornIa
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6999(CCS)
(City Gouncil Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE
GRANTING OF $2500 TO NO OIL, INC.
WHEREAS, No Oil, Inc., is a non-profit corporation whose
members seek to protect the environment in the area of the
Pacific Pallsades, the City of Santa Honica and the Santa
Monica Bay from the harmful consequences of 011 drllling and
related activities; and
WHEREAS,
in January 1982, a Draft Environmental Impact
Report to establish three oil drilling distrlcts in the
PacIfic Palisades was cIrculated for publlC reVlew by the Clty
of Los Angeles Planning Department; and
WHEREAS,
29, 1982, Occidental Petroleum
on
July
CorporatIon filed three applications with the City of Los
Angeles
establishment of three oil drllling
requestlng
dlstrlcts in the Pacific Palisades; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of creating 011 drilling dIstricts
is to permlt subsurface exploration for oil deposits; and
WHEREAS, the discovery of substantial subsurface oil
depOSIts wIll require the transportation of such oil through a
system such as a pipeline; and
1
...~.. ~.........._... ~ .
,I')..
.
.
t..lHEREAS,
the development of the
oil drllltng sites and
an oil transportation system are closely related proJects; and
WHEREHS, the cumulative environmental Impacts of closely
related
prOjects must be
considered concurrently pursuant to
the
State
CEQA GUldeltnes as provided In
14 Cal. Adm. Code
Section 15130; and
WHEREAS,
the Draft EIR Includes a very cursory analysIs
of
the
potential
environmental
Impacts resulting
from the
development of the pipeline; and
WHERE':'S,
the Draft EIR concludes
that spills and leaks
from
the
pipelines are not likely
to occur based on present
Dreventatlve technologies; and
WHEREAS,
nationWide
surveys
reflect
a
51gnlflcant
InCidence
of
serIous
plpellr1e
aCCidents
caused
by both
aCCIdents and deterioration of the pipelines; and
~JHEREAS ,
the
foreseeable
magnitude
of
a
pIpeline
aCCident could be expected to release ?7,OOO gallons of gas or
OIl, and which would spread a disperSion plume of contaminants
over a area of 430,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS,
the hazards associated With an aCCidental leek
or
sp I II
or
gas
or
011
InclUde,
fIre
and explOSion,
contamination of water wells or reservOirs along the pipeline
route,
pollution
of
beaches,
and
potential
for InJuries,
fatalities and substantial property damage: and
WHEREAS,
the Draft EIR notes several pOSSible plpeltne
routes
for transporting gas and all from the drtlllng site to
~- I 1 ~-
2
...
..--.
.
.
WHEREAS, the development of the 011 drllling sltes and
an oil transportation system are closely related proJects; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative environmental impacts of closely
related projects must be consldered concurrently pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines as provided in 14 Cal. Adm. Code
Section 15130; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ErR includes a very cursory analysis
of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the
development of the pipeline; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ErR concludes that spllls and leaks
from the pipelines are not likely to occur based on present
preventative technologies; and
WHEREAS, nationwIde surveys reflect a SIgnIfIcant
IncIdence of serious pipeline accidents caused by both
aCCIdents and deterioration of the pIpelines; and
WHEREAS, the foreseeable magnitude of a pIpelIne
aCCIdent could be expected to release 57,000 gallons of gas or
oil, and which would spread a dispersion plume of contaminants
over a area of 430,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the hazards associated with an accidental leak
or spill or gas or oil includes, fire and explosion,
contamination of water wells or reserVOIrs along the pIpeline
route, pollution of beaches, and potential for injuries,
fatalities and substantial property damage; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ErR notes several possible pipeline
routes for transportIng gas and oil from the drilling site to
2
.. .
.
.
an existing branch of a major oil and gas transportation
systemj and
WHEREAS, Occidental Petroleum Corporation has designated
a proposed route for the pipeline which would follow Pacific
Coast Highway for 3/4 miles to Entrada Drive; turn east on
Entrada Drive approximately one mile to Seventh Street and San
Vicente Boulevard; travel east on San Vicente Boulevard
approximately 3 miles to the Union Oil Company 10 inch ~il
11ne or 6 miles to the Occidental Petroleum Corporation 6 inch
011 line at Sawtelle Boulevard; and
WHEREAS,
land uses along this p1pel1ne route 1nclude
lntensely ut1l1zed public beaches along Pac1flc Coast H1ghway,
dense urban concentrat1ons of commercial and resident1al uses
along the rema1nder of the proposed route, and the Canyon
Elementary School on Entrada Drive; and
WHEREAS, two fresh water wells which provide water to
the City of Santa Monlca are located near the intersections of
Santa V1cente Boulevard at 19th Street and Esparta Way; and
WHEREAS, the proposed p1peline route would be located
with1n 200 feet of these two water wells and crosses a 16 inch
water line that connects a 25 million gallon water reserve to
C1ty of Santa Monica res1dents; and
WHEREAS, the proxim1ty of the proposed p1pel1ne route to
the C1ty of Santa Mon1ca water reserves is closer than the
mlnlmum
distance
suggested 1n the State of Californla
Department of Health Services guidelines; and
3
,,_ ~'!A-.'-
.
.
. .
WHEREAS, the proposed pipeline route crosses the
Mallbu-Santa Monica Fault lIne at three separate locatIons;
and
WHEREAS, the installatIon of a pipeline over a known
earthquake fault line substantially increases the likllhood of
serious damage to persons and property in the event of a
strong seIsmic event; and
WHEREAS, the above-mentioned environmental concerns were
submitted to the CIty of Los Angeles in conjunction with the
public comment perIod on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, members of the publIC generally and No Oil,
Inc. In partIcular requested that the City of Los Angeles
prepare a Supplemental EIR to consIder the environmental
Issues relatIng to the p1peline; and
WHEREAS, the C1ty of Los Angeles directed the
preparation of a Supplemental EIR to address envIronmental
1ssues not adequately consIdered 1n the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the C1ty of Los Angeles determined that the
env1ronmental issues relatIng to the pipeline were adequately
addressed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS,
adopted three
on January 11, 1985, the City of Los Angeles
ordinances which created three oil drilling
d1stricts in the Pacific Palisadesj and
WHEREAS, the failure of the City of Los Angeles to
adequately analyze the foreseeable environmental effects of
the pipelIne poses a substant1al threat of harm to the health
and safety of the citizens of City of Santa Monica; and
4
r. ,
.
.
WHEREAS, the C1ty of Santa Mon1ca has notif1ed the City
of Los Angeles of its opposition to the oil drilling site
adjacent to Santa Monica Bay; and
WHEREAS, No Oil, Inc.
initiated litigation against the
City of Los Angeles 1n Los Angeles Superior Court on February
7, 19B5 _opposing the establishment of an oil drilling site
adJacent to Santa Monica Bay; and
WHEREAS, No Oil, Inc. has requested a grant from the
City of Santa Monica to help defer its fees and costs in the
lltlgat1on; and
WHEREAS, the lltigation alleges that a supplemental
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed construct1on of
the pipeline should have been prepared, as the existing
Environmental Impact Report 1S too general to properly
evaluate the potentlal adverse environmental effects
associated wlth the pipeline, 1ncluding potent1al pollut1on of
the Clty of Santa Monica's water supply, and, therefore, does
not comply with the requirements of the California
Env1ronmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, it is a proper public purpose for the C1ty of
Santa Monica to support No Oil, Inc. in the litigation
respect1ng the pipeline because of the potential hazards to
Santa Monlca citizens, as indicated in an opinion by an expert
in p1peline safety studies and pipeline inspection, who
concluded that the information presented in the present
Envlronmental Impact Report does not assess a variety of
5
._.~
.
.
potentlal hazards WhlCh could be caused by the proposed
construction of the plpellne,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the grantlng of
$2,500 to No Oil, Inc. in support of the litigation opposing
the proposed construction of the pipeline and requesting that
a supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared which
specifically addresses the potential adverse environmental
effects assoclated with the pipellne.
SECTION 2. The Clty Council authorizes the City Manager
to execute an agreement with No Oil, Inc. providing that the
grant of $2,500 by the City of Santa Monlca shall be used by
No 011, Inc. solely for court costs and attorneys' fees in the
lltlgatlon opposlng the proposed construction of the plpeline
and that No 011, Inc. shall reimburse the City of Santa Monlca
lf it subsequently recovers such court costs and attorneys'
fees.
SECTION 3. The Clty Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of thlS Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same
shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~'--.'-~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
0-
6
_. J.'f.. ........
.
.
Adopted and approved this 9th day of April, 1985.
f?! (~~ !c,~
r ..-----.... Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 6999(CCS)
was duly adopted by the Clty Council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on April 9, 1985 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councllmembers: Conn, Edwards, EpsteIn, Jennings,
Katz, Zane and Mayor Reed
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councllmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
~1(h,~
... ... .. ~
. ,
~
"
.
.
14-C: OIL DRILLING/PACIFIC PALISADES AND SANTA MONICA BAY:
Presented were the requests of Councllmembers Epsteln, Jennlngs
and Reed to discuss restatIng Council's posltlon against proposed
011 drllling In the Paclfic Palisades and Santa Monlca Bay area.
Durlng dlScusslon, Councllmember Epsteln moved to waive the
regulations to permit CouncIlmembers fIve mInutes each to dlSCUSS
thi s item. Second by CouncIlmember JennIngs. The motion was
approved by unanlmous vote. Councllmember Reed lntroduced
dlScusslon regardlng Santa MonIca's opposltion to 011 drllling ~n
the Santa Monlca Bay and v lC In 1 ty. After dIScusslon I
Councilmember Reed moved to authorIze the Mayor to send a letter
to the Los Angeles CIty Plan:ll:1g CommlSSlon, Clty CounCIl and
Mayor communicatlng the concerns of Santa Monlca WIth regard to
the oil drillIng proJect in the PalIsades, the plpellne route,
city water lines and water faCIlitIes, and potentlal pollutIon In
the largest public recreatlon spot the beaches In Los
Angeles County. Second by Hayor Edwards. DIScusslon was held.
The motlon was approved by unanlmous vote.
During dlScusslon, Councilmember Jennl:1gs ~oved that Councll send
a maIlgram to U.S. Senators Cranston and ~'llson urgIng them to
actively support the extenslon of the moratorlum on all drllllng
in the Santa Monlca Bay, whlch IS due to expIre October 1, 1984.
Second by Mayor Edwards. The motlon was approved by unanimous
vote.
DurIng diSCUSSion, Cou~cllmember Je~~lngs moved that CounCIl
contact U.S. Senators and Congressmen concernIng amend~ent of the
Coastal Zone Management Act to requlre conslderatlon of State
environmental concern before leaslng tracts for off shore
development. Second by Hayor Edwards. Mayor Edwards moved to
amend the motIon to authorlze Councilmembers to testIfy at a
hearIng to be conducted by Congressman LeVIne on October 12, 1984
on th1s matter. The maker accepted the amendment as friendly and
Incorporated It Into the maln motIon. The motlon was approved by
unanimous vote.
Dur1ng diSCUSSIon, Councilmember Jennings moved that CounCIl
coord lnate Wl th Los Angeles and - - other coastal CI tles In
protesting oil lease sale 1/80 and developing a ratlonale for
prohlbiting OIl leaSIng and exploration east of CatalIna Island.
Second by Councllmember Reed. Councilme~ber Reed moved to add to
the motion deslgnation of CouncIlmember Jennlngs as the prlmary
representat1 ve of the CounCIl In thlS area. The maker accepted
the amendment as frlendly and Incorporated It l:1tO the maIn
motlon. The motlon was approved by Una'llmOUS vote. DIScusslon
was held.
CITY COUNCIL UINUTES
SEPTEt-mER ~, 1984