Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF - OCS Lease Sale 95 - OFFSHORE OIL L t REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACJI.ON Date August 21, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members JPRO'ftD gY CITY COL1NCrL Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator �- a Prepared by: _ i9. James W. Palin, Deputy City Administrator Subject: CITY cLLrRIC OCS Lease Sale 95 Consistent iFes - (,o G with Council Policy. [� Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City of Huntington Beach has participated in a consortium of the County and other Orange County cities which have studied the environmental and economic impacts of future (OCS Lease Sale 95) offshore oil development in Orange County. These reports concluded that OCS Lease Sale 95 activity will result in both short and long term impacts. RECOMMENDATION• Approve Resolution No. �060 for filing with the Department of Interior request OCS Lease Sale 95 be cancelled. ANALYSIS: The consortium Consultant, Richard Townsend, prepared the attached summary of all technical reports provided to the County and each of the cities. As stated, the potential negative effects of OCS Lease Sale 95 on Orange County are substantial. Therefore, each of the members are preparing a resolution similar to the one adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in opposition of OCS Lease Sale 95. FUNDING SOURCE: No funding needed at this time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1) Do not adopt Resolution No. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. (00U) 2. Prior Resolution No. 5810. 3. Summary of potential effects. 4. Map of Lease Sale 95. v JWP:lp A 5038h person per year for the four million visitors who come to the Orange Coast. Pure existence values are similarly high. Air Quality Effects -- The exploration, development, and production of oil that could result from Lease Sale 95 may create significant new sources of air pollution in a severely overburdened air basin. Health-based air pollution standards are regularly violated in the basin into which the Lease Sale 95 pollutants would blow. According to SCAG, the amount of NOx (oxides of nitrogen) from Lease Sale 95 development will be 200 tons per platform, with up to 17 platforms being forecast. VOC (volatile organic compounds) emissions are expected to be about 40 tons per platform per year. The NOx amount for a single platform is roughly equivalent to the total emissions of the Long Beach and Orange County airports combined, or to 23,000 new cars driving 50 miles a day for a year. Any emissions from Lease Sale 95 will be inconsistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District plans. Moreover, the South Coast Air Basin is a non- attainment area under federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulates, all of which are created by offshore oil development. Orange County also violates other air quality standards as well. South Coast air pollution is the worst in the nation, with several of the high-level pollutants causing serious damage to human respiratory, nervous, and circulatory systems. Any Lease Sale 95 emissions will be regulated by the Department of the Interior. Experience with past offshore oil developments in California shows that Interior regulation often is inadequate. Interior's regulations are deficient and its enforcement is weak. Fisheries Effects -- Waters off Orange County are important for both commercial and recreational fisheries. Commercial fishermen using a variety of gear types catch many kinds of fish including anchovy, bonito, white croaker, halibut, mackerel, opah, rockfish, sablefish, salmon, sardine, white seabass, shark, sole, swordfish, tuna, crab, lobster, prawn, sea urchin, abalone, and squid. About $75 million worth of fish are landed annually at Los Angeles area ports, which include ports in Orange County. Much of this resource is taken from waters off Orange County in the Lease Sale 95 area. As for recreational fishing, it is estimated that over 142,000 Orange County residents fish the coastal waters of the county, as do about 4,500 other Californians and over 34,000 out-of-state residents. These fishermen spent hundreds of thousands of days fishing, landed several hundred thousand fish, and spent millions of dollars in their efforts. Offshore oil development affects fishing through effects on the fish themselves from routine operations. The vast quantities of drilling muds and cuttings discharged in drilling each well causes a variety of problems in fish including both lethal and sublethal damage. The blasts from routine geophysical surveys harms fish, especially in their relatively larval stages. Any oil spill will only exacerbate these problems. 2 Fisheries also are be affected by interference from offshore oil operations. Platforms remove vast areas from productive fisheries, especially for those fisheries that need large, unobstructed areas in which to operate, such as drift gill netting. Drilling vessels have the same effects. Seafloor debris, underwater wellheads, and other obstructions snag nets, damaging or destroying them. Transiting support vessels also interfere with fisheries, and support facilities may preclude the use of harbors for fishing support due to preemptive use of scarce harbor space. Effects on Biological Resources -- The Orange County coast is rich in important biological resources and habitats. The coastline is characterized by some of the least disturbed coastal wetlands in Southern California. It also is noted for its diverse intertidal habitats, kelp forests, and deep water habitats. These areas are home to many species of seabirds, marine mammals, and a wealth of drifting, swimming, and bottom-dwelling species. Offshore oil operations produce a number of pollutants that harm marine plants and animals. Among these pollutants are hydrocarbons, barite, other heavy metals, clays, lignosulfonates, lignite, biocides, brines, acids, bases, and plastics. Other sources of harm to marine species include energy releases such as low frequency, high energy acoustic pressure waves. Also, offshore oil operations produce physical alterations to the environment from vessel traffic, anchor scars, drilling muds, sediment movement, and subsidence. These and other sources of harm cause a wide range of biological harm. Some species or individuals may be killed outright from poisoning, asphyxiation, overpressures, crushing, or other physical destruction. Longer term effects on individual organisms include low level poisoning, displacement, non-fatal injuries, interference with feeding and survival abilities, loss of food or energy sources, loss of habitat, and interference with transitional behaviors or requirements such as molting or migration. Offshore oil operations also affect reproduction in many species. Reproductive impacts include toxicity leading to reproductive cellular or organ damage, mutations, fetal poisoning, reproductive behavior changes, alteration in reproductive habitat requirements, and impacts on survival of pre-adult life stages. Entire communities may be affected through biomagnification, changes in species composition, food chain alterations, and lost biomass. Ecosystems may be affected through alterations to basic physical and biological parameters, lost diversity, alteration to trophic level energetics, and lost total productivity. An important aspect of the effects of offshore operations on marine species is that many of these effects are passed on to the species, including man, that consume the affected organisms. Thus, fish that are exposed to toxic substances pass those toxics on to those that eat them. The fact that offshore platforms create new habitats that draw fish and shellfish to them only exacerbates the problem since it is at these platforms where the exposure to toxics is likely to be the highest. Geological Hazards -- Offshore oil operations are limited by the presence of geological hazards, including seismic activity, faulting, sea floor instability, steep slopes, and hydrocarbon seeps and shallow gas. The Lease Sale 95 area has 3 areas containing all of these hazards, sometimes in combination with each other. The Lease Sale 95 area, for example, is very active seismically. Large earthquakes in the area have been centered on the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, the source of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake that killed 115 people. Offshore, earthquakes can lead to sea floor instability, faulting, liquefaction of sediments, slope failure, ground shaking, ground rupture, and tsunamis. Three major faults run through the Lease Sale 95 area. All are considered to be active. Faulting on any of these will result in much the same types of damage as earthquakes. Sea floor instability is another problem in the Lease Sale 95 area, particularly in the continental shelf break area between Newport Beach and Dana Point. Unstable sea floor can result in submarine landslides, especially in an earthquake. Steep slopes can result in landslides as well. Hydrocarbon seeps and shallow gas accumulations are widespread in the Lease Sale 95 area off Orange County. They are closely associated with known areas of sea floor instability. They can lead to loss of well control in a drilling operation, and if handled improperly can endanger the drilling platform and the environment through a blowout. Oil Spill Contingency Planning -- The Department of the Interior has estimated that the chance of a major oil spill off Southern California is over 99 percent. Because of this fact, several lines of defense have been established by the government and the oil industry. Spill response materials are stored at each drilling site and at various locations on land. Industry spill cooperatives have been established to respond to major spills, and several agencies and organizations have developed oil spill contingency plans for dealing with spills. While this planning and preparation is positive, it falls far short of what is needed to protect the economy and environment of Orange County and the rest of Southern California. Time and time again the equipment of the type stockpiled for use off Orange County has been shown to be ineffective in all but the most benign weather and sea conditions. And existing contingency plans have been shown to be inadequate for an effective response to a spill. For example, all of the existing contingency plans are lacking in identifying important economic and environmental resources, how they are to be protected (boomed off) in the event of a spill, and how to get access to them. Little thought has been given to tracking oil spills after dark or in fog or at night. Technologies must be developed for this and the necessary equipment procured and made available. All of the contingency plans are overly optimistic in the amount of time that will be necessary for mobilization and travel to a spill site and the ability to clean up a spill once crews get to the site. And all of the plans are overly optimistic regarding the ability of booms to trap oil and hold it away from important resources. 4 . 4 1240 122• 120° 118° C,9 •SAN LUIS OBISPO 350 35° _ O SANTA BARBARA I •LOS ANGELES •LONG BEACH 7 2 SUBAREA DEFERRALS 33° SAN P30 �► DIEGO ■ OPEN FOR LEASING MEX. IN LEASE SALE. #95 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE PACIFIC OCS REGION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNI*G AREA 310 0 50 tioo MILES 310 MEX,GO 120° i 3 ". REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL- ACTION Date August 21, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: ;.� Paul E. Cook, City Administrator e-- Prepared by: � James W. Palin, Deputy City Administrator Subject: NEW FIVE YEAR PLAN FOR APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL OFF-SHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT CRL 19— Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exce t' �Q CITY CLERK Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,A achments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Department of Interior (DOI) has asked for public comments by August 28, 1989 on a proposed new Five Year Plan for off—shore oil development on the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Scoping comments are also being solicited for an Environmental Impact Report which will be prepared for the new Plan from the oil industry, public agencies, elected officials and the public. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to transmit comments as outlined in the attached letter to be filed with the Department of Interior on both the Five—year Leasing Plan and on the Notice of Intent to Prepare for DEIS. ANALYSIS: The comments requested by DOI would be the first step in a two-year planning process for the plan, which would cover Fall 1991 to Fall 1996. According to the DOI notice announcing the comment period, attached herewith, DOI is "considering new approaches to conduct the oil and gas leasing program so as to reduce conflict as well as obtain proper balance between the economic benefits and environmental risks." This indicates a new approach to opening new off-shore tracts on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Comments given to DOI at this stage will be used to compile the Draft Proposed Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Preparation of this Program is governed by Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act. DOI has requested that comments on the Program at this point be general and conceptual in nature, and suggestions on new approaches to the conduct of OCS lease sales are appropriate. PI O 5/85 i ' RCA - OCS Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: No funding needed at this time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1) Do not approve the filing of draft comments. 2) Revise comments and authorize filing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. DOI notice for comments on Five-year Leasing Program and EIS. 2. Draft letter outlining comments on Five-year Leasing Program. 3. Draft letter on comments on EIS. 4. Resolution 5758 on prior Five-year Leasing Program. JWP:lp 5037h wft w_ k_ March 24, 1986 Offshore Oil Development - - Page -3- +�r To reiterate, the City of Huntington Beach opposes additional offshore oil development along our coast . Because the occurrence of an oil spill close to the City's shoreline could severely impact wetland areas, wildlife, tourism and beach recreational uses Pollutants carried in by ocean breezes could decrease air quality and the Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1987 1991 does not adequately address our concerns. Moreover, local jurisdictions should have the right to participate in any development which could seriously affect their resources. The proposed program does not allow cities to protect their coastlines. Sincerely Yours, - a Robert P. Mandic Mayor RPM:paj I _� a•"'-b � l• _ �;t •. •�r.� -�L wry'�0.v-1"^� - i City of Huntington Beach \` P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1. � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR March California �o�astal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, ,GA 94105 Gentlemen : The City of Huntington Beach is deeply concerned about the possible environmental and econ� mic effects of offshore oil development on our coastal communities . The occurrence of an oil spill close to the City 's shoreline coul severely impact wetland areas, wildlife, tourism and beach recreational al uses . Pollutants carried in by ocean breezes could decrease air q ality. The Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil an Gas Leasing Program for 1987-1991 does not adequately address the concerns . Moreover, local jurisdictions should have the rig t to participate in any development which could seriously fect their resources . The Proposed Program does not allow cit�' s to protect their coastlines . If full development of leasable areas 'n Southern California is accomplished, 27 platforms will be/constructed in addition to the existing 29 . The U. S. DepartmentZof Interior, Minerals management Service states in the EIS that thirteen arge oil spills over 1 ,000 barrels have a 99% probability of occurri g from all past, present and future development in the Southern California area. Two of the thireeen spills have a 75% prob bility of ccurring from the proposed development . An uncontrolled oil spill could invade the Ci 's wetland areas and nearby Bolsa Chica, and severrely impact import t feeding, resting and nesting areas for migratory birds . The Cali€ornia Least Tern, an endangered species, nests' and feeds in the B01 a Chica and on the beach near the mouth of the Santa Ana River . If t ese areas were damaged during nesting season, the terns could be d astically reduced in numbers . The beaches within and immediately adjacent to the City are well known throughout Orange Co my for providing prime sunba ing and surfing opportunities . Asla result, tourism is important o the City's present and future conomic base. Many local busine ses near the coast are primarily visitor serving. A major oil spill uld temporarily eliminate summer tourism and perhaps permanently i pact seasonal businesses in the downtown area . Redevelopment effort could be affected. TELEPHONE(714)536-5553 Page Two Offshore Oil Development Oce_-c'rn—b_reezes provide the City with relatively smog-free air . Air quality impacts from offshore oil development are expected to be- moderate . Levels of notrous oxide (NOx ) and ozone are expected t.o be slightly increased. The South Coast Air Basin has not reached attainment levels for air pollution except for sulphur dioxide (S02 ) . As a result, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires"\a new source review of all proposed stationary sources of pollution. Offshore oil development should be subject to the same review process (it is not, however , a�t"'present ) . The purchase of offsets and the installation of the best available control technology (BACT) should be required to prevent a decrease in air quality. The Proposed Program is in direct conflict with the intent of the Act . Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act7states in part: "The Secretary shall select th-e timing and location of leasing to the maximum extent practica e, so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential forteenv1ronmental damage, the potential for the discovery f oil aM gas and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone . " Sensitive areas , such as wetlands and beaches in southern California receive no guarantees of protection from environmentkl damage and air quality issues are not adequately addressed. Coas-tal jurisdictions have a vested nterest in these areas . TYier.efore, direct local involvement in t planning and leasing process --is critical in achieving the ltimate goal of balanced development: The Program currently pro ides the City with minimal control over development activities . It is extremely time consuming for local jurisdictions to partic ' ate fully and effectively in the leasing process . Participation both locally and statewide is important because precedents may be set in other planning areas which will be applied to lease sales in our area . Therefore, lease sales should be limited to one every five years per planning area. The provision for flexibility which allows acceleration of the lease sale process is of great concern to the City. It gives the DOI broad discretionary authority to accelerate sales without formal approval by other federal , state and local authorities . Areas immediately adjacent to the state limit could be leased without any consideration of coastal impacts or local concerns . We are concerned with the timing of Lease Sale No. 91 , which targets the entire Mendocino coastline as well as portions of the Humboldt coast. This sale includes biologically critical nearshore tracts , including important fisheries, and prime tourism destinations. Local jurisdictions cannot effectively evaluate Sale 91 until policies are set in the Program. Therefore, we feel that it is inappropriate to initiate the leasing process until the 5-Year Program is finalized. Page Three Offshore Oil Development Based these concerns, the City must be assured that offshore oil develop ent will not increase the risk that we have already accepted from exi ting platforms near our shoreline. Areas adjacent to the state lima should be deleted to allow adequate time for oil spill clean-up be re it reaches the coast . Huntington Beach ' s sensitive coastal resou es are irreplaceable and are vital to our economic health . We haalready accepted our fair share of the responsibility for, he provision of the nation 's energy needs . Offshore oil development adjacent to Orange County will place an unfair burden on our `City and should be prohibited. JWP:LC: jr (4430d) Cow.,. g„ 3 zLG CA.,, T PETE WILSON COMMITTEES: CALIFORNIA C/ D SERVICES /J1 Qt&TURE '?JC�Yfea ,�ifofes ,�ielr,cafe �� `4�'r- WASHINGTON.D.C. 20510 February 18 , 1986 Ms. Alicia Wentworth 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms . Wentworth: Thank you for sharing your views with me on the question of further development of California' s offshore oil and gas reserves. While I share your view that America should become energy self- sufficient , I must respectfully disagree with you that the road to energy independence lies in the coastal waters off California . I am not convinced that there are enough oil reserves off the California coast to justify the risks associated with development . Every time I pick up a newspaper to read about an oil tanker spill , I think about the new oil tankers that would be traveling the California coastline if it were all open to development . If just one of these tankers were to have a major spill off California , the consequences could be devastating. With this in mind, I am now meeting on a regular basis with Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel and other Members of Congress in an attempt to reach an agreement on this issue. I will keep you advised of any new developments. I cannot promise that our group will reach agreement on this highly contentious issue, but you and I both know it ' s worth a try. I will keep you advised of any progress. Again, while we might disagree on this issue, I appreciate knowing your views and hope you will continue to share them with me in the future . Sincerely, �TE S�N �� RESOLUTION NO. 5558 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESPECTING A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COASTLINE WHEREAS, a moratorium has been placed on offshore oil drilling in the coastal waters of the State of California; and A tentative proposal has been agreed upon between the Secretary of the Interior and certain representatives to the United States Congress from California to permit offshore oil drilling during such moratorium in exchange for protection of specified portions of the coastline until the year 2000; and Such protection has been offered scenic areas such as Big Sur, Malibu, Marin County, Monterey and San Diego; and The County of Orange and the cities of Huntington Beach, Laguna beach, Newport Beach, and San Clemente merit treatment equal to that afforded other coastal areas of California, and should be included in any compromise proposal under consideration, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it will vigorously oppose any compromise proposal which is not modified to include equal protection measures for the coastal resources of Orange County and its beach cities, and will support a continued moratorium on offshore oil drilling along California ' s entire coast. FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to furnish copies of this resolution to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the United States Secretary of the Interior, and California' s representatives to the Congress. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 1. a - Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of August 1985. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: ty A ministrat r ahb; 8/19/85 0736L 2. Res. No. 5558 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) so: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular - meeting thereof held on the 19th day of August 19 85 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: Councilmen: MacAllister ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California QS�ENT OF Th C*5 G THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ".; SW p C..,n n A WASHINGTON rn�cer F'� Q M°M"3" S E P 3 o 1985 " a }� «l "i Ms. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Wentworth: I very much appreciate your taking the time to express your concerns on the preliminary agreement regarding development of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore California. I assure you that your comments will be considered prior to any final decision on a matter vital to both California and the Nation. Continued OCS development off the California coast has been controversial for a long time. As a result, the Federal program in many areas has been stalled for almost two decades. We are searching diligently for an approach that will let us begin to explore for new resources off California, and we are engaged in intensive discussions with all interested parties. In its simplest form, the issue is how we can help meet the energy needs of the Nation by developing an area with high energy potential , while, at the same time, taking into account the environmental concerns which have generated intense opposition to such development. Congress has enacted moratoria that have restricted severely the Federal oil and gas leasing program offshore California for the past four years. The OCS Lands Act, however, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a balanced, expedited program. In my view, moratoria which pay little, if any, attention to the need to focus exploration and development activities on those lands which show significant petroleum potential clearly contradict that Act. Recognizing that these moratoria are contrary to sound national energy and economic policy, I have been working toward a compromise on the issues so that we can have a responsible OCS program. I remain convinced that it is very much in the national interest to try to reach a consensus on these issues, and I remain optimistic that we can join together to do so. Again, thank you for your comments on this important issue. Sincerely, dll�w�b DONALD PAUL HOOK ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE _7 WASMINOTOM CWF=W. I 243E RAYBURN HOUSE OmcE HnLDtNO/ HOUSE ADMINISTRATION WASMIMCTON,D.C. 20515 COMMITTEE (202)225-56I1 REPUBLICAN STUDY Con re�g of anireb Orareg WWO OFr ' COMMITTEE 190 NrWIORT CENTEcRR DRIVE REPUBLICAN POLICY *ouge of tepregentatibeg N[wrOwT sCK, 240 .BLACK,CAUrowMu 92660 COMMITTEE (714)644-4040 September 25, 19B5 ROBERT E. BADHAM S 40TH DISTRICT.CALIFORNIA O i Ms. Alicia M. Wentworth r�o City Clerk City of Huntington Beach o 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 � Dear Ms. Wentworth: Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to any outer continental shelf oil (OM) leasing off the ooast of Orange County. I, too, adamantly oppose any oil and gas development in this area that is highly sensitive in terms of its recreational, environ- mental, and esthetic value. During the month of July, an ad hoc group of California Congressmen and Secretary of the Interior Hodel announced a preliminary agreement which would have released 6 tracts off the east of Orange County for oil and gas production. I did not support this proposal because of the inclusion of these 6 tracts and have been actively involved in trying to prevent any of the proposed drilling off the coast of Orange County. In August, I successfully arranged a meeting in Newport Beach with Secretary Hodel in which local officials and members of the conmunity had the opportunity to voice their concerns about the proposal. Since that time, Secretary Hodel has withdrawn his support of the agreement because of the threat of litigation by the local communities and the introduction of new resource information. In addition, Secretary Hodel has asked the California delegation to choose a group, of which I am a member, to renegotiate the agreement based on a new list of tracts that he will introduce in future consultation. In the meantime, I have convinced my colleagues of the sensitivity of the Orange County waters to any offshore oil development and have succeeded in having the 6 tracts deleted from a bill, introduced on September 19, that would implement a modified version of the tentative agreement reached in July. I am going to support this legislation because I believe that proper recognition has been given to the valuable coastal area off Orange County. At the same time, I will support an extension of the moratorium on OCS leasing off California (which is now effective until November 15, 1985) as well as trying to negotia 'able OCS agreement with Secretary Hodel. You can be sure that I will Conti a my forts to test the Orange County coast from oil leasing and development. I reci having a efit of your opinion on this important matter. Co di , rt E. Ba am Member of C. ss REM/ks e AW s Nc, � G-� Cm�c�A11i's r NO) %- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • - Hl N 1ING 101%BE M H All City Council Members Mayor Pro Tem, TO FROM Bob Mandic SUBJECT OFFSHORE OH, DATE August 19, 1985 DRILLING COALITION Since our City Council meeting of August 6th, several meetings of the Offshore Oil Committee have been held. On Tuesday, August 13, 1985, 1 attended, along with Councilman Green and staff, a full committee meeting and on last Friday, August 16th, I attended a meeting of an executive committee that was formed for the purpose of preparing an activity program and budget. The committee's efforts are continuing towards presenting testimony before Secretary of Interior, Donald Hodel, on Saturday, August 31st fro m 9:00 A.M. -11:00 A.Nl. Currently, we have reserved time slots for three members of the Council to present testimony against lifting the offshore moratorium. Attached for your information, you will find background information from our recent meetings, and a draft position paper prepared by our staff in terms of the impacts on Huntington Beach. Your comments on this specific document would be appreciated. Staff has also prepared, for your consideration,a resolution which formalizes the minute action taken by the City Council on July 22, 1985. I would like to request your consideration of this item at our meeting this evening. BM:lp Attachment xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator 1258h _I �- r POSITION PAPER ON OFFSHORE OIL COMPROMISE The City of Huntington Beach. has determined that the proposed leasing of OCS tracts located offshore Huntington Beach and Orange County would not be in the best interests of the City. The City Council , therefore, strongly opposes action by, the Department of the Interior to release these tracts for leasing as part of the California OCS Agreement . The City does support the concept of leasing a limited number of tracts off California 's shore. We believe, however , that the proposed tracts off Huntington Beach. and Orange County should remain off limits to OCS leasing because of their critical location with regard to the local economy. We have no objection to the negotiated. agreement opening 150 tracts to OCS leasing; we simply feel that other tracts , which may have fewer. negative impacts , should be substituted for these. Huntington Beach is a city with a population of 180, 000 . The City has 9 miles of sandy shoreline devoted exclusively to public beaches . Over 10 million people a year use these beaches ; they are among the most popular in the State. The value of this recreational asset to the State and to the nation goes beyond a dollar amount . Our beaches are a national treasure, which risks devaluation and deterioration from the blight of unsightly platforms and the possibility of disastrous spills. To the City itself , the devel.opment of tracts off our coast could be a. financial disaster . The City has embarked upon an ambitious program of downtown renewal and revitalization in an attempt to bolster the local economic base. Our program is based upon creating an active center for tourist related businesses - hotels , shops and restaurants- - along a part o-f our coast. This effort can only be thwarted by the impacts of additional OCS development. Our concerns for the long-term ecological safety of oil technology are no different from those of other jurisdictions . We worry about the effects of drilling on marine resources, on endangered species , on fisheries ,. on the food chain. We are afraid of the risks to shipping and navigation, to life and property from earthquakes and storms , to the intertidal zone from leaks and spills . But mostly we are concerned with the social and economic impacts of GCS drilling on our. community. For example , if extensive oil deposits are found, where will we put the necessary on shore support facilities , such as tanks and processing plants , heliports and crew bases? There isn ' t much undeveloped land left near our shores , and what there is has extensive residential development close by. We don ' t believe our local public services could support intensive onshore facilities , nor could local government bear the burden of siting and processing applications for their development while keeping abreast of the ordinary needs of its citizens . + Except for the initial construction phase, most CCS oil facilities would not provide many local jobs . The considerable public costs of siting and supporting these facilities would not be reimbursed by commensurate gains in local economic activity. Air quality trade-offs would- be squandered , Leaving us without adequate trade-offs for industries of more benefit to our economic base . (3087d ) -2- In short, the cost/benefit ratio appears extremely unfavorable. We question whether the amount of low quality, high sulphur oil which may be obtained from these tracts is worth. the considerable costs to our local economy and environment , and, in short , whether it is worthwhile to degrade and expose to risk so valuable a national resource as the Huntington Beach shoreline . The City of Huntington Beach urgently requests that Congress remove the OCS tracts offshore Huntington Beach and Orange County from the proposed California OCS Agreement, and replace them with, tracts less damaging to local and national assets . JAF: jr ( 3087d) -3- - PO CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH o. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92_658-8915 r aCrF0 (714) 644-3131 August_ 15, 1985 City of Huntington Beach Attention : Mr . Doug LaBelle 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr . LaBelle : Enclosed, please find a copy of The ?Minutes of the Offshore OiI Meeting held on August 13 , 1985. Sincerely, Maureen Huffman City At.torney' s Office enclosure 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Minutes Offshore Oil Meeting--_ r August 12, 1985 Page 2 will probably c-ontribute $5 , 000 . 00 , but at least will contribute $2, 500 . 00; San Clemente is contributing $3, 000 . 00 ; City of Newport Beach is contributing $5 , 00.0 . 00 ; Huntington Beach is contributing $5, 000-. 00. Discussion ensued about how the various sums of money would be- handled and it was agreed that one person from each city, probably the mayor , would co-sign on all disbursements made from the contributions received. The next order of business was to select a coordinator to handle all matters before the August 31st meeting with Secretary of the Interior , Paul Hodel . Robert Gentry proposed that we hire Denny Freidenrich, who has worked in Washington,. D.C. public relations ; dealt with. many fund-raising organizations in Orange County; and has managed several political campaigns in Orange County for successful candidates . He comes highly recommended by several members of this committee. It was agreed that several of the key members of this committee should get together with Denny Freidenrich after this meeting and give him concise instructions on exactly what he is supposed to do in connection with the services we want h-im to perform on our behalf . It was agreed that since time is of the essence that we would hire Denny Freidenrich, . who will charge the committee $6 , 000 . 00 for his services rendered . It was mentioned that the- cities should each get all of their information together , technical , problems in the event of seismic activity, etc, and present a more detail-ed package of the problems with the offshore drilling rather than the aesthetic and the effect on tourism issues . Huntington Beach council members indicated that the Mayor of Huntington Beach will be at the August 31st meeting. Huntington Beach is going to have a "Hands Across the Sand" rally within the next week in order to get petitions signed against the offshore drilling. The members of Huntington Beach City Council have mixed f-eelings about oil drilling since Huntington Beach has many oil drilling contracts . The City of Laguna Beach has a petition with 15 , 000 signatures , and they will be having a demonstration on August Minutes. Offshore Oil Meeting..= August. 12, 1`985 Page 3 i 24th, at the Main Beach Park , a human wave protest (with all participants dressed in blue to look like a giant wave) against offshore- drilling. The City of San Cl.emente is circulating peti-tions in connection with another matter and Bob Limberg does not expect that San Clemente will be of much support as it's 'residents do not express much interest in the oil drilling one way- or . the other . Ruthelyn Plunner said that the City of Newport Beach is having a meeting on Thursday , August 15, 1985 at. 7 : 30 at. City Hall . There are 50 homeowners ' associations .i.n Newport Beach and they plan to have two members from each- association present . The cities present today felt that the beach connunities should try to get support from inner California cities , i . e. , Placentia, Tustin, Irvine, Santa Ana, Fullerton ,_ Orange, etc . Obviously, the politicians feel that the beach cities would not favor the drilling, but if we could get support from the inner California cities , they feel it would be helpful in getting attention from the politicians . . Much discussion ensued about whether we should obtain a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. to help further our matter and it was agreed that it was a possibility and something that we should do after the August 31st meeting. Ku.rt Haunfelner indicated that Lt . Governor McCarthy is sympathetic towards our group and that he would be willing to meet with us on August 21st . It was agreed that we would discuss this later in the meeting. Bobbie. Minkin said t.hat each city must call Christy Bock in Hodel ' s office and give the names of the persons and entity they will represent in their speeches for the August 31st hearing before Hodel . She said that tomorrow, August 14, 1985 , was the last day to call Hodel ' s office and arrange for the speakers . Much discussion ensued regarding the tactics to be used in connection with the speeches and what would be the best way to approach this matter . The Irvine Company is sympathetic toward our cause and has a full -time lobbyist in Washington, D.C. who is helping us from his vantage point . Minutes . Offshore Oil. Meet .,.,g August 12, 1985 Page 4 Chri.s Townsend , Stein-Brief Group, has agreed to work closely with Denny Freidenrich in coordinating all of t-he above work before the August 31st hearing. It was noted that various people have . said that Secretary Hodel is going: to be more impressed. wi"th "hard facts rather than emotionalism. " Badham will be the lead-off speaker at the August 31st hearing, and Evelyn Hart has suggested that Superintendent Tom Riley be encouraged to speak also. Ed Mountford. advised that they will need information for. the County before Thursday or Friday of this week to get the matter before the Board of Supervisors . We need a sheet of paper with the proposal to get the matter before the Board. Denny Freidenrich suggested that he meet with 6 to 12 of the top- politicians of Orange County in an executive meeting to discuss strategy for the speeches . An executive meeting is scheduled with Denny Freidenrich on Friday, August 16, 1985 at 9: 00 A.M. at City Hall , Newport Beach . The next general meeting will be held on August 21 ,. 1985 , at approximately 3 : 00 P.M. . Lt .- Governor McCarthy will be meeting with an executive committee of this group t.o discuss strategy. Anyone wishing to get in touch with Denny Freidenrich should call him at 714/833-7822. AGENDA-FOR OFF-SHORE OIL MEETING` L August. 13 , 1985 - 9 :00 A.M. Newport Beach. City Hall I. INTRODUCTION II. STATUS REPORTS : A. Budget - Laguna . B. Coordinator Professional - Laguna C. Up-coming Meetings - All Cities D. Lobbyists ` Up-date III. TIME LINE A. August 31st (Hodel' s Visit) B. Petitions C. Letters and Cards D. Press and TV Arrangements E. Newspaper Ads F. Finalize Meeting Place IV. MEETING - august 31s4C. A. Strategy 1. Speakers ' Agendas 2 . Citizens Groups - (Environmental Groups , Students , Elected Officials, Special Interests) 3 . Chairman for each event (?) V. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 7 222-EB--85 University of California, Irvine Communications Office 6th Floor Administration Irvine, California 92717 (714) 856-6922 CONTACT: Elaine Beno Aug. 16, 1985 Orange County residents oppose off-shore oil drilling almost 2. to 1, according to a recent survey. When asked if they would like to see drilling for oil occur off the coastline in the next five years, 60 percent said no, 34 percent said yes and 6 percent said they were unsure. Opposition was slightly higher among coastal residents-63 percent—while 59 percent of inland residents were against drilling. These findings come from the 1985 Orange County Annual Survey, a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Irvine. Other results from the 1985 survey will be released in late September. "Opposition to off-shore oil drilling crosses almost all geographic areas, incomes and ages," said Dr. Mark Baldassare, the survey's director and an associate professor of social ecology at UC Irvine. "It fits the trend shown in past surveys that Orange County residents are very concerned about potential pollution to the environment, whether it relates to water,. air or toxic wastes," Baldassare said. The survey included a representative sample of 1,008 adult county residents who were contacted randomly by telephone in June and asked to answer questions on a variety of subjects ranging from income levels to housing, transportation and growth. The sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percent. -more- ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY Page 2 The interviews were conducted before the U.S. Department of the Interior announced proposed expansion of oil drilling off the coast of Orange County. Under the proposal, six nine-square-mile tracts between. Huntington Beach and Laguna Beach would be opened to oil and gas exploration. Interior Secretary Donald Hodel will visit Orange County on Aug. 31 to hear public opinion on the issue prior to Congressional debate in early fail. Responses to the oil drilling question did not differ significantly between Republicans and Democrats, men and women or high- and low-income levels. The only group supportive of- oil drilling was persons 65 years and older, who favored drilling 49 to 42 percent. ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY Question: "Would you like to see drilling for oil off the coastline occur in Orange County in the next five years?" YES NO DON'T'KNOW TOTAL SAMPLE 34% 60% 6% BY COUNTY AREA COASTAL 32% 63% 5% INLAND 35% 59% 6% BY INCOME UNDER $15,000 38% 53% 9% $15,000 TO $25,000 29% 68% 3% $26,000 TO $35,000- 32% 60% 9% $36,000 TO $50,000 35% 61% 4% $51,000 TO $75,000 37% 59% 4% OVER $75,000 38% 54% 8% BY AGE 18 To.24 33% 64% 3% 25 TO 34 29% 65% 6% 35 TO 44 29% 66% 5% 45 TO 54 36% 56% 7% 55 TO 64 40% 50% 10% 65 OR OLDER 49% 42% 9% BY POLITICAL PARTY - REPUBLICAN 38% 54% 8% DEMOCRAT 28% 67% 5% INDEPENDENT 33% 63% 4% OTHER 33% 67%BY SEX ,M EN 33% 56% 6% WOMEN 30% 64% 6% _ SOURCE: 1985 Orange County Annual Survey by Mark Baldassare, UC Irvine REQUE%(;. _ - �i NCI. ACTION p �.,�• �rpw� p e July 5 , 1985 Submitted to: Ho o _ Y Co ncil Submitted by: Cha es W. Thompson, 'City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Service uF 0 Subject: CONTINUATION OF THE OCS LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOR ATION PROGRAM Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City contributed to the Outer Continental Shelf Local Government Coordination Program in 1984-85. It is time to contribute for 1985-86. The basic rate for cities is $1 ,000 . RECOMMENDATION: Appropriate $1 ,000 to support the OCS Program for 1985-86. ANALYSIS: The OCS Program was initiated five years ago by local city and county officials to provide regional coordination in dealing with offshore oil development. In 1983, federal funding of the program was eliminated and local jurisdictions continued the program by direct city and county funding. Other cities who have contributed include: San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Morro Bay, Pacific Grove, Pacifica, Pismo Beach, Santa Cruz , Capitola and Santa Barbara. The program provides the City with timely information on lease sale offerings, ocean mining, new legislation, long term protection for the coast and other issues. By consolidating our concerns with other coastal jurisdictions, we can strengthen our participation in the critical early stages of the planning process. FUNDING SOURCE: Non-Departmental Contingency Account (Account #101-593 ) . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not contribute to the OCS Local Program. JWP: LC: kla (2821d ) PIO 4/84 AGENDA.ROUTING SLIP INITIATING DEPARTMENT UC Via- , SUBJECT --7 AGENDA DEADLINE DATE To Administration MEETING DATE ( ] LEGAL DEPARTMENT WITH EXHIBITS [ ] INITIATING DEPARTMENT — REVIEW/APPROVAL By: Yes No Ordinance [ ] Exhibits Resolution ( ] Exhibits [ ] 1,01' Contract or Agreement [ ] Exhibits Financial Impact Statement —Unbudgeted items over$1,000 J ] jY'INSURANCE REQUIRED ( ] j� BONDS REQUIRED ( ] RCA [ ] ADMINISTRATION ( ] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: P10 12/84 South Cc ;t AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818) 572-6200 January 9 , 1985 Vr % Ke-sHonorable George Deukmejian /44*6. Governor of California State Capitol Sacramento , .CA 95814 Dear Governor Deukmejian: , The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board at its meeting on January 4 , 1985 , adopted the attached resolution (85-3) on the mitigation of air pollution emissions resulting from the development of offshore . oil facilities . Because of the significant effect these offshore emissions -- which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board -- could have on the attainment of ambient air quality standards in the `. District , the District Board believes that a strong effort must be made to maintain federal regulations -on offshore activities that are at least as stringent as the regulations of .the District . Also , the District Board believes that a system-wide Environmental Impact Report should be prepared which would address cumulative environmental impacts from the production, transportation, and processing of offshore oil . On. behalf of the District Board, I request your continued support in our efforts to attain clean air . We are looking forward to working with you through the coordinated state and local government process pursuant to last year' s Senate Bill 2023 (Chaptered 1398 , Statutes of 1984) . Respectfully , Thomas F . Heinsheimer Chairman , South Coast District Board TFH: tc Attachment f A Resolution of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board in support of mitigating air emissions from offshore oil development. WHEREAS , the Clean Air Act and the California State Health and Safety Code mandate the South Coast Air Quality Management District to achieve and maintain the federal and state ambient air quality standards at the earliest possible date by application of the best available technological and administrative practices; and %HEREAS , the South Coast Air Quality Management District is a -Federally designated nonattainment area for four of the major .air contaminants and for two secondary contaminants ; ands' +"HEREAS , the South Coast Air- Quality Management District recoznizes that the development of domestic energy resources o meet the needs of the State of California and the rest of. the Nation is of critical iihportance ;- and y-HEREAS , there are offshore areas proposed for oil exploration and development which are adjacent to the South Coast District and have a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts ; `:O:J, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board hereby affirms its support ror the air pollution control. concepts embodied in the District ' s Rules and Regulations , including Best Available Control Technology For all offshore oil development operations and the resulting distribution and refining of the petroleum - more - products , and the requirement that all n-et increases in air contaminant emissions must be offset ; and BE IT FURTHER -RESOLVED that federal regulations governing offshore oil exploration and development should i be consistent with, and at least as stringent as , District Rules and Regulations ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , in view of- these potential problems associated with Outer Continental Shelf development , that the South Coast Air Quality Management District will ` work with the Governor., his designee , or other appropriate oarty( ies) , in, assuring that a system-wide Environmental Impact Reoort will be -prepared; and BE IT FL"RTHER RESOLVED that the Board Chairman and staff are directed to advocate the implementation of this policy at zhe state and federal levels . AYES: Berg, Dastrup, Herron, McElwain, Roth, Schiller Smiland , Weider, -Younglove, Zafman NOES: None ABSENT: Braude, Caretto, Corbeil , HeinsheiTer, Nestande DATE! DEPUTY CLERK OF THE BOARD 1 /'+ /35 RESOLUTION NO. 5491 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPORTING THE MITIGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act and the California Health and Safety Code mandate the South Coast Air Quality Management District to achieve and maintain the federal and state ambient air quality standards at the earliest possible date by application of the best available technological and administrative practices; and The South Coast Air Quality Management District is a federally-designated nonattainment area for four of the major air contaminants and for two secondary contaminants; and The South Coast Air Quality Management District recognizes that the development of domestic energy resources to meet the needs of the state of California and the rest of the nation is of critical importance; and There are offshore areas proposed for oil exploration and de- velopment which are adjacent to the South Coast District and have a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Citv of Huntington Beach that it ,supports the air pollution control concepts contained in the South Coast District ' s rules and regula- tions", including the best available control technology for all offshore oil development operations and the resulting distribution and refinement of petroleum products, and the requirement that all net increases in air contaminant emissions must be offset. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that federal regulations governing off- shore oil exploration and development should be consistent with 1. *' and as stringent as the district' s rules and regulations. i� IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that, in view of the potential problems associated with the Outer Continental Shelf Development, the Governor, his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials are urged to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to assure the preparation of a system-wide environmental impact report for im- plementation at all government levels. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of February 1985. O Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney INITIATED AND REVIEWED: City AdministX6o ahb 1/29/85 0396L 2. ( No. 5491 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ' COUNTY OF ORANGE G CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) ^1 I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of February , 19 85 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None - City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing. instrument,is, a correct copy of the_original on file in this office. Attest ALICIA M. WENTWORTfi City Clerk'and Ex-off icio Clerk_of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Cal. By = Deputy ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 'y 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ems, February 7 , 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attn: Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4 , 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor , his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels. The City of Huntington Beach has forwarded Resolution 5491 to Supervisor Harriett Wieder , Thomas F. Heinsheimer, Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board and Governor George Deukmejian. We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 and urge that your City Council adopt a similar resolution. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure (Telephone: 714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 7 , 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Wanda Raggio, City Clerk The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4, 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor , his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels. The City of Huntington Beach has forwarded Resolution 5491 to Supervisor Harriett Wieder , Thomas F. Heinsheimer, Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board and Governor George Deukmejian. We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 and urge that your City Council adopt a similar resolution. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 7, 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of San Clemente P.O. Box 3668 San Clemente, CA 92672 Attn: Max L. Berg, City Clerk The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4, 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor, his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels. The City of Huntington Beach has forwarded Resolution 5491 to Supervisor Harriett Wieder , Thomas F. Heinsheimer, Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board and Governor George Deukmejian. We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 and urge that your City Council adopt a similar resolution. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB :bt Enclosure (Telephone:714536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 7 , 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Attn: Verna Rollinger , City Clerk The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4, 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor , his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels. The City of Huntington Beach has forwarded Resolution 5491 to Supervisor Harriett Wieder , Thomas F. Heinsheimer, Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board and Governor George Deukmejian. We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 and urge that your City Council adopt a similar resolution. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure (Telephone:714536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 4 , 1985 Governor George Deukmejian State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4, 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor , his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels . We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure CC: Harriett Wieder , Orange County Board of Supervisors Thomas F. Heinsheimer , Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board 1 Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 4 , 1985 Harriett M. Wieder Orange County Board Of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4, 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor , his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels. We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure CC: Governor George Deukmejian Thomas F. Heinsheimer , Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 4, 1985 Thomas F. Heinsheimer Chairman South Coast Air Quality Management District Board 9150 Flair Drive El Monte, CA 91731 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Febuary 4, 1985 adopted Resolution 5491 supporting the mitigation of emissions from offshore oil development and urging the Governor , his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Management District to assure the preparation of the system-wide Environmental Impact Report for implementation at all government levels . We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 5491 for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure CC: Governor George Deukmejian Orange County Board of Supervisor Harriett Wieder (Telephone:714-536-5227) ZEAL OF ITalifornin tatr of IQ v / 'qG/ppp NAP GOVERNOR'S OFFICE GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN SACRAMENTO 95814 TELEPHONE GOVERNOR 1916) 445-2841 ter" February 19, 1985 Ms. Alicia M. Wentworth Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Wentworth: Your courtesy in sending me a copy of your Resolu- tion No. 5491 helps me to stay in touch with the views of local office-holders and the citizens they represent. It is important that we government officials work togeth- er for a better California, and you can be sure that my Administration will take your resolution into account. Your interest is most welcome and I thank you. Most cordially, 19� - I- - -_-- - - George Deukmejian JeW6�(��I Page 18 - Council Mine :s - 6/18/84 oi Councilman Mandic stated his concerns regarding possible objections to the project by adjacent residents. Following discussion, the motion carried by the. fo.11_owing roll call vote; AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley RESOLUTION NO 5401 - ADOPTED - 0 C ANIMAL CONTROL FEES The City—Administrator presented Resolution No. 5401 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE FOR ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER AND ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES." On motion by MacAllister, second Mandic, Council adopted Resolution No. 5401 by the fo.l-lowing roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, : Bailey, Mandic.- NOES: None. .., ABSENT: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley Gy RESOLUTION NO 5402 - ADOPTED:- SALARIES OF CITY OFFICIALS The City Administrator presented Resolution No. 5402 for Council `consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR ELECTED DEPARTMENT HEAD POSITIONS OF CITY CLERK, .CITY TREASURER AND CITY ATTORNEY." Discussion was held regarding a memorandum from the City Attorney dated June 14, 1984 requesting an additional salary adjustment. Councilman MacAllister stated that, he would present her .request at the meeting of .July 2, 1984., On motion by .Mandic, second Bailey, Council adopted. Resolution No. 5402 by the following .roll call vote.: AYES_: .. MacAllister, Kelly, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley Following... discussion, it was the consensus of Council that the Mayors Committee meet with the City Administrator July 2, 1984 regarding a salary adjustment. SO CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE LEASE SALE (OCS LEASE SALE 80) - ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES TO BE MADE The City Administrator presented a memorandum from the Development Services Director dated June 14, 1984 pertaining to the Southern California Offshore Lease Sale (OCS Lease Sale 80) . F A .motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mandic, to authorize additional environmental studies to address the needs of biologically sensitive areas, Page 19 - Council Minutes 0/18/84 long range air quality, cumulative impacts of the water needs for offshore development, additional extraction of fresh water from the water table, and the capacity of refineries and onshore treatment facilities. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Kelly, Mandic NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bailey ABSENT: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley 0 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION - APPOINTMENTS & REAPPOINTMENTS Recommendations of Mayor Kelly and Councilwoman Finley, liasion members to the Community Services Commission for appointments' 'and reappointments to ' the Community Services Commission. ° On motion by MacAllister, second Kelly, the following members were appointed or reappointed to the Community Services Commission: Judy Blankenship . (reappointment) Fountain Valley School District, (7/1/84 to 6/30/85); Art Geise (reappointment) Westminster School District, 7/1/84 to 6/30/85) ; Dr. Loren A. Moll (appointment) Coast Community College District (7/l/84 to 6/30/85) ; Norma Vander Molen (appointment) Member at Large, (7/1/84 to 6/30/88) ; Betty Kennedy, Member at Large, (7/l/84 to 6 30 88) ; Jay Rivera, Ocean View School District, (7/1/84 to 6/30/85); and Glen Dysinger, Huntington Beach Union High School District (7/l/84 to 6/30/85) , by the unanimous vote. 1 j • 3 HANDICAPPED COMMITTEE REQUEST TO BE PART OF HUMAN RESOURCES BOARD Councilwoman Bailey stated that the Handicapped Committee expressed a desire to become part of the Human Resources Board. RAINBOW TRANSFER STATION Councilwoman Bailey referred to a memorandum from the Chief of Police dated June 5, 1984 regarding littering and illegal dumping in the city. Council- woman Bailey stated that Rainbow Disposal would be - opening to the public a transfer station in the city in the near future. 1% �. CITY IDENTIFICATION SIGN PROJECT - APPROVED Councilwoman Bailey referred to a memorandum from the Director of Public Works regarding City entrance signs. On motion by Bailey, second MacAllister, Council directed that monuments be placed •according to the following priorities with the understanding that Caltrans does not allow these monuments within their right-of-way on Beach Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway and therefore alternate location outside their right-of-way will have to be found near the entrance to the City on these two highways : 1. Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue. 2. Pacific Coast Highway at the Santa Ana River ,y FO1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENTWMMUN .1TION IIUNTINOTON BEACH -To Charles W. ThompsonJames W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject COMMENTS ON THE SOUTHERN Date June 14 , ' 1984 CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE LEASE SALE (OCS LEASE SALE 80 ) The Southern California Offshore Lease Sale, formerly known as Lease Sale 80 , has been delayed from its original February, 1984 date to a new date of October , 1984 . Our comments are requested by the State by Friday, June 29 in order to be included in the Governor ' s comments on the proposed Notice of Sale. Staff has prepared the attached comments based upon the original Final Environmental Impact Statement and the revised proposal for the sale area. Please see that the City Council receives copies -of these comments.. We would like them to approve the comments at their June 18 meetinq so at we can forwar the approved comments to t e a _e ecretaryof nvironmen a Affairs by the deadline . Below is an abstract of attached comments. Abstract Lease Sale 80 originally consisted of. 11 . 6 million acres, it has now . been scaled down• to 3 . 9 -million acres. It. has been scheduled for sale on October , 1984 . The proposed tracts in Orange County have been de- ferred from the proposed sale. Staff recommends that additional environmental studies are needed to address the needs of biologically sensitive areas, long range air quality, cumulative impacts of the water needs for offshore development , additional extractibn,. of fresh water from the water table, , and the capacity of refineries and onshore treatment facilities. A more site specific environmental review would be better able to properly address biological, geological, physical , economical, social and aesthetic impacts for specific base area, JWP :JAF: FW: sr Attachment o � I r I COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEASE OFFERING, FEBRUARY 1984 I The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the _Southern California Lease Offering -now scheduled for October 1984 ( formerly referred to as Lease Sale 80) , discusses the environmental impacts associated with the development of offshore oil and gas resources between Point Conception and the Mexican border. The project area originally consisted of approximately 11. 6 million acres. Not included in the proposed offering were the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the Santa Barbara Channel Ecological Preserve and adjacent buffer. zone. Congress had precluded the Department of the Interior from offering certain blocks within the proposed action, including the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the Santa Barbara Channel Ecological Preserve, Santa Monica Bay, and immediately. offshore Orange and San Diego Counties. I Based on the original EIS, the most optimistic estimate predicted that { 1,130 million barrels of oil and 2, 010 billion cubic feet of gas would be recovered in the proposed lease offering area. The most likely estimate expected that development would result in 270 million barrels of oil and 510 billion cubic feet of gas. Should the tracts actually be leased, exploration is expected to last from 1984 to 1988.. Production is projected to be most intense in the 1990s .and is anticipated to last at lower rates until 2008. The most likely estimate projected that development would lead to seven platforms, 75 miles of . pipelines, and six subsea completions. If resources are developed more intensely, there would be 27 platforms, 423 miles of pipelines, and 30 subsea completions. Recovered oil and gas is expected to be transported by subsea pipelines and tankers to already existing refineries in the Los Angeles Basin and to the Gulf of Mexico (via the Panama Canal) . See Attachment 1. The EIS refers to the Proposed Southern California Lease Offering originally scheduled for February 1984 , as Alternative 1 and discusses the impacts of nine other alternatives which would delete and/or delay offerings in all or part of the lease sale areas. Included here is a brief overview of each of these alternatives (Alternatives 8 to 10 were not included in the Draft EIS) . Following the publication of the final Environmental Impact Statement, the lease offering was postponed. It has now been rescheduled for October, 1984 . The sale, as now proposed, would cover 3 . 9 million acres or about 690 whole or partial leasing blocks. The area now proposed for sale is shown on Attachment, A. This is a considerable reduction from the originally proposed 11.6 million acres or 2,074 blocks. It should be noted that the revised sale boundaries exclude the areas discussed by the final EIS in Alternatives 4 , 8 and 9 , and most of the areas discussed in Alternatives 5 , 6 and 7. The exclusion of much of the original lease sale proposal is due to negotiations between the Department of Defense and the Minerals Management Service j over areas of critical military operations. The new proposal reflects agreement on the exclusion of 1,295 '.whole and partial blocks out of a requested deferral of 1, 510 whole and partial blocks. The following discussion of the original alternatives 2 through 10 is primarily for informational purposes. The proposed Notice of Sale did -not provide any estimates of expected production given the greatly reduced lease area. Alternative 2: No Lease Offering This alternative removes .the total area for proposed leasing at this . time. Because the lease sale would not occur, all potential impacts would be eliminated. Alternative 3:,. Delay the Lease Offering , Delaying :the lease sale for an undetermined period of time would also mean the, delay or postponement of' anticipated impacts until such time as the lease sale is reactivated and; held. Delaying the lease sale could provide opportunity for additional environmental studies and State and local planning efforts. . Alternative 4: Enhance Protection of the San Nicolas Island Biological Resources This alternative would establish• a three mile protection zone around San Nicolas Island. The affected blocks_ have been deleted from the new proposal. Alternative 5: Reduce Potential Navigational Hazards Within the Coast_ Guard Designated Vessel Precautionary Area Located -South -of the Los Angeles - Long Beach Ports This -alternative would modify the lease offering area by deferring those tracts which lie within the Vessel Precautionary Area in San Pedro Bay. The total proposed lease offering area would be reduced by less than one percent by -selection of this alternative, yet the potential hazard to navigation within the Precautionary Area would be eliminated. See Attachment 2. All but 3 of these blocks have been deleted from the new proposal. Alternative 6: Defer Tracts Within Santa Monica Bay and "North to Point Mugu This alternative would defer 40 partial or complete blocks from Santa Monica Bay and north to Point Mugu from the lease offering area. See Attachment 3 . All but 4 of these blocks have .been deleted from the new proposal-. Alternative 7: Defer Tracts Off the San Diego. County Coast This alternative would defer from the lease offering 138 tracts from 2. ' r Dana Point south to the Mexican border. See Attachment 4. All but 7 of these blocks have been deleted from the new proposal. Alternative 8 : Defer Tracts Off Orange County This alternative would defer from the .lease offering tracts . fr.om just below Huntington Beach in the north, to just above Dana Point in the south. These blocks are located between three and six and a half miles from the shoreline. See Attachment 5. None of these blocks are included in the new proposed lease are.a. Alternative 9: Defer Tracts Included in the FY 84 Interior Appropriations Bill, Off Santa Monica Bay, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and San Diego County The appropriations bill for FY 1984 requires the deferral of 270 whole or partial blocks in Federal waters of Santa Monica Bay, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and. San Diego County. These blocks are within an area located off the coastline of the State of California from the seaward extension of the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line, southeast to the Maxican border extending from 3 to 27 miles offshore. See Attachment 6. These blocks have all been deleted from the new proposal. Alternative 9 would reduce the most likely resource estimate to 47 million barrels of oil and 98 billion cubic feet of gas (as compared to 270 million barrels of oil and 510 cubic feet of gas under Alternative 1) . Alternative 10: Defer Leasing of Blocks Identified by the Department of Defense as Critical Military Operating Areas This alternative would defer approximately 60 percent of' the total offering area. The blocks identified by the Department of Defense as critical military operating areas are located in the Outer Banks and Basins, and in the nearshore areas of the Inner 'Basin subarea off Orange County, San Diego County and part of Ventura County. See Attachment 7 . Of the 1, 510 blocks included in this alternative, 1, 295 blocks have been deleted from the new proposed lease area. In comments to the Draft EIS, staff favored Alternative 3 which proposes the delay of the lease offering and allows more time for further study. In addition, Alternative 5 was identified as important to the City. This alternative mitigates potential hazards to navigation that could negatively affect the City. The Final EIS addresses two additional concerns that go beyond local interests. Alternative 9 defers from the lease offering 270 trancts from Santa Monica Bay to San Diego County that are excluded from the lease offering by act of Congress. Alternative 10 defers about 60 percent of the proposed offering area to avoid interference of oil and gas development with military operations. These alternatives have been incorporated into the sale as now proposed. 3. of • • In addition, the six mile buffer zone around San Nicholas Island suggested under Alternative 4 was felt to be necessary and warranted to protect sensitive biological resources located there and has been included in the new proposal. As discussed under Alternatives 6 , 7 , and 8 , the tracts within Santa Monica Bay and offshore Orange and San Diego Counties should be deleted due to conflicts with high recreational usage, potentially threatening oil spill trajectories, and conflicts with military operations. Most of these blocks have now been deleted. Unfortunately , the Final EIS does not provide adequate protection for additional biologically sensitive areas. Oil development in tracts on the Santa Rosa and Cortez Ridges , and on the Tanner Banks will lead to conflicts with the highly productive biological communities. Long-term impacts of drilling muds on these areas are unknown or poorly understood. Considering the many unresolved issues associated with the proposed lease sale, staff favors Alternative 3 (delay of lease offering) . In the following comments, the Final EIS is examined to determine the extent to which the concerns voiced by staff in response to the draft EIS are taken into consideration. • Staff commented on the adequacy of preventive measures to avoid oil spills and provide the capacity for cleanups if a spill occurs. More specifically, a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of mechanical and chemical clean-up techniques was requested. However, the Final EIS does not include an assessment of the effectiveness of various clean-up measures. In addition, the discussion of oil spill impacts is limited to mainland and island shores. While detrimental effects of oil. spills are most noticeable along shorelines, spill impacts on the ecology of the open ocean should not be ignored. Moreover, chemical measures typically can clean up only oil spills smaller than 1,000 bbls. Mechanical dispersants are called for when spills are larger than 1, 000 bbls. Given a chance of 36 percent that there will be one or more oil spills of 1,000 to 10 ,000 bbls and a chance of 30 percent that there will be one or more oil spills larger than 10 ,000 bbls under the proposed lease sale, the effectiveness and hazards of chemical dispersants need to be clarified. Studies by Gilfillan et. al. (1983) and Page et. al. (1983) are cited in the EIS in support of the effectiveness of chemical dispersants. These studies , however, suffer methodological shortcomings. First, both studies compare the effects of chemically dispersed and nondispersed oil on nearshore environments. However, experimental conditions should also include mechanical means as well as an untreated baseline control group for the comparison of effects. Second, the results are limited to nearshore environments and cannot be generalized to ecological conditions existing further away from the shore. Third , the effectiveness of chemical dispersants depends on oil composition, water temperature, and toxicities, all of which limit the representativeness of the findings of the above studies. 4 . r r • Staff also requested a more comprehensive discussion of the cummulative air quality impacts of earlier lease sales and the. presently proposed lease sales for the South Coast Air Basin. The Final EIS fails to respond to this request. In addition, the Final EIR neglects to analyze the impacts of the proposed, lease offering on the long-range Air Quality Management Plan .for the South Coast Air Basin that includes policies to reduce dependence on the: refining of - gasoline and diesel fuels within the Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin is a nonattainment area regarding most of the air pollution standards (ozone, NO2, CO, and total suspended particles) . The proposed lease sale would result in increases in onshore concentrations of ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide, and total syspended particles. Thus, the lease sale is in conflict with the nonattainment plan that call for a .gradual reduction in emissions. Mitigating measures may reduce air quality degradation due to the lease sale.. It is debatable, however, whether even small increases in air pollution are tolerable in an area that chronically suffers from sub-standard air quality. The Final EIS also does not provide a cumulative impact analysis of the water needs of offshore development. Present levels of oil development are already contributing to the serious over-draft of water supplies in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. The impact of additional extraction of fresh water from the water table in this area requires careful assessment. • The Final EIS does not address the impacts of the proposed lease sale on both the capacity of refineries and. the adequacy of onshore treatment facilities in the Los Angeles area. . The EIS estimates that the majority of the oil from the Santa Barbara Channel will be refined in the Los Angeles Basin. - The EIS assumes that the capacity of existing refineries is adequate but fails to provide .the necessary documentation or analysis. Problems will certainly arise due to the inability of onshore support facilities to meet the needs of peak development. Further, Santa Barbara c.rude oil is characterized by heavy gravity (20 degrees or less) , high viscosity, substantial yields of viscous residuals, and high contents of sulfur, nitrogen, and metals. Converting Santa Barbara crude oil into the much needed transportation fuels (e.g . , gasoline, jet, diesel) will require special refining facilities, extensive retrofitting .of existing refineries, or a complex crude upgrading facility. Unfortunately, the EIS does not provide a detailed analysis of the types of support facilities required by the expected oil and gas development. This point is of particular interest to the City. Because Huntington Beach is already the site of intensive onshore oil operations, it could be a candidate for onshore facilities necessary to support additional offshore development. • The Final EIS assumes the construction of a Santa Barbara - Los Angeles pipeline. At this point, the preselection of the pipeline as a mode of transportation seems premature. Staff requested a systematic evaluation of all alternative transportation modes, 5. including inland pipelines, tankering , and the alternatives proposed by industry. The social , environmental, and financial costs of each alternative have to be specified to allow rational decision making. • Staff requested a more in-depth analysis of the visual impacts of additional oil development off the City' s coast. The Final EIS, however, draws only general conclusions. It holds that the total expected development has only a low impact on beach recreation, tourism and the aesthetic quality of the affected areas., In addition, the possibility of moderate impacts is anticipated if the platforms are grouped off Point Mugu, Point Dume , Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Leucadia, or La Jolla. There are already two platforms off the City' s shores in State waters and three, in Federal waters. The cumulative aesthetic impacts of additional platforms on Huntington Beach are difficult to predict and quantify. The near-term plans to upgrade the downtown and shoreline areas may increase local residents' appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of the City. This increased pride in local development may also lead to more sensitive .attitudes toward offshore platforms. The Final EIS does not provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of all the issues associated with the .proposed lease sale. This is mainly due to the fact that the lease offering covers most of the Outer Continental Shelf offshore southern . California. A more site specific EIS would be better able to properly address the biological, geological, physical, economical, social, and aesthetic impacts for specific lease areas. One way to more in this direction would be to classify areas proposed for development according to the occurrence of resources and constraints for development. The categories could then be rank ordered regarding their priority for development. These smaller lease areas would better allow an adequate assessment of environmental impacts. 0536d 6. ■■msa■\tsf■\laatlaf�:rs■■■;: i!/!/lIiRRRlots/t/■■/';<>>,•y::;;:•�•. .;: ;:,..: - - . F===�/f •■msaa!■iastaRla■aaa-��.•.;.;;-,::>:.::.:.::.:..:.:.;.:.:.;;, .,:: ■!1lma■Baala■lt■saaama':::>;:;<::«::<...... :::;> �: : ::>:gas •: ram onsnan■■■manownemn soma, ■aaa■/■gatoaf■lt ■ieaaa!■/Rat■ell.�ii■■1 namei►= f■ ■!a!alogs\al■tttlir>!■a■■fiSL,. ' -_-- �•r'//aim/soot/R1atuBi■■l■eR■/!, �=��-���■■:" �� sae/!■R//\1■ltlulia//■ea/aaj ~-_ = -__.-_=_-ff■■:::':■a►.mf�fi. It R■■■gaa�\ -_ ._= rlrrfil■■\::; ■■//Mason ■loss■/Rosso!!/Rai■a■■aaa■a! .. _,�� ■mad■!!■ii■■■;: :f■!■Mason a ■oaaatltmmlaimalia!■M■■■■■1{■soot:::;::::.; :>;■oaf ■asap■■■■\■! ■■eaamaal► ■angamoR!/faafelaaeeass■{aRRaiRa\■::::<:i.'•:>■so!s BRRaa1a■■■!:< > it■■■a■■! ■■\\■■mfmlfafl■■eiR■ion■efmtfs■■assf<.::: :■si■ ■sRsleilfol.x<`"'aMoa\aaf! /saga!■ ::ss■■■!`■nsmas■■na■ ■mt■saaa■\_ ■■■amn■a//R1a1lalula■■■■{■a■=3satao■■manslasnnommoso■ai:::'.-'":>asttasomeeM���r�► ■ssess■i! %i%ar!%����% %��M:ofa aeo■ewissMRasmassooasaB! ::: :.:> .:•: •::<•a:•>;:r.;:•:>:<•oM► ■■sa■tm■aaRlta■■■a■■■■■■/■■i,Meaaamu■eumneaaaamm\■/loss!=== ': .:<%. : >°''r aaa►. ■■■aalRgaRlssRRsees■amala■lilalaaaM■■aaaaaa■a/!■moos/■f:: _ ■■■s► man ssmmseem Rao among mwagon t:_ _=a■e■� t' :A����► ■■■■Ma!■almltf■■■Rt\■■aaa■oil!!7■■■elaitM■■■/w.�■m■■■■nga. "tftag► Ba//\altiR\■!gnomes ■a■■a■■aN ■aBaag■gaaiat■■ l■■■asMa■as■malh�llss000lMtn. asaa ■iBa/■t■atassetsesoafs■■■■si fmo■auras■■/{as■►../- �aaasaaalaf/■■aaa ■ ■■{sums! monoa/Roan■ass■<: ; ::.::.::. :�asM■fa• ■!aaa!■/esR!/lal��%��j�jj:��fseaaaaeR ;;::: ;:::;:;;:>::; laem■■aalattsllR■a■/■1/a! ••soMmossass{sofas► ■!a■/!!sag B{•7emommonesa■eme■it►. /aaaaaa://eft %?>,%;:::32::::i::>:>:::'>%:< ::::;;::`ailalma ■■■a■tllfgla■alto■!o■falsaaagee■/■aaaam{moms//aM■�Samoa ::: : ':;:;:3:::; lsi. on ..a \�rd��l�aaaiae■■■a!0lmannownfsmeass axis aamssamMM•■■■ >: ■sf■■''::it::>:<. ♦�aaank ■■■aoe■mR■onettMeeeaf!%��%i���m■/!■msnamoo■fstRMaam■oa■/■■aaMti ; :::■sass{ aM/ Inmams■m■an■aai aaaamtasaaaaaaa/aa\aw. <>::::a/aaa{<-::::::: :;:;;:;aMM■a! annaeeemassa■aai■aaaataaaaaaaaga■afaa► `:`aeeaea/■■■ >. :: < neBaea ■ownsiaga■■n■isi aaaaaaeaa ..::<:>agaeaeaa■ -soma/use■;::• ;•::•;:>sMason ■■am■n■■os■■sa■its■aaa■■oM:>: ::;::::_:gRtmas!■► 'assuages" :among �*\onf ■■omesmmaeasam■{■ie■■noose : _Raman■ma. faR{>:,:.::::.•:,::;>: ::::: 1Jlfr7aeasas\■Rai■mnaaasaaa:::• :::>;::::::aMa■ :. moon■ g■aaaa soma�aaisai■minanea.: :: :: :::::s: '::>. ■tsasaa■.�■■asfilsgs■+eammovess . . samalaa■all on■■laa::::.. :»::<>:::: ::::nm■nnaaanaa/aiaaa■naa gaaaaRaa■ assumf■■an■■ma■■aM■<::;:::;:: :::: ::;::::::: <.:.:a■iaa\aaR/■■mueesaai■mg1■r■ts ■a■ai0R■am{eeaaata■ : :;>::::; :: -. :...:■asaSamwaasasMasmr -mom■_�r2��„� R!'{!■a■Isis■nose■■i::::::::::: ::::...::::::::::::::' f_NWT 273Raaefor ■a■a■fee!■a■smsmaat:: :::g: ::i: ::;:i:<::? ' ■■fi!!�s\�Mlis■■■■/' ■/■aaa■■a■■ieaai R!■::: <::_:;:.:::::::::::: :::'■■mesMasonalms■a�■/ R/au■sae■■■nei■■1R■?::::_::::::::::i: mangos Maass Rmgueimeae/aei/i■a■`::: is:::>:::::::':maaa■M•:Maaome■omems "ugusae■■�■aea�/M■e:::::: ::::::::::::>�:■■!iaa•>: ■\iiM■■fin■I wf■e'foim�test aa■� '%:::>::::;%:■a■ono ::::::maaa■a!legl' ■aaassaatgtas ::: :::: :.■!sm■aa:-:>:::::::Masomm■a■ar ■agaaa■/aaa/{ :: ■iB■■f %asnannanent ■a■■saa■\aa/■■� /aaa■a c.::;:::;'; ;';::::RoomaaMla� ■nnommossaaagaaaanise Rosmanmuseum ■mv ■aons\mmamoseas■muss: :::::;: ::;::?: Manamallo assume mr soft■■/amaa\M1anon■::::::::',::< s»::: ■asomm■ tan/\■fi■■a■imam■■■l :s%::i :::a::::::::::::: wagon naafi■■■■e■■as■Ma{■<::;::-::<:::�:xs::: :■mesa• 1■■1■■■ma■■//iaa■!�■:>::;:>? ::>:::;>::::<:::Bosom! !■i!■■i■i■m■im■nil�■:::::::::::::::::::>::i :;.;;Bosom as 1!u■\\!■a■ONl1■a1!/m!■\imaam/eR■I • les/naaoaaeloetRsoea■am/sass■s■■' laaassmmosennB\Romeo■ma■aeasaaar la■anmiaaa■/t■afaa■as■aMae■aaBr la■gasaaaRaat■\■nmanamoss:. .•Mar Nmaimi■■aa1■i!alsaa!■■amm{moi� �■saL�astitamfaR■\/■aaMMaMM■■m■ fae■mann/Raffaaelaaa■Msama■s■ tasmaaMtlmfaaa■a■■aaeMama■a■ . faaaalaR■\aRaBagomea■aaasal■ fin■aiiaa■■■a!■■a\■maimlasge iea■\■/Balm■a■■■e■■a!■rim {aa■aaa■a■a■mamm■■ .. eta■■a■■■tu■ � • � ', . .itfm■e■ "iisi�ii�iiiiiii=iiiiiii■�eeee■eee ■ ■rrr.rrrmrmrr.r■r■.■rrr ==i.rr■m■m wasegameng iiia°one • i■ir.�r.ro�.■Qma°■■�m/�mme/a/m■■■o■m�m■o■n■.■ ,,'mmmomv.i :+� � asionmesii m . a niN0lma nnem/ommo■/H it all mannowasome mano Ad ■■■■■tea■■■■ moo't■■mm 1■■■.■■ .1/+Y1fi.\rrHinson N■Onouemm■ru.-- A.r■�■■...�.■..,8' NI■l ■■ n■o■■■aa■o■■■■m.f�/� n o■m1.n■t1M` tII,�Limm� manommmm■■■■■■■i■■■■�mo■■■Y■OdC Ot'AFnsa 1.1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■/■■■Oman■■.Ins t1!o!r■a m J■■■■fie■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■ao ■■■mo■omm■lIIII dl;Bt wa ■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�/■■■■■om!Sip�' ItN ow4on ■/rr■■■mr■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■O■■I::II' gllli�■a■om .■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■■■■■■■■■■■gin, ; alm■mt►u■m rf■a/m■■..■■■■■■.■■■■/ ■■/■/■■■■m■m/■11! nu■Want ■F�■nl ■■■nst■m■■■■■n■■■■m■■■■■■mn■mm■■■■■m■■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■oommo■■■m;u. utHosea ■■ ■■■■■■■om■omm■ommuma■■om■■o■■■a■■■■rmrar■■■rrmr■.....00/momm■■m■►IN '�Ih`mer�i■I ■=mmiiAismiiiiiiiiiiiiCiiii ■ :iiiii�si■i�ii=iii � � 01111. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■m■■mmm■■■■mmm■ ■■■■■■■o■■■■.■■■■■■mommomm■■■n1t It:�mm111a ■■■■■■°■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/mrra■■Orr.■a■■■m■■/-\ Itt■omllt m■■■■■one■il'. n mIUCUUMUMIUM11111isi■ ■ii■ i°1 /ammo MOR'I" dII \1111 rmm mmmmemm■■■om■■mmo■n■m■onam�j��■•■■■/■■■■■■■■■■ / 1■■na■ns■n■oab III, ■■a7 ■/a=/■■■■o■■■■■■■a■mmo■■■■O■■der■■■■■m■■mmmm■m■mm�' � 'mnmmmm■■■mm■rin,` tll ■■■ ram mmm.mnsmmmmm■mm■■/■■mm■m■e■rm■e■■■■/■■■■■■■aA■ among MEN tll' ■■■I ■m■mmam■■m■■m■■Emmons■on■■■ae■■■■mm■m■■■ammommm:m /■a■■■■■ommomant' =■n' ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■m■■■omm■.■'s■■■■■m■■o■■a■■■■■■:■►�/■m■■■■ an■■■■�01 t ' ■' maMOMENEMMENNEENOMENmmm.r■mmmrm.m■■mmm■■rr■ mat°°°°m■■■■■■■■■■■■o.■■■■■■■■■■�m■■■■■anlI ■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■m■o■■ mom ■ma■mommomomm■■mo■■■■"■■■■■■■■■■■m■■■■■linson m:fill ■■■■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■m■ ■mn■■■/......ee■mmmmgams"s■■■o■ma■■■■■PT.S!11an onamonansommome �m■■■om■n■m! rrrm■mmmmm/■■■■■■■U■mmrrm■mrmOrr/■■■■■■■■°■O■.mm■■■/.:'tl ",N6.�m■omm■ma■• �m■■■■■O■■Uam■■■m■■m■s■■■■■■■■■■■;�■■m■■■mm■■am-7o■m■at•• u11 a■■■ ■■■ momommom■rm■o■■m.■momm■m■■■■■■■mm■m■■■■■mmmm.■+� mmmmIf 11111■■oom ■oa� ■■■■■m■m.m■■■m■■■■■■o■■■a■ommom■■■°■mm■■■omm■ori�■■■■:1„�....,la� ■o■n■■nm1 ons■■■■■■■■■■m■■■■■m■■U■■■ ■■/■■annonmo■nannm_ ■■n■a;lnnl01 ■omm■mor a■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■■■■■■■�■■■n■n■■■■nano■On■: ■■■mmm■m■ ■ ■ m■ ■■■■■.■■■■m■■momm■n/■■■mm■■mmmel.1enmmo■mam■■o:�=■emonsoon■■=■=■■� rremr■■■mm■/.m■m■mmm■m■■/a■■n■mmlmmo■■m■■■■■on.-■■■m■■m■ ■o■mommmm■ ■on■c■mm■■an on ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■lam■on■ ran■■�■I"�■ommommo■■i ■■■arm■rm..m■■/mmm■mm■/mmm■m■ml .�m■■■n■a■■ma■■o■■■■■O■■■■/m1w■■m■■■ -on ON■oa■■omm■■I t ■■m■■' IrUo• ■monsoon■m' mossommonammosemamommnnams�lmm.mmr■mm/■m■■m■/■■mmml■mom/ ��■omomMOMMSr Imonsoon ■■aI' �/mn■■m■■m■■■■■■■■//Iw■■■■, e■■■mam on n■■ am ■m tr ��■■■mo■mo■omm■■O■Il.t■■■■�.i■■■minnow► om■/ -��■■■min■mmmm►m��r■■■■m■min■m■m■O■.��%■■IC•�i■1 i ��■■■■■■■■1■m■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■m■m■/:�/_/ _/�\-ma��1■■min■■a.■■mmmm■■m■■o■■■■"/■ • I�mm/■■■■nm■m■■■■■■■■m■■t^■min■� • •rrm■.■lremm.r■■mma�■/ar loo■m■omm■■■■■■■nounl irammorem000m■a■m■or !■■a■mmmmmm■■min■■■/ am■■m■.mmommmmm■rtr nemanommo■■ono■■W' .omm■mmomana■■■■' lrtmmo■■e■■m■■■oP' immosommumm ■on.ommon■■/' rI' . 1. RESOLUTION NO. 6060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR REQUEST OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASE SALE 95 BE CANCELLED WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach City Council has co-sponsored a series of technical reports on the effects of offshore drilling for oil and gas , and The City of Huntington Beach has monitored the progress of Lease Sale 95 since 1983 , and The technical reports conclude that drilling discharges and oil spills would result in serious short and long term impacts to sensitive Orange County coastal and estaurine habitats, and The proposed Department of Interior Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) regulations on air quality will lead to the release of unacceptable quantitites of emissions from offshore facilities, and Orange County has historically contributed to the development of domestic oil resources from both onshore and offshore reserves , including the Beta and Beta Northwest fields in federal waters , and the Belmont, Newport, and Huntington Beach fields in state waters, and s The volume of oil available in Orange County' s portion of the proposed lease sale is equivalent to 76 hours of nationwide consumption and represents about eight days woth of national oil imports, and It will take approximately 25 years to extract this oil =`hti reserve, during which time the aforementioned impacts and risks will be ever present, and 6060 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Huntington Beach City Council does hereby conclude that the impacts and risks associated with the development of Lease Sale 95 significantly outweigh the limited benefits, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Council hereby recommends that the Department of Interior cancel OCS Lease Sale 95 and terminate any future development of oil reserves in federal waters adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of August 1989 . Mayor c�iJ r ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: t' City Clerk City At r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Administrative Services 2 — 6060 i Res. No.. 6060 STATE OF CALIFORNIA J COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of August 19 89 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Groan_ Winchell , Mays. Silva, Erskine NOES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, Bannister ABSENT: Councilmembers: . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None • cit y Clerk and ex-o is er of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 5 g A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN RESPONSE TO THE CALL FOR INFORMATION FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OCS LEASE SALE #95. WHEREAS, the Department of Interior has solicited comments and nominations from interested parties on their proposed southern California OCS Lease Sale;#95 offshore drilling plan; and Comments and nominations will be accepted by the Department of Interior until- August 21, 1987; and The City of Huntington Beach relies to a significant degree on a coastal-dependent economic base which requires a clean and healthy marine environment; and Local governments statewide consider.the nearshore focus of the Lease Sale #95 proposal to be precedent-setting with.regard to other proposed federal OCS leasing actions elsewhere offshore California; and Coastal-dependent tourism is a mainstay of the local economy in communities adjacent to the.proposed Lease Sale #95 area are regional in nature and likely- to adversely impact socioeconomic conditions in coastal and inland communities; and The present lack of adequate oilspi11 response capability indicates that OCS leasing in the Lease Sale #95 area will.pose a high degree of risk to coastal environments; and Ocean discharge of drilling wastes has cumulative impacts which degrade nearshore water quality and which have remained unaddressed in the Five-Year OCS Leasing Program; and Critical commercial fishery tracts are encompassed by the Lease Sale #95 proposal and significant conflicts are anticipated between the fishing industry and OCS activities; and .a l'� Offshore oil drilling will require the increased utilization or expansion of existing onshore facilities and the construction of new facilities. These facilities will have a significant impact on coastal communities; and The City of Huntington Beach has repeatedly opposed Federal efforts to allow oil drilling off our shoreline because of adverse environmental and economic impacts which would include increased air pollution, desecration of ocean views, and damage to the beaches and sensitive ecological habitats, should an oil spill reach our shoreline; and Two energy—related facilities are currently operating in Huntington Beach which contribute heavily to air pollution in Orange County; and The eight and one—half miles of beaches within Huntington Beach city limits provide a major portion of public beach use opportunities for all of Southern California; and The Huntington Beach area includes sensitive ecological systems such as the Santa Ana River mouth, Huntington Beach wetlands, Huntington Beach State Beach Least Tern Natural Preserve, and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Ecological Reserve which provide critical resources for migratory birds and endangered species; and Tidal flushing will soon be restored to seventeen acres of the Huntington Beach wetlands and is expected to be restored to portions of the Bolsa Chica in the future, thereby increasing the potential for damage to critical ecological resources should an oil spill reach the shoreline; and The City of Huntington Beach has already accepted its fair share of the responsibility and risks associated with the provision-of the nation's energy needs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Huntington Beach does hereby submit to the Department of Interior NEGATIVE NOMINATIONS for ALL tracts included in'the "Call for information" for proposed OCS Lease Sale #95; and V FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that two identical-copies, of this resolution shall be transmitted in a timely fashion to: (1) Regional.Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, .1340 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017; and ALSO TO: (2) Chief, Offshore Leasing Management Division, Minerals Management Service, Mail Stop 4230, 18th and C Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 to arrive prior to August 21, 1987,.in an envelope labeled "Comments on the Call for Information and Nominations for Southern California Sale 95"; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that an additional copy of this resolution shall be transmitted in a timely fashion to: Ms. Jananne Sharpless, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, and to members of the California Congressional Delegation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 1987. i Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM City Clerk City Attorney o� City Administra or ector of omm ty Development V (88.33d) A SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 95 ON ORANGE COUNTY July 24, 1989 Prepared as an informational document for: Orange County Huntington Beach Newport Beach Laguna Beach Dana Point San Clemente Prepared by: Townsend Environmental Natural Resource Management Consultants 9745 Vale Road Vienna, Virginia 22181 In April, 1987, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced that the Southern California coastal waters beyond the state's three-mile jurisdiction would be offered for leasing for oil and gas operations. This lease offering was to be known as Lease Sale 95, and was to be held in August, 1989. A year later the schedule was altered with Lease Sale 95 being delayed until January, 1990. Excluded from the sale would be deep water areas with little hydrocarbon potential and areas three to six miles off the Newport Beach and Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuges and the Heisler Park Area of Special Biological Significance. The best available estimate of the amount of oil that might be found off Orange County is 52.8 million barrels, about three day's worth of national consumption. The potential negative effects of Lease Sale 95 on Orange County are substantial. These effects run the gamut from damages to the local economies of coastal cities, to degradation of air quality, to harm to the Orange Coast's living marine resources. The effects are summarized in the following paragraphs. Socioeconomic Effects -- The socioeconomic effects of offshore oil and gas operations can be both commercial losses entailing lost profits and non-market losses reflecting losses to aesthetic and intrinsic values, public health, and. the ecosystem. They can arise from the normal course of offshore operations as well as from oil spills. Moreover, they can affect future growth and they affect inland areas as well as the coast. The greatest effects on the Orange County economy will come in the tourism and recreation industries, which generates over $637 million in direct revenues_ in the coastal zone alone. According to a survey of Orange County beach users, as much as 17 to 35 percent of this revenue may be lost as beach users and tourists curtail their visits or go elsewhere for fun and sun. This would amount to $108 million to $223 million in lost revenues for Orange County businesses. Many jobs would be lost as well. And losses would be even higher if any oil spills occur. Other market value losses can be expected. The commercial fishing industry would lose important fishing areas to platforms. Residential property values would decline, since unspoiled scenic vistas and coastal proximity make up a large part of the current values. The decline could be as much as $60,000 for a $300,000 home. Non-market losses would be high, too. The aesthetic values beach users place on the current condition of Orange County beaches may be about $24.61 per person per year for Orange County residents if survey results are accurate. Non- resident tourists add substantially to this figure, with a value of $2.50 per 1 4310-MR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Notice of Request for Comments on the Development of a New 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program SUK4ARY: Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act (hereafter, the Act) requires the Department of the Interior to solicit suggestions from Federal Agencies, coastal States, and others during the preparation of a new 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The current leasing program, approved in July 1987, schedules lease sales through June 1992. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) intends to prepare a new program for the period fall 1991 to fall 1996. The program preparation effort is expected to take over 2 years to complete. Approval of the new program in fall 1991 will help provide a smooth transition from the existing program to the new one. Statutorily required steps in the program development process following this initial Notice include the development of a draft proposed program, a proposed program; a proposed final program, and a final program. An Environmental Impact Statement will also be prepared, and the initiation of that process is announced in a companion Notice. The draft proposedjprogram is currently scheduled to be issued in March 1990, following consideration of the report related to the Presidential Task Force on OCS Sales 91 (Northern California) , 95 (Southern California) , and 116--Part II (Eastern Gulf of Mexico) . DATES: Comments and information must be received within 45. days fron the publication of this Notice. ADDRESS: Comments and information should be mailed to: Deputy Associate Director for offshore Leasing, Minerals Management Service (MS-641) , Room 4230, 18th and C Streets, NW. , Washington, DC. 20240. Hand deliveries to the Department of the Interior may be made at 18th and C Streets, NW. , Room 2525, Washington, DC. Envelopes or packages should be marked "Comments for Development of the New 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. " If any privileged or proprietary information which the respondent wishes to be treated as confidential is attached to comments, the envelope should be marked, "Contains Confidential Information. " As required by section 18 (c) (1) of the Act, any suggestions from the executive of any affected local government in an affected 2State shall be first submitted to the Governor of such State. L 2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the development of a new 5-year leasing program, telephone contact may be made with Paul R. Stang, Chief, Branch of Program Develop- ment and Planning, at (202) 343-1072 . For copies of base maps referred to below or documents and maps describing the 1987 program, telephone orders can be placed to (202) 343-1072 . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments are requested from States, local governments, the oil and gas industry, Federal Agencies, and other interested individuals and groups to assist the Department of the Interior in the preparation of a 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program to cover the period fall 1991 to fall The OCS leasing program enables the Federal Government, affected States, industry, and other interested parties to plan for the steps leading to OCS oil and gas lease sales. A decision on whether to proceed with a specific sale on the schedule will be rade only after all the applicable requirements of the Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and other applicable statutes have been met. The program preparation process will follow all the procedural steps set out in section 18 of the Act, including the development of a draft proposed program, a proposed program, a proposed final program, and a final program. The purpose of this Notice is to solicit comments early in the program preparation process pur- suant to section 18 (c) (1) of the Act. A draft proposed program will be prepared based on consideration of the factors specified by section A (these factors are indi- cated below) . The draft proposed program will display planning milestones and will refer to sales by name and number. For the decision on the draft proposed program, a number of options will be developed which will include a range of schedules varying the timing or location of proposed offshore lease sales. The Department of the Interior is considering new approaches to conduct the OCS oil and gas leasing program so as to reduce conflict as well as obtain a proper balance between the economic benefits and environmental risks. A part of the program develop- ment effort will be the reassessment of the current approach of focusing on promising acreage, the reexamination of past ap- proaches such as tract selection, and the search for new initia- tives. Other policy options to be examined will cover such topics as the determination of which .areas should be available for leasing, the frequency and timing of lease sales, different treatment for different OCS areas, and potential expansion of the planning horizon beyond 5 years. 3 As part of the decision process, your comments will be considered along with the analysis required by section 18 of the Act. The report of the Task Force which President Bush has appointed to review and resolve environmental concerns over impacts of OCS Lease Sales 91 and 95 offshore California and Sale 116, Part II offshore Florida will also be considered in formulating the 5-year program. The Task Force, composed of representatives from the Departments of the Interior, Energy, and Commerce (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) , the Environmen- tal Protection Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget, with scientific support from the National Academy of Sciences, is to present its report to the President by January 1, 1990. Separate opportunities to comment have been provided by the Task Force. Respondents should be aware that the following concepts will be considered in the development of the 5-year program: 1. Both quantitative and qualitative information will be considered in meeting the requirements of section 18 (a) of the Act; and 2 . Leasing activities under the program should assure ' receipt of fair market value for the lands leased (this is a statutory requirement of section 18 (a) (4) of the Act) . The list of planning areas in Table 1 is open to comment. These areas,,Aill be subject to analysis under section 18 and will be considered as candidates for the draft proposed program. Lease sales are scheduled in 10 of these planning areas in the current 5-year leasing program. Precise marine boundaries between the United States and nearby or adjacent nations have not been determined in all cases. The maritime boundaries and limits depicted in the attached maps, as well as divisions between planning areas where shown, are for planning purposes only. These limits shall not affect or preju- dice in any manner the position of the. United States with respect to the nature or extent of the internal waters or of sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any purpose whatsoever. Information Requested --All Parties Comments are solicited as follows: Information and comments submitted at this stage should be general or conceptual in nature and relevant to determining the appropriate overall size, timing, and location of sales to be considered in the leasing program (i.e. , the configuration of planning area boundaries, the 4 frequency of sales in a planning area, and the presale process which determines sale size and location--including any sugges- tions for new approaches, as indicated above) . As noted above, the Department is required by section 18 (a) of the Act to consider a number of factors in formulating a 5-year leasing program. we would. like to have information and your suggestions relevant to the requirements of section 18(a) , including your suggestions or criteria of nationwide application that would be useful in shaping the new 5-year program. The following list provides an indication of the kind of information which would be r.,ost useful in conducting the section 18(a) analysis. Please note that not all factors may be relevant to all parties wishing to comment. (1) Inforzation on national energy needs for the period relevant to the new program; on the economic, social, and environmental values of the renewable and nonrenewable resources contained in the OCS; and on the potential impact of oil and gas exploration on other resource values of the OCS and the marine, coastal, and human environments. (2) Existing information concerning geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of the regions (planning areas) of the OCS and nearshore environments. (3) Suggested methods and information for analyzing the sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions (planning areas) and ways to determine what constitutes an equitable sharing. (4) Information concerning other uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, and other anticipated uses of OCS resources and space. (5) Methods and information for assessing relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the different planning areas of the OCS. (6) Relevant environmental and predictive information pertinent to offshore and coastal areas potentially affected by OCS development. (7) The location of planning areas with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets. We would also like to have information on the availability of transportation networks to bring oil and gas supplies to demand areas both on a current and projected basis. 5 Parties requesting the inclusion of one or more portions of the OCS in the new oil and gas leasing program should also indicate where leasing need not be pursued. Parties requesting the exclusion of one or more portions of the OCS in the new oil and gas leasing program should also indicate where leasing should be permitted. Information and criteria which support. comments are also requested to assist the Department in its deliberations. --Governors of Coastal States The Governors of affected States are also being requested concurrently by letter to identify State laws, goals, and policies relevant for the Department's consideration. --oil and Gas Industry Oil and gas industry respondents are requested to provide infor- mation which could be used to identify the areas most likely to contain oil and natural gas accumulations of sufficient size and number to warrant leasing, exploration, and commercial develop- ment activities under current and foreseeable technological and economic conditions. It should be emphasized that this informa- tion will ,be considered along with comments on possible environ- mental effects and the results of various environmental and other cost and economic analyses to determine the size, timing, and location of areas which may be offered for leasing in the 5-year program. All information requested should be based on estimates of resources expected to be unleased as of fall 1991. Specifically, for each of the 26 whole planning areas identified in Table l, . below, companies are asked to provide the following information: 1) Delineate those areas within each planning area most likely to have high, moderate, low, and unknown potential for possible oil and natural gas accumulations. These rankings should be relative to the individual planning area. The delineations should be as specific as possible, given the information available at this early stage of the 5-year program development process. It would be helpful if respondents used standard base naps, which can be requested from the "Further Information Contact" listed above. 2) Rank each planning area from 1 to 26 by order of interest in leasing, exploration and development. If this ranking would change by considering only the acreage available for leasing in the 1987 program, please provide such a revised ranking and explain the rationale for the change. i I 6 _ 3) Indicate whether your company considers each planning area to be oil-prone, gas-prone, both, or unknown. 4) Indicate the desired interval between sales, if more than one sale is deemed desirable for the area during the new program. 5) If only one sale in a planning area is deemed desirable, indicate whether the planning area should be offered early or late in the proposed program schedule. 6) Indicate whether your company agrees or disagrees with the ranking of potential in Table 2, below. Table 2 shows a preliminary ranking of OCS planning areas, based on undiscovered, unleased risked mean barrels of oil equivalent, as estimated by MMS. Confidential treatment of privileged or proprietary information is authorized under section 18 (g) of the Act. In order that only privileged or proprietary information be treated as confidential, it should be submitted as an attachment to the other comments which a respondent submits. An attachment to a response contain- ing privileged or proprietary information will, upon request, be treated as confidential from the time of receipt by MMS until 5 years after final approval of the next leasing program. However, summaries of such information submitted to MMS, the �. names of respondents submitting it, and comments not containing such information will not be treated as confidential information. As noted above, if any privileged or proprietary information which the respondent wishes to be treated as confidential is attached to comments, the envelope should be marked, "Contains Confidential Information. " Suggestions are also requested for possible revisions in the planning area boundaries described earlier in this Notice with reasons for any such revisions. Barr)OK. Williamson Director, Minerals Management Service JUL 10 MM Date Table 1 North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Straits of Florida, Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Central Gulf of Mexico, Western Gulf of Mexico, Southern California, Central California, Northern California, Washington-Oregon, Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, Shumagin, Aleutian Arc, North Aleutian Basin, St. George Basin, Bowers Basin, Aleutian Basin, Navarin Basin, St. Matthew- Hall, Norton Basin, Hope Basin, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea. Table 2 MXIS Estimates of Risked Dean Unleased Economically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources as of 1/1/87 (Billions of Barrels of Planr.ir.c Area 011 Ecru_ivalent) Central Gulf of Mexico 7.38 Western Gulf of Mexico 5.20 Southern California 1.36 Chukchi Sea 0. 59 Central . California 0.58 Northern California 0. 52 Mid-Atlantic 0.43 Eastern Gulf of. Mexico 0.30 South Atlantic 0.23 North Atlantic 0.22 Washington-Oregon 0.14 Beaufort Sea 0. 12 Straits of Florida 0.08 Gulf of Alaska - 0.04 Navarin Basin 0.03 St. George Basin 0.01 North. Aleutian Basin 0. 01 Kodiak 0. 01 Cook Inlet Norton Basin Hope Basin St. Matthew-Hall Aleutian Arc Bowers Basin Aleutian Basin Shumagin * Negligible Y S o.....m..,M a.•I 135• 1300 125• 1?00 1150 110* 105• 1009 950 900 850 600 750 70• 650 60• OCS PLANNING AREAS 1 I A. Its 0 • 400 � i — - -- — a0• 3S• � ---- ��ro-ptN� x 35• C* t 30• - 1 � • . _ Sm „ - 30 owls � f r! wFsiEl GULFomF a *F S F OW WOW zool. 120• 1150 1100 1050 100• 950 90• 85• 8010 75• MASIM110 U 5 Mpan—vat d we Ndww Mwp•M Wnpwwl SMwcp 1400 1500 16,0" 1700 1&- 170° 160° 150° 140° 130° 120° 110° OCS PLANNING AREAS 7 , ° LL sr D "rotAt 1 i ' rcouw� 41 RNAAc-.w 44c f 1 Spa • r 1 180° 170° 1600 1500 140° v►�s,oarxy I 4310-MR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 5-YEAR OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM FOR FALL 1991 TO FALL 1996 Pursuant to section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (1.2:S) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding a proposed new 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing program for the period fall 1991 to fall 1996. The draft EIS is currently scheduled for release in late 1990. Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires the Department of the Interior to prepare and maintain an oil and gas leasing program consisting of a schedule of proposed lease sales indicating, as precisely as possible, the size, timing, and location of leasing activity which he determines will best meet national energy needs . for the 5-year period following the approval of the program. Alternatives to the proposed leasing program will include options for the size, timing, and location of lease sales. r Notice requesting suggestions and comments from States, local governments, the oil and gas industry, Federal Agencies, and cther interested =n3ividuals and groups to assist the Department of the Interior in the preparation of a 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas leasing Program to cover the period fall 1991 to fall 1996 also appears in today' s FEDERAL REGISTER. Information was requested on the characteristics of the OCS planning areas, environmental sensitivity, and the ranking of OCS areas both by oil and gas potential and by interest in exploration and development. Pursuant to 4101 CFR 1501.7, this Notice initiates the scoping process for the EIS. The Department of the Interior hereby solicits information from Federal, State, and local agencies and the public regarding alternatives and issues which should be evaluated in the EIS. Respondents are requested to focus their comments on the significant environmental issues attendant to OCS oil and gas leasing and development and on alternative leasing schedules and presale processes which should be evaluated in the EIS . The opportunity for public input continues throughout the EIS preparation process., For example, comments and information received during the drafting of the new 5-year leasing program will also be taken into consideration during the preparation of the EIS. In addition, the final EIS will incorporate comments received. following public review of the draft EIS. DATES: Scoping convents should be received by August 28, 1989 . ADDRESS: Scoping comments should be submitted to Debra Purvis, Minerals Management Service, Mail Stop 644 , 381 Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 22070. Hand deliveries to the Department of the Interior may be made to Room 2525, 18th and C Streets, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20240. Envelopes or packages should be marked "Scoping comments on the Proposed 5-Year Leasing Program EIS. " FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Purvis, Branch of Environmental Evaluation, MMS, at (703) 787-1666. Bar Williamson Director, Minerals Management Service JUL 10 1989 Date (7 .A� # Cityof Huntington Beach g 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR Deputy Associate Director 0 F1 for Offshore Leasing DRA' Minerals Management service (MS-641) Room 4230 19th and C Streets, NW Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Sir, The City of Huntington would like to offer the following comments on the new five-year leasing program for offshore oil operations. The City of Huntington Beach is a coastal city in the DOI's Southern California planning area. With a population of 186,000, our City is located in northern Orange County and is the location of current oil production onshore, and offshore in both State and Federal waters. Oil production coexsists with the City's other basic industries, which include but not limited to, tourism, recreation, surfing, scuba diving and sport fishing. There are currently four platform/islands offshore northern Orange County in State waters (two, platforms Eva and Emmy, are located directly off our State beach and 30 well ports each), and four platforms in Federal waters off Huntington Beach (Edith, Elly, Ellen and Eureka, with 262 wells combined and initial treatment and storage done on Elly). Huntington Beach is also located within the Lease Sale 95 Planning area, which was established under the currently operative Five-Year Plan and is under review by a special Presidential Task Force which is reviewing Sales 91, 95 and 116. The pre-lease steps for Lease Sale 95 have moved as far along as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The City of Huntington Beach commented during all planning stages for the current Five-Year Plan for OCS development, and has participated in a consortium of Orange County cities which have studies of the environmental and economic impacts of future offshore development in Orange County. We appreciate the opportunity to comment during this initial planning stage for 1991-1996 Five-Year Plan. We appreciate the Department of Interior's desire to develop "new approaches" to "reduce the conflict" associated with this issue. Conflict indeed has surrounded the offshore oil issue in general and certain lease sales in particular. While much of the conflict has been emotional and therefore not useful to a rational discussion of the impacts and benefits of development, the City feels that the Department of Interior should not ignore the real concerns expressed by local governments and the State which are based upon study or experience. The City of Huntington Beach has both studied the impacts of future development, and has experienced and studied the effects of current development. Telephone (714) 536-5202 OCS Lease Sale 95 August 10, 1989 Page 2 We hope that DOI will allow local governments the opportunity to submit their findings to be considered along with the analyses commissioned by DOI's Minerals management Services as part of it's Environmental Studies Program. We also hope that DOI will not consider new development in areas of environmental sensitivity, or in areas that are already producing offshore oil and are "doing their share". The City of Huntington Beach is near (or over) the line of tolerance where the impacts of development and the damage to the environment and other industries outweights the benefits of development. The State of California's Energy Commission has launched many innovative projects to decrease the State's dependence on petroleum, including the use of Methanol for many vehicles in the State's motor fleet. We are encouraged by statements made by the President regarding the environment and energy, and we look forward to the development of a national energy program similar to our state's, which would place emphasis on emerging technologies with promise, and sources of energy less finite than oil. Offshore oil drilling will require the increased utilization and expansion of existing onshore petroleum processing and transportation facilities which would increase air pollution and traffic congestion, adversely impact municipal services, and further impact an existing fresh water shortage. Two energy related facilities are currently operating in Huntington Beach which contribute heavily to air pollution in Orange County. The Huntington Beach area includes sensitive ecological systems such as the Santa Ana River mouth, Huntington Beach Wetlands, Huntington State Beach Least Tern Natural Preserve, and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Ecological Reserve which provide critical resources for migratory birds and endangered species. Tidal flushing has been recently restored to seventeen acres of the Huntington Beach Wetlands and is expected to be restored to portions of the Bolsa Chica in the future, thereby increasing the potential for damage to critical ecological resources should an oil spill reach the shoreline. The eight and one-half miles of beaches within Huntington Beach City limits provide a major portion of public beach use opportunities for Southern California with an estimated twelve million visitors per year. The protection of our State's national and scenic resources require the preservation of marine life, careful management of energy resources and the retention of coastal views. OCS Lease Sale 95 August 10, 1989 Page 3 There are long term benefits in preserving and protecting the coastline's original character for future generations by pursuing alternatives to offshore oil exploration including conservation and renewable energy resources which would be less damaging to the environment and the economy of Orange County. Sincerely, James W. Palin Deputy City Administrator JWP:lp 5041h City of Huntington Beach 1 ! 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR I)RAry Debra Purvis Minerals Management Service Mail Stop 644 381 Elden Street Herndon, Virginia 22070 RE: Scoping Comments/DEIS Dear Ms Purvis: The City of Huntington Beach suggests the following alternatives and issues for the DEIS: a) No sale alternative should be included for all planning areas. b) The cumulative impacts of current and past development should be included as part of the review process for the subregions of Planning Areas, and in the environmental review of each lease sale. c) The impact upon municipal/regional infrastructure and appropriate mitigations should be considered. d) The impact of onshore and support facilities associated with production platforms should be included in the Five Year Plan environmental review. e) Air quality review for OCS production platforms should be conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, so that Clean Air Act review for OCS is consistent with that for onshore areas. f) Review of impacts of oil development upon coastal dependent industries. g) Review of impacts upon municipal and county services such as fire and police protection and hazardous materials response. h. Review of current oil spill contingency plans and facilities, and the potential establishment of an oil spill "superfund" for spill response and cleanup operations. Telephone (714) 536-5202 i Comments/DEIS August 10, 1989 Page 2 i) Review the establishment of an oil spill inter-agency task force to monitor oil-spill response facilities, including drills. Such a task force should include representatives of local government, public health, and public protection agencies. The City Council would like to thank you for your consideration of this issue which is of extreme importance to the City. James W. Palin Deputy City Administrator JWP:lP 5042h RESOLUTION NO. 5758 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING THE FEBRUARY 17, 1987, "CALIFORNIA COMPONENT" OF THE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR OCS LEASING PROGRAM FOR 1986 - 1991 WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Interior has recently promulgated his five year Outer Continental Shelf Oil Leasing Program covering the period from mid 1987 to mid 1992 ; and The proposed program calls for two separate lease sales in Southern California during those five years ; and The five year plan offers only minimal protection for the Orange County coastline in that it anticipates leasing of all tracts offshore Orange County except for those within a three mile Federal buffer zone off of Newport Beach, the Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge and Heisler Park ASBS; and The City of Huntington Beach has repeatedly opposed Federal efforts to allow oil drilling off our shoreline because of adverse environmental and economic impacts which would include increased air pollution, desecration of ocean views , and damage to the beaches and sensitive ecological habitats , should an oil spill reach our shoreline; and Two energy-related facilities are currently operating in Huntington Beach which contribute heavily to air pollution in Orange County; and The eight and one-half miles of beaches within Huntington Beach city limits provide a major portion of public beach use opportunities for all of Southern California ; and The Huntington Beach area includes sensitive ecological 1 . systems such as the Santa Ana River mouth, Huntington Beach wetlands , jHuntington Beach State Beach Least Tern Natural Preserve, and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Ecological Reserve which provide critical resources for migratory birds and endangered species ; and Tidal flushing will soon be restored to seventeen acres of the Huntington Beach wetlands and is expected to be restored to portions of the Bolsa Chica in the future, thereby increasing the. potential for damage to critical ecological resources should an oil spill reach the shoreline; and The City of Huntington Beach has already accepted its fair share of the responsibility and risks associated with the provision of the nation' s energy needs ; and The Five Year Program fails to achieve "an equitable sharing of the developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions of the United States" , as specified by OCS Lands Act ; and The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed five year plan seriously underestimates the negative impacts resulting from oil exploration, especially by referring to region wide effects while minimizing the localized impacts which would occur, particularly in communities which are highly dependent upon tourism for their economic livelihood; and The EIS for the five year plan indicates that tankers will probably be used to transport oil obtained from wells in Federal waters off the Orange County coast and that there exists significant environmental hazards associated with ship transportation of oil ; and 2 . There are several alternatives , as discussed in the EIS, which would be less damaging to the environment and economy of Orange County that could have been selected by the Secretary of the Interior . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach believes that the five year oil leasing program proposed by the Secretary of the Interior should be substantially modified to preclude oil exploration between the Orange County coastline and Catalina Island . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior ' s five year plan as being detrimental to the economy and the environment of our community. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS seventeenth day of - February, 1987, by the following roll ca vote : Mayor` ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ,;,,EWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: I _ City Administrator �7? irector of Development Services 3 . Res. No. 5758 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) j COUNTY OF ORANGE ) so: CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected , qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February 19 87 by the following vote: AYES : Councilmen: Winchell , Mays , Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister NOES : Councilmen: i None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington. Beach, California ' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL'ACTION Date November 10, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Submitted to: GOv�r,YL PAUL COOK, Interim City Administrator Submitted by: o -� Prepared by: DAMES W. PALIN, Deputy City Administrat r ti Subject: JOINT GRANT APPLICATION TO LOCAL GOVERN NT COAST �ITz MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments STATEMENT OF ISSUE: City Council authorized the Administration to participate with Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and San Clemente in a Grant Application for financial assistance for reviewing documents being proposed by OCS Lease Sale 95 on February 2, 1987 and committed to providing one quarter of the 2 ma ching s are required for the grant by the adoption of Resolution No. 5753. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the appropriation of $8,500 and authorize the City Administrator to forward same to the City of Laguna Beach upon the city's receipt of the final consultant contractual document on Lease Sale 95. ANALYSIS: Staff had originally requested that the city participate in a consortium of Orange County cities to create a larger pool of financial assistance for reviewing, critiquing and providing for a wider distribution of the published documents on Lease Sale 95. The specific objectives identified in the draft grant application include the following benefits for the citizens of Huntington Beach: 1. A thorough analysis of Lease Sale 95 and its environmental impact statement will be made, including possible effects of oil leasing on air quality, transportation facilities, tourism, marine life habitat, and recreational uses. 2. Mitigation measures will be developed as appropriate to minimize any adverse impacts on the Orange County coastline. 3. The conclusions of the study will be made available to the general public and elected officials through the publication of documents and the orchestration of several workshops. P10 5/85 Upon approval of this grant the four cities met to formulate a Request for Proposal from environmental consultants to assist in the performance of the work identified in our grant. Laguna Beach's City Administrator, Ken Frank, is the Administrator for the grant and is currently revising the contract for the consulting services of Richard T. Tinney and Associates. The final contract is to be in place the first week of December so that the consultant can begin the work specified in the grant application. Laguna Beach has requested that we remit to them our share to reduce the impact on their general funds as the grant is a reimbursement type of grant over a two year period of time. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The grant proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. FUNDING SOURCE: As described herein and in the attached Fiscal Impact Statement. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Not concur with stated objective when adopting Resolution No. 5753. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 5753 2. Fiscal Impact Statement JWP:Ip 2140r -2- 11/10/87 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 To PAUL E. COOK From ROBERT J. FRANZ Interim City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR CITY APPROPRIATION Date NOVEMBER 5, 1987 TO ACCOMMODATE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS F.I.S. #87-15 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a fiscal impact statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the four-city Orange County Consortiums successful application for grant funding assistance to help in financing the written technical analysis of oil lease sale 95 and its potential impact on the South Orange County coastline. The grant funds total $168,000 with a one-time "up-front" matching fund requirement of $8,500. An affirmative response by the City Council would reduce the balance of the City's unappropriated General Fund to $2,964,866. Funding of the accompanying city services (Huntington Beach pro rata share to be $33,500) are to be satisfied via the respective departments absorbing same within their op e sting budgets over the two-year project duration. ROBERT J. F AN Deputy City dministr for RJF:AR:skd 3488j RESOLUTION NO. 5753 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT COASTAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO OIL LEASE SALE 95. WHEREAS the City of Huntington Beach, recognizing the problems and issues identified in the attached application , Exhibit I for a local government Coastal Program Grant , desires to undertake projects which will help relieve problems related to offshore energy production; and The City of Huntington Beach has participated along with the cities of Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, and San Clemente in the preparation of an application package which deals with these problems , and the Secretary of Environmental Affairs , under authority of California Public Resources Code Section 35040, may grant financial assistance ; and The City of Huntington Beach is committed to providing one-quarter of the 20 percent matching share required for the grant application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it hereby requests the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, under authority of California Public Resources Code Section 35040, to furnish financial assistance as may be provided. Such request for assistance is more particularly described in attachments to the application, Exhibit I , and by this reference made a part hereof as though set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City administrator of the City of Huntington Beach be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Huntington Beach all necessary applications, contracts, and agreements and. amendments thereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2n(i day of February , 1987 . or ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM; �- City Clerk V City Attorney C) REVIE ND APPROVED: IN TIATED AND APPROVED: C y Administrator irec or of eve op ent Services 1841L 1-23-87 EXHIBIT I Secretary of Environmental Aiiairs Page 1 Fiscal Application For Grant Funds From The Local Government Coastal Manaveeent Improvement Provraw Application car.- P a y e e Na r-:e CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH S•t r e e? :,acress 505 Forest Avernie C1'. y !71c Laguna Beach, CA 92651 : _ t Person N a m e Kenneth Frank = r,e N u m o e r 714-497-3311 3 rro; :,seo Grant reric, c from July 1, 1987 tc May 30, 1989 4 . Proposed Duoget ( ettach tupporIinq scriecules for each line item ) See Exhibit I Expenditures : Line Item Dollars A Salaries and daces s 23,800 B . Operating Expenses s - 24,200 C . Consulting Services s 120,000 D . Construction Expenses s -0- E . Fixed Assets S _0- Total , Proposed Expenditures $ 168, Funding : A . Matching Funds : s 34,000 B . Grant Funds s 1341000 7otal . Proposed Funding 5 S . Funding Method ( check one ) _ Advance jL Reimbursement 6 . C e r t if i c a t ion : I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief . under persalty of :;erlur triat aata in this. apDllcat ; on `ar�e , rue anc ccrre _ Grantee Signature 7 �Z��� DatF N a r-.a and 't i t l e Kemeth Frank, City Manager, T aguna Beach rer ~ar,aacr Ar,prevc : 1 ':V i f t R.r r,? _ r f ' a r E, 1 c t U r Ch Air P.(:sourLe U2 ' C i6Lc1 ar:Cr, ^DDrc-vb Signature : Date ' EXHIBIT I Page 2 SUPPORTING BUDGET SCHEDULE Consulting Services Including experts in the areas of Petroleum Engineering, Tourism, Marine Biology, Air Quality Projections Geology, Citizen Surveys and Technical Editing 1600 Hrs . @ $75/Hr . Avg . $120 , 000 Travel and Transportation 3,000 Clerical and Technical Support 1400 Hrs . @ $17/Hr . Staff Including Benefits 23, 800 Materials and Supplies 5, 200 Telephone 5,000 Postage, Mailing and Public Noticing 5, 000 Printing and Copying 6 , 000 TOTAL $168, 000 Grant Share 134 , 000 Local Matching Share 34 , 000 ( 7202d) Res. No. 5753 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) aa: CITY OF EM INGTON BEACH ) 1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of February 19 87 by the following vote: APES: Councilmen: Winchell , Mays, Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None v' City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L'a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNI ATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To RICH BARNARD JIM PALIN Asst. To City Admin. Deputy City Administrator Subject Local Officials Interested in ate September 30, 1987 Litigation Over Hodel 5-year � / OCS Program /O�s��7Cu.Y�J 3-Z Attached herewith is a communication that the city received from Richard. Charter, Local Government Coordinator, setting forth the approach for cities and counties to join the State in the law suit on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report for Lease Sale 95. I discussed this item with Richard on Monday, September 28, 1987, and he informed me that if we were successful in getting this forwarded to City Council for action �dn October 5, 1987 we could send out necessary letters on the 6th of October as well as notify him of the City Council Action, which would enable us to join in the law suit. Please discuss this item with the mayor to see if a Council member will bring it up as new business at the October 5, 1987 meeting to authorize staff to proceed ahead with the necessary letter writing and telephone calls to join the state in their action. JWP:lp SEP 2 `., 1937 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH September 16, 198' �� t3 i987 (urgent) Q �� HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. To: Local Officials Interested in Litigation SEP 9 V D Over Hodel 5—Year OCS Program j c/n> >98? From: Richard Charter �,G C/CFyUNTj Re: Opportunity to Join. Suit Challenging Interior Department C�U�� p F eFACjy ice A number of local elected officials have asked me if it is possible for local jurisdictions to join with the State of California in pursuing litigation challenging Interior Secretary Hodel 's new Five—Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The purpose.of this communication is to recommend that local agencies promptly take stcrs to act jointly with Attorney General John wan deKamp, who has filed suit challenging the OCS Program on behalf of the people of California, the State Lands Commission, and the California Coastal Commission. While the Governor has not joined in .this suit, the states of Oregon; Washington, Florida, and Massachusetts have filed similar actions, as have several environmental organizations from around the country. I believe that it is important for California local agencies to pursue all available avenues, including the courts, in attempting to moderate Interior' s agressive OCS leasing plans. This is particularly true in the likely event that we once again need to return to--the Congressional arena requesting moratorium protection through the Appropriations process next year. Congress is going to want to restore the moratorium only as a last resort, and for local jurisdictions to forgo the opportunity to mount a legal challenge tends to send out the wrong message. I am fully cognizant of the significant fiscal constraints facing local governments at this time. For this reason, I am going to suggest a scenario which I believe can result in low cost, and in some specific instances no cost, collective legal representation which will enable strong local part.icipation in this suit. Approximately three years ago, local jurisdictions in central and northern California contributed jointly to a legal defense fund for the purpose of challenging the planned McClelland Engineers program of test drilling offshore. This legal fund was utilized to retain the San Francisco law firm of Roger Beers to challenge the various permits acquired. by McClelland Engineers for conducting their test drilling program. As you are all aware, our legal and administrative challenges to the McClelland proposal were very successful, and the applicants eventually withdrew their proposal altogeter. The balance of the original legal war chest established to fight the McClelland proposal is still in existence, administered by the County of Santa Cruz. This account contains adequate funds (approximately $15,000) which could readily be redirected for the purposes of mounting a challenge to the Hodel Five—Year OCS Program. The original and continuing purpose of this fund has been for the legal defense of coastal resources threatened by offshore drilling impacts. It is my recommendation that those agencies which contributed to the fund originally now authorize that the remaining funds be utilized for the purpose of retaining the Roger Beers frhm to act as counsel in a local government challenge to Hodel's Five—Year OCS Leasing Program. Legal intervention on behalf of local governments will not cost more than $10,000 collectively, so it is clear that the present funds available will be more than adequate for this purpose. Additional local agencies which were beyond the geographic influence of the original r. 4 McClelland Engineers drilling plan may now want to also join in the suit on the -Fi4ve; Year OCS. Program. It seems logical to me that these additional agences'wishing to challenge the Hodel OCS Program could also be accomodated at this time 'simply by formally authorizing their participation and contributing to the fund. For this scenario to come together, a number of prompt actions need to be taken by your board or council to assure that your agency is included as a named intervenor in this action. Our papers will need to be filed by September 28, which means that we need.to know who all of our players will be by Friday, September 25. If your agency was an original financial contributor to the McClelland Engineers legal fund, all your board or council will need to do is: (1 ) Send a letter authorizing redirection of your remaining portion of the .McClelland Engineers legal fund to a legal challenge to the DOI Five—Year OCS Program to: Mr. Dwight Herr, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. (2) Send a copy of this letter to Mr. Roger Beers, Attorney at Law, 380 Hayes Street, Suite One, San Francisco, CA 94102. (3) Telephone Richard Charter at (707)875-3482 with notification of your intent to participate. .If your agency was not a .participant in the original McClelland Engineers test drilling suit, you will need to do the following quite quickly: (1) Send a letter authorizing your participation in the suit challenging the DOI Five—Year OCS Program to Mr. Dwight Herr, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. (2) Send a copy of this letter to Mr. Roger Beers, Attorney at Law, 380 Hayes Street, Suite One, San Francisco, CA 94102. (3) Forward your funding share to Mary Ann Johnson;CA,O O:ffice,:County of Santa Cruz, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. The suggested funding guidelines for new participants for the initial action are $2000 per County and $200 per City. (4) Immediately telephone Richard Charter at (707)875-3482 with notification of your intent to participate. As I mentioned, for this to come together in time, prompt action will be required on your part. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this action. Agencies which have already contributed to McClelland legal fund: Counties: Cities: Pacific Grove Monterey Arcata San Mateo Capitola Santa Cruz Pt.Arena Mendocino Del Mar Sonoma Salinas Monterey Carmel Santa Monica Santa Cruz A.M.B.A.G. Ocs ,fiction Alert for Local Governments 1PUBLIC . HEARINGS . SA FMIRMW% LEAASE LEI 95 ACTION NEEDED: Testimony at "scoping" hearings on Southern California Lease Sale #95. ■ MESSAGE NEEDED: Comments on the."scope" of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) being prepared by the Department of Interior in preparation for OCS Lease Sale #95 offshore the coast of Southern California. Your comments should focus on the types of issues which you feel should be addressed in the DEIS. Economic, biological , air quality, and other types of impacts are appropriate topics for your testimony at. these hearings. LOCATION. OF "SCOPING" HEARINGS FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEASE SALE 995 ' OCTOBER 14, WEDNESDAY - SANTA MARIA SANTA MARIA INN, 800 S. BROADWAY 9 :00 AM TO 8:00 PM --------------------------------- OCTOBER 16 , FRIDAY - VENTURA MCBRIDE BUILDING, .VENTURA COUNTY 'FAIRGROUNDS 10 W. HARBOR, BLVD. 9 :00 AM TO 8:00 PM --------------------------------- OCTOBER 20, TUESDAY - LONG BEACH LONG BEACH CONVENTION CENTER 300 E. OCEAN BLVD. 9 :00 AM TO 8:00 PM --------------------------------- OCTOBER 22, THURSDAY - OCEANSIDE EL CAMINO COUNTRY CLUB, 3202 VISTA WAY 9 :00 AM TO 8:00 PM C ■ BACKGROUND: The Department of Interior has finalized its Five—Year OCS Leasing Program and has begun the pre—lease planning process .for Southern California Lease Sale #95. The initial "Call for Information" process has now been completed, and the next step is called "Area Identification". "Area Identification" is expected to occur by mid—October and will identify the tracts which will be included in the planning process for Sale #95. Little change in the actual geographic configuration of Sale #95 is anticipated as a result of the "Area Identification" step. As the planning process goes forward, the Department of Interior will begin preparation- of the required Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Sale #95. As part of the preparation of the DEIS, a series of public hearings will be held throughout Southern California to take testimony on the issues which the public feels should be addressed in the DEIS document. These "Scoping" hearings are an important part of the lease sale process, and all interested local agencies and interest groups should avail themselves of the opportunity to present testimony. Issues such as air pollution, oilspills, onshore. industrialization, commercial fishing impacts, geologic hazards, drilling discharges, and biological communities are appropriate topics for the "Scoping" process. Any other issues which are specific to a particular location should also be raised at these hearings. Be as detailed and substantial in your comments as possible. Be sure to request that your particular issue be addressed in the DEIS. These hearings represent the first public opportunity to build an appropriate legal record on which subsequent litigation may be based. It is strongly advised that you arrive at the beginning of these hearings, so that you can hear the initial technical presentation by the Department of Interior staff regarding Sale #95. ..You should also sign up to present testimony early in the public hearing process while the press is still in attendance. The locations which have been selected for many of.. these hearings appear to indicate that they have been sited at the convenience of the oil industry so that they can turn out "pro—development" testimony. Bring your friends so that we can counter this orchestrated strategy. . I WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL. OCTOBER 9: Written scopinq comments on the issues which should be covered in the DEIS will also be accepted, but they must arrive prior to October 9, 1987. These comments should be submitted in addition to any P.revious comments you may have made in response to the earlier "Call 'for Information '. Written scoping comments should be directed to: Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, MMS, 1340 W. 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Envelopes should be labeled, "Comments on the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on Southern California Lease Sale #95. 1240 1220 120° 1180 1i *SAN LUIS OBISPO 4(1001, 350 350 SANTA BARBARA •LOS ANGELES •LONG BEACH EeSUBAREA - - DEFERRALS 0 330 33° SAN DIEGO ■ OPEN FOR LEASING IN LEASE SALE #95 MEX U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE PACIFIC OCS REGION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA 0 50 :100 MILES 310 MEX1�® 31° %7 dY 40`� = REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL -ACTION -�1-7 1� Date -Ai gust 18, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APpRov D 1;�' CITy CU Submitted b l; UN CIL Y� Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Deputy City Administrator 19- Subject: RESOLUTION NO. 5810 — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA O czry c LEASE SALE #95 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception -Res Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In response to the Call for Information and Nominations and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, which was issued by the Department of the Interior for Southern California Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale #95, staff has prepared Resolution No. 5810. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 5810 for transmittal to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service by August 21, 1987. ANALYSIS: On July 2, 1987, the Final Five—Year Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program was approved by the lack of a vote in Congress. Concurrent with the approval of the Five—Year Program, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the Call for Information and Nominations and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Southern California OCS Lease Sale #95. Lease Sale #95 covers areas between San Luis Obispo/Monterey County Line and the Mexican border (see attached map) and includes areas offshore from Orange County. Not included in the Call are areas that the Secretary of the Interior deferred from leasing in the Five—Year Program. Referrals adjacent to the Orange County coastline include deepwater areas (generally beyond the 900—meter isobath), buffers offshore Newport Beach, Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuges and Heisler Park ASBS and buffers offshore Catalina and San Clemente Islands. The "Call for Information" step is intended to solicit expressions of oil industry interest ("Positive Nominations") as to which tracts should be opened to drilling. The "Call' at the same time, solicits expressions of concern ("Negative Nominations") from communities and interest groups who feel that they will be adversely affected by the proposed OCS leasing activities. Although the "Call' is an early step in the leasing procedure, all parties of interest should participate in the "Call' as part of building an effective legal record. PIO 5/85 The information will be used for the following purposes: 1. Identification of the areas of potential oil and gas development; 2. To solicit comments on possible environmental effects and potential use conflicts which will be used in the analysis of environmental conditions in and near the Call area; 3. Comments will be used to initiate the scoping process for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); 4. Comments may be used in developing lease terms and conditions to ensure safe offshore operations; and 5. Comments may be used to point out potential conflicts between offshore oil and gas activities and California coastal zone management policies. Additional opportunities to comment in detail will occur in the future. The tentative schedule is as follows: Tentative Schedule Comments Due on the Call - August 1987 Area Identification - September 1987 Draft EIS Published - July 1988 Public Hearings on Draft EIS - August 1988 Final EIS Published - February 1989 Proposed Notice of Sale Issued - April 1989 Governor's Comments Due on Proposed Notice - June 1989 Final Notice of Sale Published - August 1989 Sale - September 1989 The Resolution No. 5810 identifies general and special concerns of the City of Huntington Beach. If approved, staff will transmit the resolution to the Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service by August 21, 1987. FUNDING SOURCE: No funding is needed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not adopt Resolution No. 5810. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 5810 Map of Lease Sale #95 JWP:LC:gbm RCA - August 18, 1987 -2- (8840d) 4 _ . 1240 1220 1200 1180 *SAN LUIS OBISPO 350 35° 14% SANTA BARBARA �A - v .000 •LOS ANGELES dab 7 •LONG BEACH ®SUBAREA DEFERRALS 0 3 SAN 3° 33° DIEGO ■ OPEN FOR LEASING N1EX. IN LEASE SALE #95 _ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE _ PACIFIC OCS REGION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA _ - - 310 0 50 100 MILES 310 •cd,�jo 1200 MG/� 1 180 r ' RESOLUTION NO. 5810 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN RESPONSE TO THE CALL FOR INFORMATION FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OCS LEASE SALE #95. WHEREAS, the Department of Interior has solicited comments and nominations from interested parties on their proposed southern California OCS Lease Sale #95 offshore drilling plan; and Comments and nominations will be accepted by the Department of Interior until August 21, 1987; and The City of Huntington Beach relies to a significant degree on a coastal-dependent economic base which requires a clean and healthy marine environment; and Local governments statewide consider the nearshore focus of the Lease Sale #95 proposal to be precedent-setting with regard to other proposed federal OCS leasing actions elsewhere offshore California; and Coastal-dependent tourism is a mainstay of the local economy in communities adjacent to the proposed Lease Sale #95 area are regional in nature and likely to adversely impact socioeconomic conditions in coastal and inland communities; and The present lack of adequate oilspill response capability indicates that OCS leasing in the Lease Sale #95 area will pose a high degree of risk to coastal environments; and Ocean discharge of drilling wastes has cumulative impacts which degrade nearshore water quality and which have remained unaddressed in the Five-Year OCS Leasing Program; and Critical commercial fishery tracts are encompassed by the Lease Sale #95 proposal and significant conflicts are anticipated between the fishing industry and OCS activities; and Offshore oil drilling will require the increased utilization or expansion of existing onshore facilities and the construction of new facilities. These facilities will have a significant impact on coastal communities; and The City of Huntington Beach has repeatedly opposed Federal efforts to allow oil drilling off our shoreline because of adverse environmental and economic impacts which would include increased air pollution, desecration of ocean views, and damage to the beaches and sensitive ecological habitats, should an oil spill reach our shoreline; and Two energy—related facilities are currently operating in Huntington Beach which contribute heavily to air pollution in Orange County; and The eight and one—half miles of beaches within Huntington Beach city limits provide a major portion of public beach use opportunities for all of Southern California; and The Huntington Beach area includes sensitive ecological systems such as the Santa Ana River mouth, Huntington Beach wetlands, Huntington Beach State Beach Least Tern Natural Preserve, and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Ecological Reserve which provide critical resources for migratory birds and endangered species; and Tidal flushing will soon be restored to seventeen acres of the Huntington Beach wetlands and is expected to be restored to portions of the Bolsa Chica in the future, thereby increasing the potential for damage to critical ecological resources should an oil spill reach the shoreline; and The City of Huntington Beach has already accepted its fair share of the responsibility and risks associated with the provision of the nation's energy needs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Huntington Beach does hereby submit to the Department of Interior NEGATIVE NOMINATIONS for ALL tracts included in the "Call for Information" for proposed OCS Lease Sale #95;.and (8833d) FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that two identical copies of this resolution shall be transmitted in a timely fashion to: (1) Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, 1340 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017; and ALSO TO: (2) Chief, Offshore Leasing Management Division, Minerals Management Service, Mail Stop 4230, 18th and C Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 to arrive prior to August 21, 1987, in an envelope labeled "Comments on the Call for Information and Nominations for Southern California Sale 95"; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that an additional copy of this resolution shall be transmitted in a timely fashion to: Ms. Jananne Sharpless, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, and to members of the California Congressional Delegation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of August, 1987. Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM City Clerk ,j-/-3-6-7 City Attorney 7Z0 City Administra or ector of eomm 'ty Development o (8833d) A Res. No. 5810 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of August 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Mays, Winchell, Erskine, Green, Bannister NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley, Kelly 0? City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of. the City of Huntington Beach, California *tote of California SACRAMENTO 11,OPN' 7`> _ -M3 JANANNE SHARPLESS , Secretary of nE ,, Environmental Affairs March 20 , 1987 Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Wentworth: Thank you for your letter to Governor Deukmejian and your Resolution regarding the Department of the Interior's Draft Proposed Final 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The Governor has asked me to respond in my capacity as his Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Policy Coordinator. As you may already know, Governor Deukmejian, in his letter of March 4, 1987 to Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel, provided his comments on the Draft Proposed Final Program. He pointed out to Secretary Hodel that, unless significant new environmental and geological information proves otherwise, all of the areas which he identified for deletion in his original May 7, 1986 comments on the Draft Proposed Program should still be deleted. He adhered to these comments in asserting that the information now available fully justifies deletion of all of the requested subareas from the Leasing Program. Included among these areas are nearshore southern Orange County and the Islands of Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara, San Clemente, San Nicolas and Begg Rock. In addition, the Governor has requested that several special conditions be applied by DOI to any future lease sales and development activities off California. In his recent letter to Secretary Hodel, he reiterated his position that the level of protection provided by these conditions be baseline requirements for any future lease sale off California. In addition to the stipulations we negotiated for Lease Sales 73 and 80, the Governor specifically mentioned additional air quality protections, use of pipeline rather than tanker transportation to reduce significantly any risk of oil spills to the coast, addressing onshore facility capacities, and protection of military training and operating areas. While the above comments address many of the points raised in your Council's resolution, they do not respond to your concern about the impacts of oil development on tourism and summer recreational use. The effects of oil drilling on tourism are, in fact, not well known. While no methodologies have been developed to date for precisely measuring impacts, the impacts continue to be investigated. For the southern California 1102 Q STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 322-5840 t� - Alicia M. Wentworth Page 2 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach March 20 , 1987 communities adjacent to where drilling is occurring or is proposed, independent studies have concluded that there are no measurable negative impacts on tourism and recreational activities. While California has no veto power over federal offshore leasing, this Administration has worked within the planning and review process established by the OCS Lands Act. By doing so, we have achieved unique, precedent- setting measures to protect California's coast from the risks posed by offshore energy development, and thereby mitigate the stress placed upon our natural environment. These measures represent a combined effort by State agencies, local governments, and the public which is unequaled anywhere else in the United States where offshore drilling has occurred. I can assure you that the Governor intends to continue working closely with local communities and the federal government to achieve a balanced offshore energy leasing program. Again, thank you for your letter to Governor Deukmejian. Please be assured that the Governor is indeed on record with Secretary Hodel as standing firmly by his May 7, 1986 position regarding the Proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. In developing this position, he considered and incorporated comments and concerns expressed by local governments along California's entire coastline. Sincerely, Vcre ne Sharpless tary of Environmental Affairs cc: Governor's Office CONGRESSMAN FROM BOB BARIUM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 40TH DISTRICT.CALIF. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kathy Hill/Kari Swenson March 4, 1987 (202) 225-5611 Today, Congressman Robert Badham (R-CA) reiterated his strong opposition : to the Department of the Interior's draft proposed 5-year OCS plan for Calirornia. The six term Congressman said, "It is particularly disheartening to note, that after nearly two years of extensive negotiations and consultations with Secretary Hodel, he has refused to take into consideration many of the vital concerns of the people of California." Badham met recently with representatives from several Orange County cities in his Newport Beach office to hear their opinion first-hand on i Interior's proposal. Today, he is providing these comments in written form to the Congressionally-appointed negotiating team. The negotiating team will submit these comments along with their own to Secretary Hoddel. The Department of Interior is required to consider the comments on the ;alifornia portion and then present the entire 5-year OCS plan to the Congress. In order to change Interior's proposal, both Houses of Congress i i must vote to disapprove it. This resolution of disapproval, if passed, is likely to be vetoed. I In addition to communications from the city officials, Badham is also submitting his own statement on Interior's proposal. Badham pointed out, "The' plan fails to address the legitimate concerns of Orange County." i Specifically, Badham cited, "the potential harm to the thriving tourist-based . economy and the impact of oil exploration and development on the already serious air pollution problem in Southern California." The veteran Congressman pledged that he will continue to work for the j protection of the Orange County coast and is exploring all options to ensure adequate safeguards for the environment and the economic livelihood of the communities. I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 Mr. Warner Chabot Room 309 - Planning Civic Center San Rafael , CA 94903 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987 adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OSC program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure (Telephone:7 f 4536-6227) t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 Mr. Peter Teague Rep. Leon Panetta 339 CHOB Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Mr. Teague: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OSC program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure (Telephone:714-536-5227) 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 The Honorable George Deukmejian State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Deukmejian The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 The Honorable Pete Wilson United States Senate 11111 Santa Monica Blvd. , Suite 915 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Dear Senator Wilson: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the .Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 The Honorable Harriett Wieder Orange County Board of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Supervisor Wieder: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure 1 Telephone:714-536-5227► ;,"j& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ` 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 The Honorable Thomas Riley Orange County Board of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Supervisor Riley: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior' s five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure 1 Telephone:714536-52271 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 The Honorable Robert E. Badham House of Representatives , 40th District 180 Newport Center Drive, Suite 240 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Congressman Badham: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure (Telephone: 714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITYCLERK February 19, 1987 The Honorable Dan Lungren House of Representatives, 42nd District 555 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 505 Long Beach, CA 90802 Dear Congressman Lungren The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure 1 Telephone:714536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 19, 1987 Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel Department of the Interior 18th & "C" Streets, Room 6151 Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr. Hodel : The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held February 17, 1987, adopted Resolution No. 5758 opposing the 2/17/87 "California Component" of the proposed five year OCS program for 1986-1991 . The City of Huntington Beach vigorously opposes the Secretary of the Interior's five year plan as being detrimental to the economy of the environment of our community. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5758. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosre (Telephone:714-536-5227) -R•C.Lt��� OCS Action Alert for roc 1 overrun 87 AO%OMMENT UE . ON Es Onm.0 E_L ■ I-LLIN . . ■ PLANO ® ACTION NEEDED: RESOLUTIONS and TECHNICAL COMMENTS to respond to the new 5-Year OCS Leasing Program recently proposed for the California coastline by Interior Secretary Donald Hodel. ®CRITICAL DATE: March 2, 1987 (must be received by this date) ■ DIRECTED TO: Copies of all material need to be sent to each of the following: • Secretary of Interior Donald Hodel, Department of the Interior, 18th and C Streets, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20240 �• Governor George Deukmejian, State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814 _-• Mr. Peter Teague, c/o Rep. Leon Panetta, 339 CHOB, Washington, DC 20515 .---• Mr. Warner Chabot, Rm. 309 - Planning, Civic Center, San Rafael, CA 94903. ® WHAT TO INCLUDE WHEN YOU COMMENT: • A draft Resolution being considered by other California local governments is included for your consideration. This reso is aimed at building the proper legal record needed for future litigation, should legal action become necessary. • Your comments should include any recent technical information which could substantiate OCS conflicts in your region. A review of Interior's voluminous documents should also provide your agency with detailed technical comments for submittal to Interior. ■ BACKGROUND: A new 5-Year offshore drilling plan has been released by Interior Secretary Donald Hodel. The Interior Department in releasing their plan has tried to portray it as a "moderate" plan and one which represents a renewed effort at "compromise" on the California drilling question. Closer inspection of Hodel's plan, however, reveals a scenario which would do virtually the same thing James Watt was trying to accomplish when he had to leave office - lease vast new areas of the California coast to the oil industry, with a focus on nearshore leasing in environmentally-sensitive areas. Interior's 5-Year OCS Program would open three offshore "planning areas" along the entire length of the coast to leasing starting in early 1989. - A total of five lease sales would occur between mid-1987 and mid-1992. This includes two sales in the "Northern California" OCS Planning Area, one sale in the "Central California" OCS Planning Area, .and two sales in .the "Southern California" OCS Planning Area. The drilling plan targets tracts off of Oceanside, off of Orange County, .off of Santa Monica Bay, .and near southern Big Sur, the Santa Cruz - San Mateo coast, San Francisco, the Sonoma coast, all of the Mendocino coast, and much the area off of Humboldt County. The release of the California portion of Hodel's nPW drilling n1on nr th;a #-4 , woo 'fS,yp} !h F t .° CITY COUNCIL COMMU :RIMIN ON eexos v To Honorable Mayor a.rid 5 ,� F RIO 1 Ruth r inJey, I � . City Council hllen,)bers Councilvror' SUBJECT Girt' Go oA E OFFSHORE OIL FVLO BY ruary 17, E 987 X-F �— c asz• a � dhan's azfxc�.c �" -si ti Asia result of abriefi �� ses 1 LN :cinescf February 1 !, i pEa e a 1 �tr ! :�� a ,e P{1 r ;.car .his cavern ,i r+� : ding. the Pro...",zp .. . itial fro ;ra{ : fi)r tih-l- Cuter Contir.e�;,.�� sil.ek t3 C_5:1 need �o react tc the Carat,. r' c _ I Ctf'fshore Car.i�C{ t'itci. A subsc,:quem meeting was he-l.d ihi� morning, a i tie Newp 3 L �� I,ch city hall, at which time it was deterrnined than cor i-rients r�lust be Cec(,'lved insn n�,gi.on, D.C., byno later t:i a�1 Cv;a.;'ci) %, 19871, I. view of. this, staff has prepare d dralt x,v is.tt:,i.on i' s ; the ! . . s rr ° _y.,,. !•'1'� `e; s!'i pro r ..achy°, opp�r.» !g tr � California componer.w of the pro,�c�t:., a-,< <<.: ,:�.�5 t ':y8F--!991 i 1. 1{ 4{ i A 1,; f Attached t': tl"lia `'l"t�. Cyr+3C1 1?2� yJii ir?..s ilriCi ' tii:i C'ES011�tiOCl i3r7� CciP-;her s. hl r= b• tine City Council since C\l.il-gu t of �.'y84 "hat C:d.\�_ C.��--:. ;=it:rop�%P l'l t:•;i _ R,EFL B:!p f A.t tachments X.c C-hark,., ',,V. Thompson, City Administrator N, La L-Clle, `-)epUty (--;ity Admirlktr,:a.rot Pall , 1 rr 1. 1prl?t'f1L Service-s Dir c t o r sai..l 'Hut4ori, Ciily ttorney 1 I ✓ f! , ,i�' al � r t �,-t�' ri l '�' t ,� - ; t1� kr �,1r4 � a• r� y .,���• W kola'+ i _T! .� - f r r i .a t +, 1' .: jy ,'';� � fir, y�., '( � h1;µ } 7�.F''��'�, ,..'�'»� Tsr'y `i`' i 7 f�l,'.;>,� kph+ S,..c 14�k.�'�`+W.°rY r t'ih r °�ri''hr.�• Y �..L{ r to t •;t`"� � {Y R 8� �i,�� ."•��p€ t M`, �, fx A1'.'�7.i. � %� �°r�.''::.:t � t' '�+. � �+' �j.0 � �����:x,,�"�yt .,G"o- 48 +..�yGi i ! r .r. f ,�sf mr kF 1x ¢ay, ,4. ,g�,�. , _,�• xxr t N,li•" sh�:� r,"y�1��,gx,�4�.. .1? 1r"`' yx r--•kd° i <.:;g3m +Y,�'�" v,�y t,yr •rys c �u� '." t -'� �a: t n r � � � �{ a��'C� J`� :4; _ �I�c >„�rx'��?'� �'u..ar,�:i zn, x{�'."d,';' r!ia• pv°"' %'�jY p'!*' 1'� . MR }C1 4a �A t d i f u ep. .�..r� s r� ys �lw,�„� '�dr+ �v; t.� trt fi,�,•S � !�. � �. _ PFWOSED:CAUFORNIAA F��.ti_A7TGAS y na�tc u r►ati� - uliE.io.T it..a.2 i vivi ti4,".§i: yA� a RNAL PROGRAM �s P3 AbM tONhL AREA4 POSS+BL Y RESTRICTED SUBJECT-TO AGRLE�C-T SN:TH DOD iy If P. f MAC" r 1 C:hA t - � J RESOLUTION NO. 5491 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPORTING THE MITIGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act and the California Health and Safety Code mandate the South Coast lair Quality Management District to achieve and maintain the federal and state am`-)ient air quality standards at the earliest possible date by application of the best available technological and administrative oractices.; a^r The South Coast Air Quality Management District is a federally—aesignated nonattainment area for four of the major a4� r contaminants and for two Secondary ^on-aminants ; and The South Coast Air Quality Management District recognizes that the development of domestic energy resources to meet the needs of the state of California and the rest of the nation is ofc critical importance; and There are offshore areas proposed for oil exploration. an(a '.e- velopment which are adjacent to the South Coast District an(3 '-lave a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Citv of Huntington Beach that it supports the air pollution control concepts contained in the South Coast District ' s rules and regula- tions, including the best available control technology for all offshore oil development operations and the resulting distribution and refinement of petroleum products, and the requirement that all net increases in air contaminant emissions must be offset . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that. federal regulations governing off- shore oil exploration and development should be consistent with 1. and as stringent as the district' s rules and' regulations. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that - in view of the potential problems associated with the Outer Continental Shelf Development, the Governor, his designated representative, and all other appropriate state offices and officials are urged to cooperate and work with the South Coast Air Quality Management. District to assure the preparation of a system-wide environmental immact report for im- plementation at all government levels . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held or, the 4th _ day of— February 1985. o Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ^_ity Attorney INITIATED AND REVIEWED: 72: City Administ ator ahb 1/29/85 0396L 2. ' No. 5491 STATE OF CALIFORNIA i) COUNTY OF ORANGE - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of February 19 85 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic; Bailey, Finley, Green, Thomas NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 5558 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESPECTING A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COASTLINE WHEREAS, a moratorium has been placed on offshore oil drilling in the coastal waters of the State of California ; and A tentative proposal has been agreed upon between the Secretary of the Interior and certain representatives to the- United States Congress from California to permit offshore oil drilling during such moratorium in exchange for protection of. . . ; specified portions of the coastline until the year 2000; and.. Such protection has been offered scenic areas such as Big Sur , Malibu, Marin County, Monterey and San Diego ; and The County of Orange and the cities of Huntington Beach, Laguna Leach, Newport Beach, and San Clemente merit treatment equal to that afforded other coastal areas of California, and. should be included in any compromise proposal under consideration, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it will vigorously oppose any compromise proposal which is not modified to include equal protection measures 'for ..the coastal resources of Orange County and its beach cities, and will support a continued moratorium- on offshore oil drilling along California ' s entire coast . FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to furnish copies of this resolution to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the United States Secretary of the Interior, and California ' s representatives to the Congress. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 1. Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of August 1985. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • �01 // City Clerk City ttorney - INITIATED AND APPROVED: ty Aa ministrat BoLr ahb ; 8/19/85 C736L s 2. Res. No. 5558 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HWINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole .number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative .. vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on .the 19th day of August 19 85 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green. Thomas NOES: Councilmen: MacAllister ABSENT: Councilmen: None e City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California r I LCV JUN 11 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 5665 GARY L. GRANVILLE, County Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFF DEPUTY HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MITIGATION OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City. of Huntington Beach is located within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ; and The South Coast Air Quality Management District also includes the counties of Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, and the urban portion of Sala De:^ardino County, and h,as more than 11 million residents ; and The District is the sole and exclusive local agency within the South Coast Al- Basin with the responsibiity for comprehensive air control ; and The Clean Air Act an:: the California and Safer _oje mandate the South Coast Air Quality M—na"eme' t D_str_ct to a^..__ve an-d ';c_r.taIn the federal an.:. a....,_en. ., air :'ua_;tY standards at the earliest possible ::ate b �Df she oes. - available technological and administrative practices ; and e S o u th Coast Air Qu' ty Manabemer.- Distr i c _ s a federally designated nonattainment area for four of . -..e _l. conta_ minan`s an for two secondary contaminants ; and It is in the public interest that ;hose stan .ards for the i.:o- te^tior, of public health not be exceeded; an. ' 'here are offshore areas proposed for ex: -C"-:ion =ve_o;%:nen _ wr_ch are ad lacer. to the S^,ut.. _oast _ 1. ^ict 'l n poI-ential for significant adverse air qua- ty impacts ; and The Environmental Protection Agency is the f::deral agency most aware of the severe air quality problems and the need for very stringent emission controls in the South Coast District ; and "'he Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency responsible under the Clean Air Act for control of emI ssions frog, onshore Outer Continental Shelf-related activities, including storage tanks and gas processing facilities; P 0 S T E D JUN 111986 1, GARY L. GRUMLLE, County Oft BY DEt'tlTY NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby affirms its support for the air pollution control concepts embodied in the South Coast Air Quality Management District' s Rules and Regulations, including Best Available Control .. Technology for all offshore oil development operations and the resulting distribution and refining of the petroleum products, and the requirement that all net increases in air contaminant emissions_ must be offset; and . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that f ederal regulations governing off- shore oil exploration and development should be consistent with, and at least as stringent as, South Coast Air Quality M;anagement _ Di tri_ct Rules and Regulations development under the Clean Air Act ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach requests that the Env..ronmenta_ Protection Agency be assigned the responsibility now held by the Department of Interior G faci_ t es o.- the Outir on- o 4 : i C vine-za - Shelf. - . PASSED AND ADC?TED c,v the City Council of the City of runtington Beach at a regular, meeting thereof held on the ?n� _ day of June i986. 4z't 1a. Mayor ATTEST- APPROVED AS i FORM;: City Clerk City Attorney :��.�.� INITIATED AND APPROVED: dl nistrorCity A 2. Res. No. 5665 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington beach, and ex-officio. Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the . foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of r-aid City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2n d day of June 1986 by the follcving vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly , MacAllister , Finley , Mandic , Bailey , Green NOES : Councilmen: None ABSEh'°I: Councilmen: City Clerk ane ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntingtoor. beach, California Res. 5665 STATE OF CALIFORKIA ) _ COum 0? OMME CITY OF SUI~?!•IXTON BEACS ) I, ALICIA M. VEh—AVORTE, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; ' that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd_ day of June 1996 , by the following vote: AXES: Councilmen: Ke11v NacAIiis+er Finlev Nandic Sai1ev G•een NMS : Councilmen.: gone I,ESiAi : Counz i:n►en: City Cleric and ex-cfficio Clerk of the Ciry Council of tht City of Huntinrto.. Beacr, California The foregoing instrument is a cnrrect copy of the original on file in this office. a; ail c< �f .�i� Cierk of the r l..7U'1C'I cf 'he City of Huntington Beach. g eputy RESOLUTION NO. 5693 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF A NATIONAL OCEANIC PARK BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY COASTLINE AND CATALINA ISLAND WHEREAS, The Orange County coastline serves the recreational needs of Southern California by providing facilities for sport fishing, boating, surfing , swimming, scuba diving , hiking, walking, picnicking, and camping; and The Orange County coastline is an economic resource of utmost importance to coastal cities in that the tourist economy of coastal cities is heavily dependent upon tax proceeds, business opportunities, and jobs created by hotels , restaurants, retail shops and other tourist dependent commercial ventures ; and The protection of our nation' s national and scenic resources require the preservation of marine life , careful management of energy resources and the retention of coastal views; and There are long-term benefits in preserving and protecting the coastlines ' original character for future generations by pursuing_: alternatives to offshore oil exploration including conservation and renewable energy resources ; and It is in the nation' s interest to insure the quality of the coastal environment by protecting against the hazards related to,. oil exploration such as contamination by drilling muds; damage from oil spills; seepage from drilling operations; and leaks during transport of oil ; and Onshore petroleum processing and transportation facilities would increase air pollution, adversely impact municipal services, increase traffic congestion and exacerbate a fresh water shortage; 1 . M1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach advocates the creation of a National Oceanic Park between the Orange County coastline and Catalina Island for the protection of our natural and economic resources by precluding oil drilling and oil exploration in the area of the park . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of August , 1986 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk _ City Attorney REVIEW AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED ✓' I ; City A minis rator Rich Barnard Assistant to City Administrator 2 . Res. 5693 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) i; COUNTY OF ORANGE ) so: CITY OF EMINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of member• of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of August 19 86 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, Mandic, Bailey, Green NOES: Councilmen: MacAllister ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley NOT VOTING: Councilmen: Thomas City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk • of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California R CC� � OWE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH D INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION FEB 13 1981 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGNN REACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To Charles W. Thompson James W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject OFFSHORE OIL APPROVED By CITY II, February 13, 1987 The City of Hunting on Beach has taken a position in the past strongly opposing o fshore oil devnerhopmmRt off the Orange County coastline, in general, and Huntington Beach, in particular. Huntington Beach contains some of the best recreational beaches in Southern California and such sensitive biological resources as the , adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands and the Huntington Beach wetlands . If ' an oil spill ever reached our shoreline, the economical and ecological consequences would be severe. Huntington Beach has already accepted its fair share of the risks associated with the provision of the nation' s energy needs, i .e. five existing platforms off our coastline and the Southern California Edison Generating Plant within our city limits. A true balance of considerations cannot be achieved by allowing additional offshore oil development off our coastline. Per Doug LaBelle ' s request, staff has quickly analyzed the materials which were distributed at the February 11, 1987 meeting with Congressman Badham regarding Secretary Hodel ' s latest offshore oil proposal . Although staff has not had enough time or sufficient information to perform an in-depth analysis, changes set forth in the new proposal are described as follows: 1 . Hodel has proposed new sub-area deferrals off the Orange County coastline, including buffer areas off Newport Beach, the Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge and Heisler Park ASBS. No deferrals are proposed around Catalina Island or off of Huntington Beach. Deepwater areas beyond the 900 meter isobath will also be deferred. 2 . The acceleration of sales provision was eliminated. This provision would have accelerated the leasing process from a three year cycle to a two year cycle for areas which look promising. 3 . In addition to five standard sales at a triennial pace, supplement sales could be scheduled for blocks that were forfeited or rejected during the preceding fiscal year . Further information is needed to analyze this provision. Page Two Offshore Oil February 13, 1987 4 . Governor Deukmejian proposed that stipulations concerning air quality; oil spills, transportation (pipelines) ; onshore facilities; fisheries; important biological resources; marine biota; discharges; oil processing; cultural resources; operations controls; hold harmless; hazardous dumpsites; navigation safety; water use; timing of operations and protection of military areas be considered at the lease sale level . Hodel proposes to consider these types of stipulations much later, at the time of the actual sale. There is insufficient time and information to fully address Hodel ' s proposal at this time. A thirty day review period is not a great deal of time in which to comment and making the situation worse is that cities have not been supplied with a complete set of documents . In addition, those that have been made available are grossly inadequate. The thirty day review period started from the date the documents were supposedly released, February 2, 1987 . City staff contacted the appropriate offices of the Minerals Management Service in both Los Angeles and Washington D.C. on February 4, 1987 in order to obtain a set of all documents pertaining to the five year leasing program. (The complete set is said to weigh over 20 lbs. and is more than 20 inches thick . ) To date, all that has been forwarded is the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This three volume document was received on February 11, 1987. Separately, we received copies of a letter from Donald Hodel to Governor Deukmejian with a listed set of enclosures. Most of the enclosures were not included, however. Most notably missing is a comparative analysis of the February 1986 proposed program and the current proposal . The most crucial information for Huntington Beach is contained in a document called "The California Analysis, " which we have not received. Phone calls to neighboring coastal cities reveal they also do not have them. As mentioned above, trying to review the materials that we do have is difficult due to their incompleteness . For example, there is not one single clear map to show the specific leasing areas proposed off our coastline. The text does not offer any better information on this basic question. There is the discussion of deferral areas to serve as buffers around Newport Beach and Laguna, but nothing that explains their specific location or size. Finally, the one map in the Final EIS (Figure II .A.l .a-4 ) that shows some detail of the proposed lease areas off of Southern California stops with Long Beach and does not include any areas to the east. JWP :LC:JA: jr ( 7390d) . . MT.OF . THE SECRETARY OF THE. INTERIOR WASHINGTON I February 2 , 1987 Honorable Leon Panetta House of Representatives - - Washington, O.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Panetta: Pursuant to the provisions of Plsb 1 is Law 99-591, I am submitting to you the Draft Proposed Final 5-Year Oil and ras Leasing Program for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore California. By copy of this letter, I am providing the same information to the Congressional panel identified in' P.L:' 99-591. Development of this draft i,roix)sal for California is the latest in a series of exceptional steps the Interior Department has taken to try to achieve consonsus' ` on this program and to respond to C-)ngressiona1 directives. Issuance of a 5-year pro-rain is only the beginning of a process which narrows down the areas to be considered for leasing. Typically, exploration eventually occurs only in a small percentage (-)f the area initially considered for leasing. An even smaller percentage of the area ever experiences actual production. It has been this Administration's strong and consistent belief that an orderly Cuter Continental Shelf Leasing Program should make available the most promising acreage to be considered for leasing to metet Ar.-oerica's future energy, economic' and national security needs while protecting the environment. We also feel strongly that the statutorily-fnandated . -Year planning process is the proper way to manage the OCS program. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act re4uires the Secretary of the Interior to consider carefully the various factors involved in developing the 5-Year Program such as: equitable sharing of ,leveloVnental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions; existing i.;W)gr'tphical, geological, and ecological characteristics of each re-,u) I; :Ieetts of regional and national energy markets; existing or anticipated usr :if t:je sf,3 or seabed; industry interest; affected State laws, goals and policie-3; .;And the environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the regions. f , We have in place an effective process for extensive public review and . consultation in the•development of the 5-Year program as well as in planning individual lease-sales. This process ensures that the best and latest information available can be used to make balancing decisions on a case-by-case basis about which areas should or should not be offered for lease. What we are looking for in oil and gas exploration is an elusive target -- no- one knows where the resources are, or in what quantities, until there is exploratory and confirmation drilling. Up to the point of discovery or disappointment , industry operates only on clues and theories which, as history_ demonstrates, most often do not pan out. If we needed any. further proof of the difficulty of actually finding oil and gas, industry has spent roughly $11 billion in bonus bids alone in the Atlantic., Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska without a single commercial discovery. The history of exploration is replete with examples, including: the North Sea-, East Texas, Prudhoe Bay, the deep Flexure Trend in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Monterey formation offshore California -- all of which required substantial exploration and new strategies before commercial discoveries were made.' Exploration is the only certain ;Weans of finding the energy resources on the OCS. To foreclose these opportunities by deferring major areas for leasing., particularly at this early stage of the 5-year planning process, keeps us ignorant of the extent of America's oil and gas resources. This is why my predecessors -- Secretaries Andrus and Watt — used the 5-Year program to specify planning areas and schedule sales but did not defer acreage at -the 5-Yeas program adoption stage. They chose instead to make deferrals after closer examination in the two year process leading to individual sales. In addition, technology continues to expand our opportunities. The offshore energy resources which are estimated to be uneconomical to recover today, could very well become economical with new technology or a different energy market. Although we have a statutory process for effective and careful management 'of - the OCS, the program in California has been a source of continuing controversy and exceptional treatment in Congressional legislation. Between 1982 and 1985 Congress placed moratoria on federal leasing on more than 40 million acres offshore California believed to contain substantial oil and gas resources. During the past two years, we have been engaged in diligent efforts to reach consensus on this important program. This Administration's goal tliroughuut- has been to be able to move forward with a California OCS program in the orderly fashion contemplated by the (xS I-ands Act. As you know, as a result of consultations with Members of Congress, as well :Ls meetings to listen and learn fram the people of California, I decided to exclude a number of sensitive areas from consideration in the draft 5-Year Prcgram proposed in February 1986. -2- The deferrals include areas off Cape Mendicino and Punta Gorda, Cordel•1 Bank, San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay, Big Sur, Santa Monica and San Diego. The areas offshore Point Reyes Wilderness, Point Reyes-Farrallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, the Santa Barbara Federal- Ecological Preserve. and buf Per Zone, and San Nicolas Basin also are deferred. In addition, the Department met 16 times in 1986 with the special panel established by the Congress, which you chair, to continue this dialogue. In October 1986, Public Law 99-591 required the Department to consider alternative proposals which were subsequently submitted by California Governor George Deukmejian, Ohio Congressman Ralph Regula, and you. The Department has amalgamated elements of these proposals and has given. full, good-faith consideration to environmental concerns and to the resource evaluations of industry and the Minerals Management Service. It is that. . amalgamated proposal we are submitting today because of our earnest desire .to resolve the ongoing controversy. However, this compromise does not make available for consideration all of the potential oil and gas resources that would serve the best interests of the American people. We are asking interested Members of Congress to tell us whether the compronise, in their view, provides the means to resolve the controversy and terminate the moratoria warfare which has continued for years. In the absence of broad support from the Congress which provides certainty, all that we will have accomplished is a new restriction on the starting point for battles over our ability to explore for the energy resources that America needs for growth and national security. If that is the case, then we probably would be left with no alternative other than to treat the OCS program offshore California in the manner prescribed by the OCS Lands Act for all offshore areas. There would be no purpose or justification in continuing to seek, as this compromise proposal : does, a way to confer special exception for California from the leasing policies and process established by the OCSL.A. This alma.gamated draft proposal is being presented to the Congress as an: exception to the OCS Lands Act statutory process -- a process we consistently have supported. Public Law 99-591 provides a 30-day comment period for the special Congressional panel. I look forward to receiving your views. Sin ely, i UNALLD PAILIL WUEL Enclosures r 1 Enclosure 1 Description of the Draft Proposed Final 5-Year Program (DPFP) for OCS Leasing offshore California; Enclosure 2 Discussion of the DPFP; Enclosure 3 Comparative Analysis of all elements of the February 1986 Proposed program and the 3 California OCS proposals; Enclosure 4 Draft of the Decision Merwrandum on the entire CXS plus the 3 California proposals; Enclosure 5 Draft Secretarial Issue Document for the entire OCS , limited to the section 18 elements of size, timing, and location of sales for 5 years; and, Enclosure 6 Final Environmental Impact Statement on '' nn "�e focal �evern neon "' Cma &01 M4nAS'e hno70 1 M pa►0 Lam•�t , 0g MA rn APPLICATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COASTAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PRE Q S a to Ar A V � APPLICANT: The cities of ga emPnta, 1,wuna Beach, N-gimort Beach and _Hun_tinQton RPar_h are jointly submitting this application for funding. 2. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: Mr. Kenneth Frank, City Manager, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651 is coordinating the project. 3. FISCAL MANAGEMENT CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth Frank, City Manager, City of Laguna Beach, is also responsible for the fiscal management of the grant on behalf of the four cities. 4. PROJECT NARRATIVE: A. The four South Orange County coastal cities have joined together to submit this grant application. The purpose of the grant is to enhance local participation in upcoming Lease Sale 95. An executive committee, comprised of a councilmember from each of the four cities, and a staff committee. comprised of a staff person from each of the four cities will serve as the coordinating mechanisms to assure achievement with the project objectives. B. The objectives of the project are threefold: 1. Analyze Lease Sale 95 and the attendant environmental impact statement with regard to its impacts on the South Orange County coastline, including the cities of San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. 2. Develop stipulations and mitigation measures, as necessary, to lessen any adverse impacts on Orange County in general and its coastal communities in particular. 3. Publicize the analytical conclusions through workshops, technical documents and other publications to insure that local elected officials and the general public are familiar with Lease Sale 95 -and have an opportunity to participate effectively in the preleasing program. . V ' 1 ' • s 4 J� CIT'Y. �It�NTIMOT�ON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION. mmmm■Ao1 To aodUM W. TFiCHMN:• From . RCBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator,* Deputy Ci*y Administrator Subject r4XVWT FoiR CITY APPRopRimw Date MAJARSt 26, 1987 TO AOM44PAM APPLICATICN FOR GRAND FUNDS, F.I.S. 87-2 As required under the authority of Revolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the City's proposed application for grant funding assistance to help in financing the written technical analysis of oil lease sale 95 and its potential impact on the south Orange County coastline. The grant funds total $168,000 with a matching fund requirement of $8,500 spread out over a two year period. The application. request states that funds are to be paid out on a reimbursement basis, which, of necessity, will result in some minimal loss of interest inane. Funding of the accmpanying matching city services are to be satisfied by way of the respective departments absorbing same within their operating budgets over the forementioned two year project duration. ROBEW J. Deputy Ci Adnini.strator - RJF:AR:skd Attachments '�` i'T.'.f C 7•'-1 �r �+, A : i i Z � ,, • ..t^•.•,Y".'a ..F- M TTTTyyyy% _ . •`R'."M�..a.�` ': � y:�.'ti+ ,=. __♦-- - =t �,����/fit � '!� Y jw ��"• •'i F':i� x ' _i.-. �+1 .. '•gip} •mil - ♦ a•.t-�k� ! Y - ,i:w •:mil` i' ;`,y.n- `x '�:. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i OF SAN BE!'NARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA June 16, 1986 RESOLUTIONS: OTHER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: RESOLUTION RE AIR EMISSIONS FROM OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT: REFER TO EHS The Board is in _receipt of the following resolution: RESOLUTION N0, 5665 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MITIGATION OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM OFFSHORE . OIL DEVELOPMENT On motion by Supervisor McElwain, seconded -by Supervisor Joyner and carried, the Board .of Supervisors- refers said .above resolution to the office .of the Environmental Health Services, PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County- of San Bernardino, State of California, by the following vote: AYES : Joyner, McElwain, Riordan, Skropos, Hammock NOES: None ABSENT: None cc: City of Huntington Beach ✓ EHS Air Pollution, SCAQMD (El Monte) File STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ss I, MARTHA M. .SEKERAK, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San- Bernardino, State of California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct record .of the action, taken by said Board of Supervisors, by vote of the members present at its meeting of J NE 16, 1986. MARTHA M. SEKERAK Clerk of the Boaz3i.of Supervisors 14-9507A-103 REQUESO FOR CITY COUNCIPACTION Date June 2 , 1986 1-7 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members � � GLT- GO Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator y D FAY y �0 Prepared by: Rich Barnard, Assistant to the City Admi Istrator fIj? I r Subject: SCAQMD SUPPORT RESOLUTION vY Iec c I Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] 'Yes [ New Policy or Exception Sta �T tI-sn,sReommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: At the April 1986 meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Board adopted a resolution recommending that the responsibility for the mitigation of air pollution emissions resulting from the development of offshore oil facilities be transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Environmental Protection Agency. The SCAQMD Board Members have asked the Huntington Beach City Council to support their recommendation by adopting the attached Resolution. Recommendation That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopt the attached Resolution. Analysis: The SCAQMD has the mandated responsibility for attaining and maintaining ambient air quality within the district. Offsore oil developments which are outside of the. SCAQMD's jurisdiction can emit pollutants which could have a significant effect in attaining ambient air quality within the district. Pollution control standards for offshore oil developments are under the guise of the Department of the Interior. These standards are not as stringent as those maintained by the SCAQMD and subsequently, the SCAQMD believes that the responsibility for air quality should be transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency whose regulation on air quality standards are equal to that of the SCAQMD. Since the City of Huntington Beach resides within the District's boundaries, the aforesaid recommendation by the SCAQMD Board would provide more stringent controls over the emission of pollutants from offshore oil rigs that lie off the Huntington Beach coast. Funding Source: Not applicable Alternative Action: Deny adoption of the attached Resolution. Attachments: Resolution supporting the SCAQMD's recommendation. CW T:RB/paj I' P10 5/85 G. .GY 4.,- CGv i r _ S Qs SAVE OUR SHORES � - o� vt-Ow-Sti ot�i m�Kul YeL �v t tt h 1.o►}�ev�� . RECIIVEe . <-;,. � March 31 , 1986 APR 0 i> 1� 0 cf�- ;; yS1►ov+. 01 Robert P. Mandic, Mayor -' 00 City of Huntington Beach PO BOX 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Mandic, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on behalf of Save Our Shores of Orange County. As I explained to you, our organization is very interested in networking with all the cities of Orange County, specifically the coastal areas. Our . primary request of your City Council at this time, is to allow a brief presentation at a regularly scheduled Council meeting, to explain the goals of S.O.S. , - in-hopes of garnering the support of the Council. Our secondary goal, further to this presentation, would be to hold a special City Council meeting, . specifically for the purposes of introduction, informing, and recruitment of volunteers and membership from the people . of Huntington Beach. This meeting would be publicized by our S.O.S. staff, but any assistance the city could give us would be greatly appreciated. My understanding is that with the approval of your fellow Council members, we may be able to make our first .presentation at your Council meeting scheduled for later in April. I will follow up with you later next week, to check on the status. Thank you once again,. for your time and consideration, and I look forward to speaking with you soon. Sin ely, Peggy Parsch Save Our Shores of Orange County L 7141-4941264 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMM AT N O N! �31 r T HUNTINGTON BEACH �,rb 1 ay To Charles W. Thompson James W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject OFFSHORE OIL ate March 13 , 1986 ►31, Per your request, staff prepared a draft letter for Mayor Mandic ' s signature outlining our comments on offshore oil development . It seems appropriate to transmit our concerns to the California Coastal Commission, the Department of the Interior and the State Secretary of Environmental Affairs . If the Council agrees , the letter should be sent to the following Agencies: Deputy Association Director for Offshore Leasing Mail Stop 644 Minerals Management Service Department of the Interior 18th and C Streets , NW Washington, D.C. 20240 Jananne Sharpless Secretary of Environmental Affairs 1102 Q Street Sacramento, CA 95814 California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 JWP:LC: jr r '4 City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR � Telephone(714)5365553 3'Li—Y6 CCV K 3rd DRAFT Ca �C}(�ts�et• No) 2 ThoYr�ai ►lot vafiK March 24, 1986 California Coastal Commission 611 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Gentlemen: The City of Huntington Beach strongly opposes offshore oil development because it will increase the risks that we have already accepted from existing platforms near our shoreline. Furthermore, we believe that areas adjacent to the state limit should be deleted to allow adequate time for oil spill clean-up before it reaches the coast. Huntington Beach's sensitive coastal resources are irreplaceable and are vital to our economic health. We have already accepted our fair share of.responsibility for providing for the nation's energy needs. More offshore oil leases adjacent to Orange County will place an unfair burden on our City and should be prohibited. If full development of leasable areas in Southern California is accomplished, 27 new platforms will be constructed, some of which will be near our coastline. The U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, states in the EIS that there is a 99% probability of thirteen large oil spills of over 1,000 barrels occurring from all past, present, and future developments in the Southern California area. Two of the thirteen spills have a 75% probability of occurring from the proposed development. These risks are unacceptably high. An uncontrolled oil spill could invade the City's wetland areas and nearby Bolsa Chica, and severely impact important feeding, resting and nesting areas for migratory birds. The California Least Tern, an endangered species, nests and feeds in the Bolsa Chica and on the beach near the mouth of the Santa Ana River. If these areas were damaged during nesting season, the terns would be drastically reduced in numbers. The beaches within and immediately adjacent to the City are well known throughout Orange County for providing prime sunbathing and surfing opportunities. As a result, tourism is vital to the City's present and future economic base. A major oil spill would temporarily eliminate summer tourism and perhaps permanently in pact seasonal businesses in the downtown arel and economically important redevelopment efforts would be detrimentally affected. = Anjo,Japan SISTER CITIES Waitemsta,New Zealand iLs March 24, 1986 .! Page -2- Offshore Oil Development • Ocean breezes provide our City with relatively smog-free air. Air quality Impacts from offshore oil development will .occur. Levels of nitrous oxide (NOx) and ozone are expected to be increased. The South Coast Air Basin has not reached attainment levels for air pollution with the exception of sulphur dioxide (S02). As a result, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires a new source review of all proposed stationary on shore sources of pollution. We believe offshore oil development should be subject to this same review process. The purchase of offsets and the installation of- the best available control technology (BACT) should be required to prevent any decrease in air quality. The proposed program is in direct conflict with the intent of the OCS Land Act, Section 18 of the Act states in part: "The Secretary shall select the timing and location of leasing to the maximum'extent practicable, so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential for environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone." Sensitive areas, such as wetlands and beaches in southern California receive no guarantees of protection from environmental damage and air quality issues are not adequately addressed and since coastal jurisdictions have a vital interest in these areas, direct local involvement in the planning and leasing process is critical to achieving the ultimate goal of balanced development. The program currently provides .the City with minimal control over development activities. It is extremely time consuming for local jurisdictions to participate fully and effectively in the leasing process. Participation statewide is important because precedents will be set in other planning areas which may be applied to lease sales in our area. Lease sales should be limited to one every five years per planning area, so that local jurisdictions will have the time and resources to participate. The provision for flexibility which allows acceleration of the lease sale process defeats the purpose of the entire program. It gives the DOI broad discretionary authority to accelerate sales without formal approval by other federal, state and local authorities. Areas immediately adjacent to the state limit/could be leased without any consideration of coastal impacts or local concerns We are also concerned with the timing of Lease Sale No. 91, which targets the entire Mendocino coastline as well as portions of the Humboldt coast. This sale includes biologically critical nearshore tracts, including important fisheries and prime tourism destinations.. Local jurisdictions cannot effectively evaluate Sale 91 until policies are set in the program. Therefore, we feel that it is inappropriate to initiate any leasing until the 5-Year program is finalized. 7_ . ....-_._`... - -.-_ _._.....-._..-�..�.+.�.�..- -..-... ... - _-gin•-- ..... _- µ . - � - MINUTES OF OFFSHORE OIL MEETING An. Offshore OiI Meeting was held on August 13, 1985 at 9 : 00 A.M. at- Newport Beach City Hall . The Agenda for the meeting is attached hereto as reference. The following persons were in attendance : NAME ORGANIZATION e Ruthelyn Plummer Newport Beach Evelyn Hart Newport Beach Ken Delino Newport Beach Joanne Colin Newport Beach Ken Franks Bob Limberg San Clemente Robert Gentry Laguna Beach. June Catalano Laguna Beach Bobbie Mink-in Laguna Beach Bob Mandic Huntington Beach Peter Green Huntington Beach Doug La Belle Huntington Beach Allen Parker Seal Beach Sam Couch The Irvine Company Paul Christiansen Chairman, Oil Advisory Miguel Denny Freidenrich Geoffrey Leitch - Save Our Shores Citizens ' Coalition Barbara Lichman Airport Working Group of Orange County Chris Townsend Stein-Brief Group Mark Howell Kurt Haunfelner Lt . Gov. McCarthy Julie Froeberg Senator Bergeson Paul Carey Orange County James McConnell Orange County Ed Mountford Orange County ITEMS DISCUSSED: The meeting was called t_o order by Evelyn Hart : The City of Laguna Beach has agreed to contribute $5, 000 . 00 ; Harriett Wieder ' s representative said that the County A (2 EXISTING FEDERAL LONG BEACH �_ __ J LEASE SAN �� EXISTING TRAFFIC LANE PEDRO i EXISTING PRECAUTIONARY � A-- RA E • • PROPOSED TRACTS AFFECTED BY ALTERNATIVE V PROPOSED SOUTHERN • • • • 96 88 • I • CALIFORNIA LEASE OFFERING (FEBRUARY; '1 984) TRACT • • • • 3 0 3 1 • • • • • • • 306 • • �- -- --.- L_- o- --3 • • - — - — - — - — -— - — -— - — -—-—- B 2961 EXISTING FEDERAL LONG BEACH U LEASE SAN MODIFIED TRAFFIC LANE PEDRO MODIFIED PRECAUTIONARY x...... :::: AREA • • •;'��► PROPOSED TRACTS AFFECTED BY ALTERNATIVE V • • • PROPOSED SOUTHERN • 96 88 `` • • CALIFORNIA LEASE OFFERING (FEBRUARY. 1 984) TRACT • • • • 3 0 3 1 i • I • RECOMMENDED SHIPPING ! SAFETY FAIRWAY 1 • • • I • • 1 3,0 6�` • I • • • . . `�• �.1 3 6..6 • • Vessel Precautionary Area and Traffic Separation Scheme Located South of the Los Angeles—Long Beach A) Existing Boundaries, B) Recommended Modifications, *Will Temporaily Exist as of June I, 1983 ALTERNATIVE 5 ATTACHMENT 2 • OXNARD Ventura PORT HUENEME /� Los Angeles ,0000/1 Point Mugu 1( SANTA MONICA Point Dume Santa Monica Bay ` SAN PEDRO Point Fermin ® SANTA MONICA BAY TRACTS i Alternative VI: Defer Tracts Within and Adjacent to Santa Monica Bay ATTACHMENT 3 gUNTINGTON BLACH NE RT EACH M■'oi Dan■ Point �'� S■�Oy�\ i , C f, -- -— -- 00 Ay�c OCEANSIDE i r •SAN DIEGO 30W P■Int L■O■ ! .c UNITED STATES MEXICO ® Tracts Offshore San Diego County Alternative VII: Defer Tracts Offshore San Diego County ATTACHMENT 4 f� SAN LONG)BEACH PEDRO • �EocgaP►+►c HUNTINGTON BEACH NE RT EACH h I C/ I s 9 i r SANTA CATALINa ISLAN - Ij t .4� BLOCKS OFFSHORE ORANGE COUNTY EXISTING FEDERAL LEASES ALTERNATIVE Vill: DETER TRACTS OFFSHORE ORANGE COUNTY. ATTACHMENT 5 Santa ►ponies LOS ANGELES Long Beach S Pedro • .nT..a•i i �M.tr `4 •AMf1 CA iA LeYA /a. I ' Oceanside r I • I sw ti� 4 r♦. i San Die! DMN Nr ao• II.lea• I � V Alternat.iv.e IX. Defer Blocks Within Area Affected By FY 184 DOI Appropriations(patterned area). ATTACHMENT 6 f '• REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCI CTION t O February 9 , 1984 0 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator , Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: RESIDENTS' PERCEPTIONS AND OPINIONS ABOUT OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : .On November 28, 1983, the City Council requested by Minute Action that staff poll Huntington Beach residents regarding their perceptions and opinions about offshore oil drilling. Development Services prepared two questionnaires , one brief and one extended. (See Attachment 1 for the brief version and Attachment 2 for the extended version) . Either of the two questionnaires could be used as a mailout questionnaire or as a telephone interview. RECOMMENDATION: Direct stuff to use the extended questionnaire and to conduct the telephone interviews . ANALYSIS : The brief version of the questionnaire will gather information about the extent of support for or opposition to offshore oil drilling along the coast of the City. The demographic information collected in the poll allows us to characterize proponents and opponents of oil devel= opment according to their age , sex, education, location in the City , and voting registration. The extended version goes beyond the brief one and explores other aspects of offshore oil drilling. Additional items include tradeoffs of oil development with respect to gasoline price and income through tourism (Items 3 and 4) , National energy needs (Item S) , City aesthe- tics (Item 6) , recreation at the beach (Item 7) , and environmental concerns (Item 8) . The extended version results in a more comprehen- sive picture of residents ' perceptions and opinions . Both the brief and the extended version can be implemented by either a mailout questionnaire or a telephone interview. In the first al- ternative, the questionnaire would be distributed with the spring issue of SANDS, a quarterly recreation brochure that is mailed out to every household in Huntington Beach. The mailing date for the next SANDS issue is March 19 . A theme photograph on the cover page of SANDS, a cover letter in the SANDS explaining the purpose of the questionnaire, and a discussion of the survey in the local cable TV i PIO 4/81 "USIDENTS' - . PERCEPTIONS & OPINIONS ABOUT OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING February, 9, 1984 Page Two news program would be instrumental in drawing the public' s attention to the survey. Questionnaires will be gathered by mail and at numerous convenient locations , for example, local libraries and recreation cen- ters , fire stations , the senior citizen center,.- and the City Hall . There is a major disadvantage of using a City-wide questionnaire, however, and that is there is no way to control- the bias in responses . There is usually a very low -rate of return of this type of question- naire, and usually only those people who have very strong feelings one way or another on the topic would go to -the trouble of filling out the form and returning it . Because the extent of this bias in the responses can not be identified, the entire survey results would be suspect . An alternative to City-wide distribution would be to administer the questionnaire to a scientifically selected random sample of 400 house- holds by telephone interview. Although the sample would be relatively small in comparison to the size of the City, such a sample , when properly selected, is statistically valid within a 4 percent margin of error. Thus , the sample will be unbiased and 96 percent accurate . This means that if 80 percent of the respondents answer"yes" to a question, we can feel sure that between 76 percent and 84 percent of all households in the City would answer the same way. Staff believes that the telephone interview method would be the most reliable and cost effective method- for administering the questionnaires . The survey would require about 100 interview -hours.- -to administer . The best times for reaching people at home would be between 5 :30 and 8 : 30 on weekdays and betweenll: 00 a.m. and 4 : 00 p.m. on the weekend. Using the proposed schedule, four staff members would work for seven days on the telephone interviews . It is desirable .to complete the interviews within one week to avoid response biases due to political or economical events . FUNDING SOURCE: Funds will be provided from the California Coastal Commission through CEIP Grand No . 83- 7. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Choose not to conduct the survey. In this case , City Council does not gain- more insight into residents ' perceptions and opinions on offshore oil drilling. ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Brief polling instrument. 2 . Extended polling instrument. JWP :JAF:MM: sr ATTACHMENT 1 THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED TO OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ANSWER TO EACH ITEM BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER THAT MOST CLOSELY REFLECTS YOUR OPINION. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM AND INDICATE ONLY ONE ANSWER PER ITEM. 1. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE offshore oil drilling WITHIN THREE MILES off the coast of Huntington Beach? FAVOR 1 (respond to A) OPPOSE 2 (respond to B) UNDECIDED 3 A. (IF FAVOR) Why do you FAVOR offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. To meet our need for oil. 1 To become independent from oil imports 2 To help the economy. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 . Undecided. 5 B. (IF OPPOSE) Why do you OPPOSE offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. Because it poses a threat to the environment. 1 Because oil plattforms are aesthetically unpleasing. 2 Because of possible oil spills. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 Undecided. 5 2. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE off shore oil drilling FURTHER THAN THREE MILES off the coast of Huntington Beach?',- FAVOR 1 (respond' to A) OPPOSE 2 (respond to -B) UNDECIDED 3 A. (IF FAVOR) Why do you FAVOR offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. To meet our need for oil.. 1 To become independent from oil imports. 2 To help the economy. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 Undecided. 5 B. (IF OPPOSE) Why do you OPPOSE offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. Because it poses a threat to the environment. 1 Because oil plattforms are aesthetically unpleasing. 2 Because of possible oil spills. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 Undecided. 5 • ATTACHMENT 1 THESE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL BACKGROUND. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE AN UNBIASED SAMPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM AND INDICATE ONLY ONE ANSWER PER ITEM. 1. How OLD are you? years old 2. Record your SEX: MALE 1 FEMALE 2 3. What EDUCATION do you have? (Please indicate highest level achieved.) some high school .. 1 high school graduate 2 : some college 3 college graduate 4 post-graduate work 5 4. Do you OWN or RENT your home? OWN 1 RENT 2 5. Are you a REGISTERED VOTER? yes 1 no 2 6, Please cirle YOUR ZIP code: 92646 92647 92648 92649 ATTACHMENT 2 THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED TO OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ANSWER TO EACH ITEM BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER THAT MOST CLOSELY REFLECTS YOUR OPINION. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM AND INDICATE. ONLY ONE ANSWER PER ITEM. 1. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE offshore oil drilling WITHIN THREE MILES off the coast of Huntington Beach? FAVOR 1 (respond to A) OPPOSE. 2 (respond to B) UNDECIDED 3 A. (IF FAVOR) Why do you FAVOR offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. To meet our need for oil. 1 To become independent from oil imports. 2 To help the economy. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 Undecided. 5 B. (IF OPPOSE) Why do you OPPOSE offshore oil drilling? Please indicate .only the one reason that is most important to you. Because it poses a threat to the environment. 1 Because oil plattforms .are aesthetically unpleasin.g. 2 Because of possible oil spills. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 Undecided. 5 :i. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE off shore oil drilling FURTHER THAN THREE MILES off the coast of Huntington Beach?',- FAVOR 1 (respond to A) OPPOSE 2 (respond to B) UNDECIDED 3 A. (IF FAVOR) Why do you FAVOR offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. To meet our need for oil. 1 To become independent from oil imports. 2 To help the economy. 3 Other. Please specify: 4 Undecided. 5 B. (IF OPPOSE) Why do you OPPOSE offshore oil drilling? Please indicate only the one reason that is most important to you. Because it poses a threat to the environment. 1 Because oil plattforms are aesthetically unpleasing. 2 Because of possible oil spills. 3 Other- Please specify: 4 Undcci-ded. 5 ATTACHMENT 2 3. . (IF OPPOSE) Would you CONTINUE YOUR OPPOSITION if you had to pay more for gasoline without offshore oil drilling? yes 1 no 2 undecided 3 4• (IF FAVOR) Would you CONTINUE TO SUPPORT offshore oil drilling if it meant less income from tourism to the City? yes 1 no 2 undecided 3 5. To meet future energy needs we must increase offshore oil drilling. agree 1 disagree 2 undecided 3 6. Our offshore oil platforms detract from the appearance of the City. agree 1 disagree 2 undecided 3 7. The bathers and surfers who use our beaches would not be affected by additional oil platforms off the coast of the City. agree 1 disagree 2 undecided 3 s. 8. How do you think offshore oil drilling affects the natural environment? positive effect l negative effect 2 no effect 3 undecided 4 .9. How often do you use the beach for recreation? not at all 1 once a year 2 2-5 times a year 3 5-10 times a year 4 more than 10 times a year 5 10. How far from the beach do you live? less than a mile 1 1-3 miles 2 more than 3 miles 3 ATTACHMENT 2 THESE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL BACKGROUND. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE- HAVE AN UNBIASED SAMPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM AND INDICATE ONLY ONE ANSWER PER ITEM. 1. How OLD are you? years. old 2. Record your SEX: MALE 1 FEMALE 2 3. What EDUCATION do you have? (Please indicate highest level achieved.) some high school 1 high school graduate 2 some college 3 college graduate 4 post-graduate work 5 4. Do you OWN or RENT your home? OWN 1 RENT 2 5. Are you a REGISTERED VOTER? yes 1 no 2 6. Please cirle YOUR ZIP code: 92646 92647 s 92648 92649 WEStErn Oil and Gas Association 727 West Seventh Street,Los Angeles, California 90017 (213)627.4866 January 27, 1984 TO City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif . 92648 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PETROLEUM PRODUCING PROPERTIES DATA 1. In conjunction with an industry effort to develop information on oil production economics in your City, we respectfully ask that you assist by completing the attached form. 2. The Form is intended to be self-explanatory. However, if you need more information, please feel free to call Jim McCutcheon at (213) 627-4866 . 3 . Upon successful completion of the collection process and construction of an economic model , we can be in a position to share our findings with your City. 4. Please advise us if you are unable to meet our request prior to March 1, 1984. Respectfully, xx2, James T. McCutcheon Manager, Tax and Statistics epartment JTM:eaa ' attachment Page 12 - Council Minutes - 11/28/83 3 REAPPOINTMENTS ,TO HUMAN USO,gRCES BQW - APPROVED ,- CROXEN/KELLY The City Clerk .preaented a ,c,gmmunication from Councilwoman Finley regarding reappointments of Dennis Croxen and .Dorothy' Kelly, representatives of W.O.C. F YMCA and Pacifica Hospital, respectively, to terms on the Human Resources Board to begin October 1, 1983 and to expire September 30, 1986. A motioniwas: iAe�e,;by,��,i[�1�yi,.,serTpnde�i1��+i�Ian�d` � to� fpgrove the "reappointments of Dennis Croxen and Dorothy Kelly, representatives of tJ.O.C. YMCA and Pac if ica Hos.pital;; �espeF,F;}�+ely, K� t� �►¢ ,�qn fifie Human Resources Board to begin_ Octobig-riJ, 1983 and to expire September 36,'A986. The motion carried unaniAlaus ly;.,[1d i OFF-SHORE OIL DRILL SURVEY - APPROVED Following discussion, a motion was made by Finley, seconded.by Mandic, to present a question i.n .the utility, bills. soliciting public opinion regarding off-shore oil drilling. . The motion carried. all vote:by ,the following' roll` 'c . , ... . .., , ,. . . �. . . . . AYES: Kelly, :Finley, Bailey,, Mandic NOES. Pattin.soq, .Thomas ABSENT: MacAllister „ ASCON MUD DUMP COMMITTEE - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilwoman Finley stated that in the past Council had requested that a committee be. formed regarding the, Ascon Mud Dump. She requested Mayor Kelly to form such a committee composed of members of the community, with perhaps Councilmembers, to work with staff to ;follow what is going on at Ascon and to help with planning. Mayor Kelly requested the City .Administraior to prepare a written report over the Mayor' s signature for distribution and appointed Councilwoman Finley Chairperson of the committee. EXPENSE POLICY FOR COUNCIL - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilwoman Finley requested a status report on the expense policy for Council. Staff was directed to bring back the policy to Council in a draft form. I � ASCON. MUD DUMP - REPORT REQUESTED Councilman Thomas .stated, his concern regarding the removal of equipment such as steamers .at, :the. .4&cpn Mud Dump. The Director of Development Service's " stated that he would prepare a report for Council 'regarc�ing the 'matter. COMMENDATION PLAQUESFOR PCTA COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE PREPARED Following. discussion, a motion was ,ma.�e .by Mandic, seconded''by Finley, to direct staff to prepare plaques in appreciation to the original Public Cable Television Authority Committee members-.,for their service. The motion carried unanimously. Page 14 - Council Minuses - 11/7/83 APPOINTMENTS - FOURTH OF JULY EXECUTIVE BOARD - BACON/HOMES/WARDE/WALL/ SCHUMACHER CADET On motion by MacAllister, second Thomas, Council approved the appointments of Tom Bacon (Chairman) , Kathi Holmes, John Warde and Carole Ann Wall to terms .J expiring October 31, 1985; and appointed Steve Schumacher to a term expiring October 31, 1984 and appointed Merle Cade to a term expiring October 31, 1984. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mandic ABSENT: Finley PUMPKIN & CHRISTMAS TREE LOTS - NO ACTION TAKEN Mayor MacAllister suggested that pumpkin and Christmas tree lots be limited for non-profit organizations only. Discussion was held regarding the matter. BIKE TRAIL CLEAN-UP - SA RIVER TO BROOKHURST N/PCH - REFERRED TO STAFF Mayor MacAllister stated his concern regarding debris on the bike trail from the Santa Ana River to Brookhurst Street, north of Pacific Coast Highway. The matter was referred to staff. PUBLIC ENCOURAGED TO VOTE 11/8/83 Mayor MacAllister encouraged the public to vote in the election November 8, 1983. PONDING OF WATER NEAR EDINGER - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilman Kelly stated his concern regarding ponding of water on the north side of Edinger Avenue. Mayor MacAllister requested staff to look into the matter. ADVERTISEMENT ON BUS SHELTERS - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilwoman Bailey stated her concern regarding liquor advertisements appearing on bus shelters. The matter was referred to staff. FADED ORANGE LINES AND STOP LEGENDS ON ORANGE AVENUE - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilman Mandic stated his concern regarding faded orange lines and stop legends on Orange Avenue. The matter was referred to staff. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESOLUTION REGARDING OFF SHORE DRILLING - COUNCIL TO TAKE NO ACTION A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by Thomas, to direct Council representative attending the League of California Cities to take no action Page 15 - Council Mint i - 11/7/83 regarding consideration of League Resolution pertaining to moratorium on off-shore drilling. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: f� AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister NOES: Bailey, Mandic ABSENT: Finley UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILTIES ON GOLDENWEST AT GARFIELD/ELLIS - REFERRED TO STAFF Following discussion, a motion-was made by Pattinson, seconded by Thomas, to direct staff to look into prioritizing the undergrounding of utilities Goldenwest Street between Garfield Street and Ellis Avenue. The motion. carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: Finley Councilmembers Bailey and Mandic left the meeting at 11:10 P.M.. PARKING TICKETS - STAFF TO BRING BACK BAIL SCHEDULE Councilman Thomas stated his concern regarding the discrepancy in the bail schedule between citations issued for violation of meter parking and for residential parking. Following discussion, Mayor MacAllister requested staff provide Council with a copy of the a bail schedule. TRASH DUMPING IN CITY STREETS - REPORT REQUESTED Councilman Thomas requested a report of the number of citations issued to people dumping trash in the City streets since implementation of the "get tough policy" on the matter. " CODE AMENDMENT 83-20 RECONSIDERED AND APPROVED - ORD NO 2662 - RECONSIDERED AND INTRODUCTION APPROVED - OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A motion was made by Thomas, seconded by Pattinson, to reconsider the motion pertaining to Code Amendment 83-20 and Ordinance No. 2662 pertaining to Office-Residential District which failed by tie vote earlier in the meeting. The motion to reconsider carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister NOES: None ABSENT: Finley, Bailey, Mandic A motion was made by Thomas, seconded by Pattinson, to approve Code Amendment 83-20 and to approve Ordinance No. 2662, after reading by title. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: NO CITY OF H`JNTINGTON BEACH CA 83-54 COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson, City Council Members City Administrator Subject SPONSORSHIP OF AMENDED Date August 10, 1983 CALIFORNIA COMPULSORY UNITIZATION LAW Attached you will find a memorandum from Jim Palin, Director of Development Services, covering the above subject and recommending that the City of Huntington Beach take the lead in sponsorship of the Amended California Compulsory Unitization Law. His memorandum is self-explanatory, and it would. appear that there could be major benefits not only to individuals, but to the public at large, as well as increasing the country's oil production capabilities. If the City Council agrees with this proposal, I would also suggest that we write a letter over the Mayor's signature to the 50 cities who have been active in this field and suggest their support for the legislation if we can get either Assemblyman Frizzelle or Brown to introduce the bill. Respec submitted, arles W. Thompson, City Administrator CWT:pj REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 6, 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administr�t 4. Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services o Subject: SPONSORSHIP OF AMENDED CALIFORNIA COMPULSORY UNIT ZATION LAW Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis; Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The State Attorney General 's office- has prepared the attached text of the amended California Compulsory Unitization Law. The intent of the proposed legislative changes is to make the State' s existing compulsory- unitization statute a useful tool of wider applicability throughout the oil fields in California. The California Division of Oil and Gas would like the bill . to be introduced by a local govern- ment, and has suggested that the City ask one of its representatives to sponsor the bill. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a letter for the -Mayor' s signature to the cities who have been active in this field, suggesting they support the legislation. Further direct_ staff to contact Assemblyman Nolan Frizzele and Assemblyman Dennis Brown to see if they will introduce the legislation for us. ANALYSIS: Unitization is the process by which the mineral and active production interests in an oil field are consolidated so that a single operating party can produce oil on a pool-wide basis, rather than on a well-by- well basis. Centralized oil operation sites can replace individual, scattered oil operations in the unit project area. While this is favorable from a land-use standpoint, particularly in -urban oil fields, it also generally allows more oil to be produced with increased ef- ficiency because the unit can apply enhanced oil recovery techniques that require pool-wide coordination. Because mineral interests must be acquired, and working interests must. agree .to join the unit, unit projects can be difficult to assemble. Some unit projects are formed on a voluntary basis, as are the American Petrofina and Xtra Energy units being formed in the City' s downtown PIO 4/81 Sponsorship of Amended California Compulsory Unitization Law September 6, 1983 Page Two area. But in many cases, voluntary units have been virtually im- possible to- form -due to "hold outs" and ."-free riders" . This is the situation in which an individual operator refuses to join the unit in hopes that the majority of the other interests create the unit ' anyway. Thus, the other operators in the field incur the cost of developing the 'unit while the free rider enjoys the benefits (i.e. increased oil production). of the unit. Often, so many operators refuse to join a. unit for this reason that the program cannot be undertaken. Many states, recognizing that unitization increases the efficiency of oil production as well as the total. amount of oil that will ultimately be recovered, have enacted. compulsory unitization statutes. These laws require all interest-holding parties in an oil pool to join the unit if a specified- majority. percentage of the parties agree to unitize, and provide for arbitration mechanisms whereby- non-joiners may sell their interest in the pool to the unit at a fair-market value. The rationale .behind compulsory unit laws is that. the management, develop- ment, and operation of lands as a unit .for the production of oil and gas prevents waste and facilitates increased concurrent use of sur- face lands for other purposes. The State's .existing compulsory unit -law, however, is so restrictive that it applies to a very limited number of jurisdictions. and is therefore not .a functional tool. (Among other stipulations, it requires. that at least 750 of the oil field be within an incorporated city and have .been discovered_.before. 1934. ) Although Huntington Beach is one of the few areas- in which the compulsory,unit law has been determined to be applicable, the oil companies developing unit projects here have been hesitant to invoke its. use due to its de- ficiencies. At the workshop on oil" production in urban areas co- sponsored last year by' the City and the Division of Oil and Gas, there was concurrence among the workshop participants, who repre- sented more than 50 local governments, that- an effective compulsory unitization -law is an absolute necessity, and would be of great value to local governments. It is . in this context that the amended unit law was formulated. The Division of Oil and Gas and the.: State Attor- ney General' s Office strongly feel that :it :will be--much---more useful than the existing statute. Because the City of Huntington-Beach overlies . one of the largest oil fields in the State and. has., i.n -,many ways, been innovative in its approach. to planning for. oil production in :an urban environment, the Division of Oil and Gas has offered'.us: the opportunity to intro- duce this bill to the State legislature through one of- our represen- tatives. Development Services staff has- reviewed the proposed leg- islation, and recommends that the City sponsor the bill. l , l • 4 Sponsorship of Amended California Compulsory Unitization Law $dptembex 6, 1983 Page Three FUNDING SOURCE: None needed ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not direct staff to take the recommended action to introduce the bill . In this case, the Division of Oil and .Gas will have to pursue legislation in cooperation with another jurisdiction. ATTACHMENT: 1. Text of .amended California Compulsory Unitization Law. CWT:JWP:JF: js r K � 6LtuuL UD �� �!4' CITY. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COM CATION CITY OFHurdT,TfrGTCr'! r.�Cry HUNTINGTON BEACH f11,'r,'I!N10ril�:lii�: r^, L To Charles W. Tpompson ' ro James W. Palin', Director . City Administrator - ' . O Development Services Subject SPONSORSHIP OF AMENDED CALIF- Date August ,8, 1983 ORNIA COMPULSORY UNITIZATION LAW Attached is the text of the amended California Compulsory Unitization Law prepared by the State Attorney General' s Office. The intent of the proposed legislative changes is to make the State's existing compulsory unitization statute a useful tool of wider applicability throughout the oil fields in California. The California Division of Oil and Gas would like the bill to be introduced by a local govern- ment, and has suggested that the City ask one of its representatives to sponsor the bill. As you may be aware, unitization is the process by which the mineral and active production interests in an oil field are consolidated so that a single operating party can produce .oil on a pool widebasis, rather than on a well-by-well basis. Centralized oil operation sites can replace individual, scattered oil operations in the unit project area. While this is favorable from a land-use standpoint, particularly in urban .oil fields, it also generally ahlows more oil to be produced with increased efficiency because the unit can apply enhanced oil re- covery techniques that require pool-wide coordination. Because mineral interests must be acquired, and working interests must agree to join the unit, unit projects can be difficult to assemble. Some unit projects are formed on a voluntary basis, as are the American Petrofina and Xtra Energy units being formed in the City's downtown area. But in many cases, voluntary units have been virtually impossible to form due to "hold outs" and "free riders". This is the situation in which an individual operator refuses to join the unit in hopes that the majority of the other interests create the unit anyway. Thus, the other operators in the field incur the cost of developing the unit while the .free rider enjoys the benefits (i.e. increased oil production) of the unit. Often, so many operators refuse to join a unit for this reason that .the program cannot be undertaken. Many states,. recognizing that unitization increases the efficiency of oil production as well as the total amount of oil that will ultimately be recovered, have enacted compulsory unitization statutes . These laws require all interest-holding parties in an oil pool to join the unit if a specified majority percentage. of the parties agree to unitize, and provide for arbitration mechanisms whereby non-joiners may sell their interest in the pool to the unit at a fair-market value. The rationale behind compulsory unit laws is that the management, development, and operation of lands as a unit for- the production of oil and gas prevents waste and facilitates increased concurrent use of surface lands for other purposes. C. W. Thompson _ August Page 2 The State' s existing compulsory unit law, however, is so restrictive' that it applies to a very limited number of jurisdictions and is therefore not a functional tool. (Among other stipulations, it requires that at least 750 of the oilfield be within an incorporated city and have been discovered before 1934. ) Although Huntington Beach is one of the few areas in which the compulsory unit. law has been determined to be applicable, the oil companies developing unit projects here have been hesitant to invoke its use due to its deficiencies. At the workshop on oil production in urban areas co-sponsored last year by the City and the Division of Oil and Gas, there was concurrence among the workshop participants, who re- presented more than 50 local governments, that an effective compulsory - unitization law is an absolute necessity and would be of great value to local governments. It is in this context that the amended unit law was formulated. The Division of Oil and Gas and the State Attorney General' s Office strongly feel that it will Vmuch more useful than the existing statute. bQ Because the -.City of Huntington Beach overlies one of the largest oil feilds in the State and has, in many ways, been innovative in its approach to planning for oil production in an urban environment, the Division of Oil and Gas has offered us the opportunity to introduce this bill to the State legislature through one of our representatives. Development Services staff has reviewed the proposed legislation and I recommend that the City sponsor the bill and that Assemblyman Nolan Frizzelle be contacted in this regard. Assemblyman Frizzelle' s administrative assistant, Jim Orr, was present at the City's urban oil workshop last year and is there- fore familiar with the need expressed by local governments for a strength- ened compulsory unitization law in California. At your direction, I will pursue this matter further. I have spoken with Mr. E.R. Wilkinson from the Division of Oil and Gas and he is available for consultation on this matter, if necessary. JWP:HDB:dw Attachment Chapter 3 .5 . Unit Operation Article 1 . Declaration of Policy 3630. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the management , • development, and operation of lands as a unit for the production of oil and gas aids in preventing waste , increases the ultimate recovery of oil and gas, and facilitates increased concurrent use of surface lands for other beneficial purposes . 3631 . Nothing in this chapter shall be construed in such a manner as to conflict with the provisions of Article 2 (commencing . with Section 6826 ) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 6 . Article 2 . Definitions 3635. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter. 3635. 1 . "Person" means any natural person , corporation , association , partnership, joint venture , receiver, trustee , executor , administrator, guardian, fiduciary , or other representative of any kind and includes the state and any city, county , city and county , ' district or any department , agency, or instrumentality of the state or of any governmental' subdivision whatsoever . 3635. 2 . "Land" means both surface and mineral rights. - 1 . 3635. 3 . "Pool" means an underground reservoir containing , or appearing at the time of determination to contain, a common accumulation of crude petroleum oil or natural gas or both. Each zone of a general structure which is separated from any other zone in the structure is a separate pool . 3635. 4 . "Field" means the same general surface area 4 which is underlaid or reasonably appears to be underlaid by one or more pools . Repeal 3635 . 5 . 3635 . 5 . "Tracts of land" means land areas under separate ownership which are contiguous either on the surface or in the subsurface . 3635 .6 . "Waste" means both economic and physical waste resulting , or that could reasonably be expected to result , from the development and operation separately of tracts that can best be developed and operated as a unit . 3636. "Unit agreement" means and includes , in addition to the unit agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 ( commencing with Section 3640 ) of this chapter , any consent agreement or other agreement entered into in connection with, and supplemental to, such unit agreement , but does not include a unit operating agreement or any preliminary agreement confined to 2 . effectuating any exchange of interests in land which the parties to such preliminary agreement may desire . "Unit operating agreement"- means -an agreement, entered into by the working interest owners only, governing all operations performed by the unit operator pursuant to the unit agreement and the unit .operating agreement for the production of unitized substances. 3636 . 1 . "Unit area" means all lands included within an area subject to a unit agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 (commencing with Section 3640 ) of this chapter. 3636 . 2 . "Unit production" means all oil , gas , and other hydrocarbon substances produced from a unit area from the effective date of a unit agreement approved by the supervisor pursuant to Section 3643 . Repeal 3636 . 3 . . 3636 .3 . "Unit operator" means the working interest owner , designated by working interest owners under the unit operating agreement or the supervisor to conduct unit operations , acting as operator and not as a working interest owner . 3637 . "Working interest" means an interest held in lands by virtue of fee title , including. lands held in trust , a lease , operating agreement, or otherwise , under 3 . ", which the owner of such interest has the right to drill for , develop, and produce oil and gas. A working interest shall be deemed vested in the owner thereof even though his right to drill or produce may be delegated to an operator under a drilling and operating agreement, unit agreement, or other type of operating agreement. 3637 . 1 . "Working interest owner" means a person owning � a working interest. 3637 . 2 . "Royalty interest" means a right to or interest in oil and gas produced from any lands or in the proceeds of the first sale thereof other than a working interest. 3637 . 3 . "Royalty interest owner" means a person owning a royalty interest. Article 3 . Unit Agreements 3640 . Tracts of land may be unitized as provided in this article to provide for the management, development, and operation thereof as a unit to prevent , or to assist in preventing , waste and to increase the ultimate recovery of oil and gas . 3641 . An agreement for the management , development, and operation of two 'or more tracts of land in the same field or in the same producing or prospective pool as a unit without regard to separate ownerships, and for the 4 . allocation of benefits and costs on a basis set forth in i such agreement , shall be valid and binding upon those who consent thereto and may be filed with the supervisor for approval . However , unless .and until the agreement qualifies for approval , and is approved , by the supervisor, persons who do not consent thereto shall not be bound thereby , nor shall their rights be affected thereby. Repeal 3642 . 3642 . Any working interest owner may file a petition with the supervisor requesting approval for the unit operation of a pool or any part thereof. The petition shall contain: ( a ) A copy of the proposed unit agreement and proposed unit operating agreement conforming to the requirements of Section 3646 . ( b) A report with appropriate engineering , ,reservoir, and geologic data and maps outlining in detail .how the proposed unitization qualifies for approval . pursuant to this chapter. 3643 . The unit agreement shall be approved , if , after - a public hearing , the supervisor finds all of the following : ( a ) The unit area of the proposed agreement for unit operation takes in all tracts which , consistent with good oilfield practice , should be considered. a part of and related to the field or pool or pools , or portions thereof , S . proposed for unit operation but does not include tracts which , consistent with good oilfield practice , should not be considered a part of or related to the field or pool or pools , or portions thereof , proposed for unit operation . +6}--As-e€-the-date-a€-€ding-e€-the-petitieM7-the prepeseei-anit-agreement-Nag-eeneented-te-bp-per9ene-eNn3ng . at-least-tlFree-€eartk�s-a€-tke-Her} }Ag-}p�_ereet9-and �' three-€earths-e€-the-leeser91-repaltp-#ntere9t9-a9-�3eeer3bed ln-Seetian-3642- • ( b) The petitioner has made a good faith effort to secure voluntary unitization within the pool or portion thereof directly affected . ( c) The unitized management and operation of the pool or pools , or portions thereof , proposed to be unitized is reasonably necessary in order to carry on pressure maintenance or pressure replenishment operations , cycling or recycling operations , gas injection operations , water flooding operations , reduction of oil viscosity operations, or any combination thereof , or any other form of joint effort calculated to increase the ultimate recovery of oil and gas from the proposed unit area. (d ) The value of the estimated recovery of additional oil or gas , or the increased present worth value due to accelerated recovery of oil or gas , as a result of the unit 6 . ,� operations will exceed the estimated additional cost incident to conducting such operations. ( e ) The proposed unit agreement provides for an allocation of the unit production among and to the separately owned tracts in the- area proposed to be unitized such as will reasonably permit persons otherwise entitled to s share in or benefit by the production from such separately owned tracts to produce or receive , in lieu thereof , their fair , equitable , andoreasonable pro rata share of the unit production or other benefits thereof . ( f ) The proposed unit agreement provides , to the full extent practical , for the organization and consolidation of surface facilities , including oil production , storage , treatment , and transportation facilities, in such a manner as will eliminate wasteful and excessive use of land surface areas , freeing such areas for other productive use and development, and provides a fair procedure for the waiver, from time to time , of the working interest owners' right of entry on surface areas which in the future become unneeded for the conduct of unit operations. (g ) The proposed unit agreement is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances in other material respects. ( h ) If state-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission are included in the proposed unit t 7 agreement, such agreement has been reviewed and approved by the commission as to such lands.. 3644 . A tract of land ' s fair, equitable , and reasonable share of the unit production shall be measured by the value of . such tract for oil and gas purposes and its contributing value to the unit in relation to like values of other tracts in the unit area , taking into account, among other things , the following : ( a) The primar}k tract value based upon the projected future value of hydrocarbon substances that would be produced by primary means from such tract after the date of unitization , if no secondary recovery operation were undertaken . ( b) The secondary tract value based upon consideration of the following factors : ( 1 ) The volume in acre-feet of• porous , permeable sand originally saturated with hydrocarbon substances within a zone to be unitized , and underlying such tract . ( 2 ) The hydrocarbon substances per acre-foot of such zone recoverable by means of secondary recovery operations . ( 3 ) the value of the hydrocarbon substances so recoverable from such tract from such zones to be t B . �A unitized . ( 4 ) In the event the necessary data is not l available as listed in paragraphs ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , and ( 3 ) , the value may be assigned using a prudent engineering method , depending on the data available . ( c) All other factors which significantly bear upon _. the value of the committed properties for primary and secondary recovery. 3645 . Upon giving his approval to the unit agreement pursuant to Section 3643 , the supervisor shall issue an order directing unit operations of the unit area in accordance with the unit agreement, directing the - recordation of such agreement in the office of the county recorder - in each county in which any part of the .unit area is situated , and requiring that the interests of all persons in the unit area be thereafter subject to the unit agreement the same as if all such- persons had expressly consented to the unit agreement. Aa-ede -a€-�l�e-sdpevlse -lss�esi p�a�sdaa�-fie-ibis-seed}ea-shall-beee�ae-a€€eel€ve-eR-t.l�e-dale p�euided-€e�-la-�t�e-e�de�,-exee�at-�k►at-qe-s�el�-e�de�-s�iall laeeeu�e-a€€eelve-datll-all-laeests-lp-the-�a}t-area-€er wbieb-�lu�ely-of€ess-e€-sale-bane-beep-wade-pu�sdaa�.-fie Sectiea-364�-have-beep-pd�ebase�3-as-�a�euided-iq-tba� see�ieA,-e�-dAtil-�lae-te��aigat}eA-a€-sdek�-a€€ers-a€-saleT 9 . �� Repeal 3646 . 3646 . The supervisor ' s order shall be upon terms and conditions that are fair, reasonable , and equitable and shall approve or prescribe a unit agreement and unit operating agreement which shall include : (a ) A legal description of the unit area in terms of surface area of the pool or part thereof to be operated as a unit and the vertical limits to be included therein . ( b) A statemegt of the nature of the operations contemplated . ( c ) An allocation to the separately owned tracts in the unit area of all the oil and gas that is produced from the unit area and is saved , being the production that is not used in the conduct of operations on the unit area or not unavoidably lost . (d ) A provision for the credits and charges to be made in the adjustment among the owners in the unit area for their respective investments in wells , tanks , pumps , machinery , materials , and equipment contributed to the .unit operations . (e ) A provision governing how the costs of unit operations including capital investments shall be determined and charged to the separately owned tracts and how said costs shall be paid including a provision providing when, 10 ."� how, and by whom the unit production allocated to an owner who -does not pay the share of the costs of unit operations charged to such owner , or the interest of such owner, may be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of such costs . ( f ) A provision for carrying any working interest owner on a . limited , carried , or net-profits basis , payable out of production. , upon such terms and conditions determined 1+ by the supervisor to be just and reasonable , and allowing an appropriate charge fqr interest for such service payable out of such owner ' s share of production , provided that any nonconsenting working interest owner being so carried shall be deemed to have relinquished to the unit operator all of its operating rights and working interest in and to the unit until his share of the costs , service charge , and interest are repaid to the unit operator. (g ) A provision designating the unit operator and providing for the supervision and conduct of the unit operations , including the selection , removal , or substitution of an operator from among the working. interest owners to conduct the unit operations . ( h ) A provision for a voting procedure for the decision of matters to be decided by the working interest owners in respect to which each working interest owner shall have a voting interest equal to its unit participation . ( i ) The time when the unit operation shall commence and the manner in which , and the circumstances under which , the operations shall terminate and for the settlement of accounts upon such termination . ( j ) A provision under which a party whose surface land is being utilized for the benefit of the unit area shall be entitled to compensation for the reasonable value of the use of the surface . (k) Such additional provisions that are found to be appropriate for carrying on the unit operations and for the protection of correlative rights and the prevention of waste . Repeal 3647 . Repeal 3648 . Repeal 3649 . 3647 . ( a ) No order of the supervisor providing for unit operations shall become effective unless and until the plan for unit operations prescribed by the supervisor has been approved in writing by those persons who, under the supervisor ' s order, will be required initially to .pay at least seventy-five per cent ( 75% ) of the costs of the unit operations , and also by the owners of at least seventy-five per cent ( 75% ) of the production or proceeds thereof that will be credited to interests which are free of cost such as 12 . "� royalties , overriding royalties , and production payments , and the supervisor has made a finding either in the order providing for unit operations or in a supplemental order, that the plan for unit operations has been so approved . Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section , if seventy-five per cent (75% ) or more of the unit area is owned , as to working interest, by one ( 1 ) working interest owner , such working interest owner must be joined by at least one ( 1 ) other working interest owner in ratifying and ,approving the plan of unit operations , unless such working interest owner is the owner of one hundred per cent ( 100% ) of the working interest in said unit area; .provided , however, if a single owner is one who, under the supervisor ' s order will be required initially to pay at least twenty-five per cent ( 25at ) , but not more than fifty per cent ( 50% ) , of the costs of unit operation , such owner must be joined by at least one ( 1 ) other owner of the same type interest in disapproving , or failing to approve , the plan of unit operations to defeat the plan . ( b) If one ( 1 ) owner. is the owner of at least twe-nty- five per cent ( 25% ) , but not more than fifty per cent ( 50% ) , of the production or proceeds thereof that will be credited to interests which are free of costs , such owner must be joined by at least one ( 1 ) other owner of the same type 13 . 3651: 3649 . The supervisor shall issue his order that such further tract or tracts of land insofar as they contain the pool or pools , or portions thereof , and the interests of all persons therein , upon recordation of such order in the office of the county recorder in each county in which any part of the original unit area or such additional tracts are situated , shall thereafter be. subject to unit operations if he finds all of the following : ( a) All or a portion of such further tract or tracts of land do contain the pool or pools , or portions thereof , previously ordered unitized by the supervisor . ( b) The unit agreement has been consented to 6p-persams Nlie-eNR-title-te-wer}�iRg-iRte�ests-Nh�eh-aelgregete-at-least aR-andidided-three-€edrtHs-e€-t}�e-Ner}�iRg-interest9-�R-tt�e tetal-area-prepesed-te-be-dRitised,-and-bp-perseRs-Nile-eNR title-te-the-repaltp-interest-Nhieh-aggregates-at-least-an andiaided-t}Free-€eartHs�e€-tHe-repaltp-iRtere9t-3R-tt�e-tetal area-prepesed-to-be-unitized as provided in Section 3647 . ( c ) The addition of such further tract or tracts of land insofar as . they contain the pool or pools to the unit operations is reasonably necessary in order to prevent waste or to increase the ultimate recovery of oil and gas. 36527 3650 . The supervisor' s order issued pursuant to Section 3651 3649 shall contain a fair basis for allocating 15 . �� production to such . further tract. or..-.tracts of land and make fair and reasonable provisions under- the circumstances in other respects for bringing into. the unit operation such tract or tracts of land . In providing for the allocation of unit production from the enlarged unit area , the order shall , however, first treat the unit area previously established as y a single tract , and the portion of unit production so allocated thereto shall then be allocated among the separately owned tracts of land included in such previously established unit area in the same proportion as specified therefor in the previous order. �'#�e-sspev}see-skull alloeate-preddetlea-€sera-tkae-eAla�ged-da}�-area-betweeA-tkae preuledsly-establis�ied-dale-area-aad-Abe-addi€ieAal-toast-es tracts-of-laAd,-aad_if-tber©-be-mor©-tbar�-one-such-additional . tract-a€-lead,-shall-allesate-the-p�eddetlea-alletted-tkae additleAal-tsaets-e€-land-as-iaetweea-suek�-additional-tracts e€-laAd,-lp-sdeka-a-�aaaaes-as-will-�easeaataly-iae��.}t-pe�seRs etkae�wlse-aAtltled-te-skaa�e-la-e�-beae€it-b}+-the-�a�eddet�ea . €reca-s+aeka-t�aets-e€-land-€e-p�eddee-es-segeive,-is-lied tbe�ee€,-tkaelr-€alr,-egdltalale,-aad=�easegalale-pie-Bata-skaa�e e€-the-dAlt-pseduetlea-es-etkaes-bane€lts-tkaerea€.--A-toast=s €als,-egsltalale,-aad-�easeAaFale=sba�e-e€-the-sAit-p�ec�detieR shall_bo-measured=b}�-tba-ualue-a€-eaeb-sueb-tsaet-a€-laAd-€e� oil-apd-gas-pdspeses-apd-its-eeat�lbdt€Ag-valde-te-�k�e-d�i� . 16 . egeratieR-€n-relatieR-te-li}�e-aalees-a€-etHez-t�aets-�r�-tHe dn3tT-�a}�iAg-iRte-aeeedAtT-ar�eAg-etHer=�HiAe�s;-�He-€eiieNiflg: fa;--�He-pr}teary-traet-valde-based-dpeR-�He-pre3eeted €a�d�e-valde-e€-Hy�}reearbeR-st�bs�aRees-tba�-uedld-be-preddeed by-pr#very-tneafls-€re►�-sdeH-traet-a€ter-tHe-date-e€ nnitizettan;-if-ne-seeQndarp-reeederp-eperat}eR-were undertaken- fb}--�He-seeer�dary-traet-valde-based-dpea-eeRs-�derat�eR e€-tHe-€eliewin�-€aerers: �.}}--�He-deit��+e-ifl-aere-€eet-a€-perebs;-ger�eable sand-eri�inalip-satsrated-NitH-Hpe}reear�efl-se�ist.anees W3tHir�-a-Eene-te-be-dr+itiaed;-and-dRderlyiR�-st�eH-traet- f�;--�He-HydreearbeA-sdbstaRees-per-aere-€eet-e€ saeH-seAe-�eeeverable-by-�+ear�s-a€-seeeAdary-reeederp - eperat€ens- f3;--�He-dalae-e€-tHe-Hyeireear�eA-sdbstaRees-se reeederable-€rem-sdeH-traet-€ret�-sdeH=$efles-te-be dfl}t}zed- f4;--�A-tHe-eaer►t-tHe-r�eeessarp-data-is-Ret adaiiabie-as-listed-iri-�ara�rapHs-fl}7-F�}T-aHd-fg;7-tHe de€de-rnep-be-assigned-dsinc�-a-prdeler►t-er�gineeriRe� metl�ed;-per+eiing-art-tHe-data-aaaiiabie �c}__All_dher-faders-which-sigpificaatl�r-kaear-upoa-thQ 4 ualue-of-ths-committed_peoporties-fot-primar}�-aad-soce�dar}r 17 . �` reeevefy: 3651 . An order providing for unit operations may be amended by an order made by the supervisor in. the same manner and subject to the same conditions as an original order providing for unit operations , provided : ( a) if such an amendment affects only the rights and interests of the working interest owners , the approval of the amendment by the royalty owners shall not be required ; and ( b) no such amendment shall change the percentage for the allocation of oil and gas as established for any separately owned tract by the original order , except with the consent of all working interest owners and royalty owners in such tract , or change the percentage for the allocation of costs as established for any .separa.tely .owned tract by the original order , except with the consent of - all working interest owners in such tract . ' Repeal 3653 . Repeal 3653 . 5 3.654: 3652 . Any and all decisions or determinations made by the supervisor under the provisions of this chapter shall be appealable to any court of competent jurisdiction by any person whose interests are affected by any such decision or determination. Except as otherwise provided. in this article, such appeal must be made within 60 days from the 18 . �' date of such decision or determination . Repeal 3655. 3656T 3653 . No unit agreement approved by the supervisor pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall effect or result in , or be construed to effect or result in, the alienation , transfer, or change of any title or ownership, legal or equitable , of any person or party in or ' to any tract of land or the mineral rights therein to any other person or party . 365-7: 3654 . Operations incident to the drilling , producing , or operating of a well or wells on any portion of a unit area under a unit agreement approved by the supervisor pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed , for the purposes of determining compliance with lease and other contractual obligations , the conduct of such operations on each separately owned tract in the unit area by the several working interest owners thereof . That portion of the production allocated to each tract of land included in the unit area , when produced , shall be deemed for all purposes to have been produced from such tract by a well or wells drilled therein . 9658T 3655 . Any order of the supervisor issued pursuant to this article shall , from and after its : 19 . 1� effective date , be effective as to, .and be binding upon , each person owning an interest in the unit area covered thereby , or in the oil and gas produced therefrom , or the proceeds thereof . Each such person shall have the right to enforce the provisions of the unit agreement, including , but not limited to, the provisions for determining rates of production , whether or not such person expressly consented to the unit agreement. 36597 3656 . Prior to any public hearing held by the supervisor pursuant to this chapter, the supervisor shall give reasonable written notice of the hearing to all persons shown by the records of the tax assessor to have an interest in the land proposed for unit operation , and shall given written notice to any city within which the land lies and , with respect to land which lies in an unincorporated area , to the county in' wh�ch the land lies. Such city or county or any other interested person may , on any matter relevant to the proposed agreement for operation , submit testimony and evidence for the consideration of the supervisor. Article 4 . Liens 3680 . A person to whom another is indebted for expenses incurred in carrying on unit operations may , in order to secure payment of the amount due , fix a lien 20 . „ upon the interest of the debtor in the unit production as and when produced from the unit area by filing for record with the recorder of the county where the property or a portion thereof involved is. located , an affidavit setting forth all of the following : ( a ) In general terms the kind of materials , tools , equipment, or supplies furnished or labor or services performed . ( b) A description of the land involved , the name of the debtor , and his interest in the production from the unit area . ( c) The amount which is still due and unpaid . (d ) A statement that at least 20 days prior to the date of the affidavit such person gave written notice to the.. debtor by registered mail at his last known address, setting forth the information required under subdivisions ( a ) , ( b) ; and ( c) of this section . Any such affidavit shall be filed for record not later than 90 days after the delivery of the property or the completion of the labor . 3681 . The lien shall be a first lien on the production and otherwise shall be of the same nature and subject to foreclosure in the same manner and within the same time as mechanics ' liens . In any case where the 21 . !f► lien claimant is in possession of the production which is subject to the lien , the supervisor may authorize the lien claimant to sell such production or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy such lien, provided that the supervisor shall hold or arrange for the holding of the proceeds of such sale for appropriate distribution upon a determination of the controversy. Article 5 . Regulations 3685. Within-three-Rienths-after-the-a€€eetive-date e€-�}its=eHap€ee;-�l�e-sdperdi9e�-sha��;-a€ter-ene-er-mere ptiblie-hearingsT The supervisor shall adopt regulations governing the submittal of proposed unit agreements , modifications thereof , additions thereto, and disagreements with respect to unit operations . The regulations shall include , but not be limited to; '. requirements for filing fees sufficient to cover the costs of administration, and submittal of policies of title insurance . The regulations may be amended from time to time by the supervisor.wi#-h-the-appredal-of-tHe direeterT Repeal Article 6 . 22 . J• ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � •, INTER-DEPARTMENT COM (CATION 7 1962 :i HUNTINGTON BEACH- - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 ADMINI$TRATII E gFFICE To Charles W. Thompson, F James W. Palin, Direc o City Administrator p Development Service <r s Subject MEETING OF COASTAL CITIES RE- Date February 16ry 1982 j GARDING OFFSHORE OIL LEASE- /�(1 ,VSALE #68 � On February 2, 1982, Development Services staff attended a meeting for coastal cities regarding offshore oil Lease-Sale #68 . Through this Lease-Sale several "tracts" offshore from Southern California will be offered to oil companies for leasing in anticipation of possible ex- ploration and development. The meeting was called by Mayor Bradley of Los Angelesland staff and elected officials of several cities (in- cluding Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and Santa Barbara).,._> were present. Mayor Finley and Councilwoman Bailey were in attendance. Lease-Sale #68 is expected to occur in June, 1982. During February and March, cities and the State can submit comments to the federal government regarding the lease-sale. Such comments can include re- quests to postpone the sale, to delete particular tracts or to impose special conditions on the sale.. The Secretary of the Interior must then consider these comments in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the lease-sale in June. However, he is not required to act on any of the comments, because he is charged with "balancing" state and local concerns with national interests. The State, through the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Coastal Commission, will be submitting a report to Interior in March. If/the City of Huntington Beach would like to comment on the Lease-'ale, the Council should submit any concerns to OPR by theirr�st— eek in March. OPR will be compiling the comments of all cities, along with those related to State-wide issues, and then passing them on to the federal government. The principal strategy of most cities and of the State is not to op- pose the entire lease-sale, but to request that certain" tracts in "especially sensitive areas" be deleted from the lease-sale. For example, Los Angeles and Santa Monica will request that tracts in the Santa Monica Bay be deleted, and Laguna Beach and Newport Beach will request that tracts offshore from southern Orange County be deleted. Deni Greene, Director of OPR, remarked that the State would probably recommend that tracts in the Santa Barbara Channel Ecological Reserve, Santa Monica Bay, the Precautionary Zone at the entrance to Los Angeles/ Long Beach harbors and all tracts which were deleted from previous lease-sales, be deleted from this lease-sale. The issues most relevant to Huntington Beach were discussed in a staff report presented to the Council in January. A copy of that • H��'i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 12/31/81 Es COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson, f S City Council Members City Administrator Subject AGENDA-ITEMS Date December 31, 1981 1) Scheduled Meetings - The next regular meeting of the City Council will be Monday, January 4 , 1982, at 7: 30 PM. 2) Offshore Oil Lease-Sale #68 - Attached is/a brief summary of infor- mation ;related to the proposed Lease/Sale #68 in which areas offshore from Huntington Beach may be offered by the Federal Government for oil and gas development. The Mayor will be bringing this matter up under Council Comments Monday evening. STAFF REPORT: INFORMATION SUMMARY FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASE-SALE #68 For almost two years, staff has been monitoring activites related to the proposed Lease-Sale #68 in which the federal government will once again offer offshore areas for oil and gas development. The Final En- vironmental. Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. Department of Interior ' s Bureau of Land Management was recently distributed. Staff participated in the "scoping meetings" prior to the preparation of the draft EIS, commented on the draft EIS, attended public hearings on that document, and has reviewed the final EIS. At all these steps staff has prepared information for the �Council regarding the status of the Lease-Sale. The Lease-Sale Process and History in this Area In the lease-sale process, offshore areas are divided into "tracts" which are usually three-miles by three-miles square. After an envir- onmental analysis, the Secretary of the Interior announces a "Proposed Notice of Sale" in which he indicates which tracts are being proposed for this sale. The Governor ' s office and the Coastal Commission have 60 days after the Proposed Notice is announced to review and comment on the proposed sale. Local governments should make their concerns known to the Governor 's office (through the Office of Planning and Research -- OPR) so. that they may be included in the State' s comments to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior must then respond to the State' s comments and try to balance national interests with those of the citizens of the affected state. If the Secretary of the Interior then decides to conduct the sale, he specifies the tracts and the terms and conditions to be imposed on the lease-sale in a "Final Notice of Sale. " The lease-sale itself is held shortly afterward, and oil companies submit sealed bids on the tracts. The government may award a tract to the highest bidder or it may reject all bids. The environmental review process on Lease-Sale #68 has been completed. The Proposed Notice of Sale will be announced early in January. The State has 60 days thereafter to submit comments to the federal govern- ment. This would be the appropriate time for the City to submit its latest comments to OPR for inclusion in the State' s report. A meeting for the purpose of discussing local governments' concerns with OPR will be held during the 60 day review period. When the date and location of that meeting are announced, staff will pass on that information. If the Lease-Sale continues on schedule, the Final Notice of Sale will then be made in May and the Lease-Sale held in June. The Lease-Sale in itself does not allow oil companies to build plat- forms or drill wells. Additional permits are needed and different review processes are conducted prior to allowing. such activities. Lease-Sale Page 2 The tracts tentatively scheduled for Lease-Sale #68 are located from Point Conception to Laguna Beach. Several tracts are offshore from Huntington Beach in the San Pedro Bay. Figure l shows the offshore tracts currently under lease and those which are tentatively being offered in Lease-Sale #68. This will be the third lease-sale held in this area. In 19.75, Lease- Sale #35 resulted in 13 tracts being leased in San Pedro Bay offshore from Huntington Beach. Today, the leases have expired on eight of those tracts because the oil companies found them unprofitable to develop. Five of the tracts are still under lease. and two platforms have been built on one of them. Two other platforms are being planned for other nearby tracts. In 1979 another lease-sale, #48, was held for this area. Although numer- ous tracts were offered, only one additional tract was leased at that time. In summary, most of the same tracts now being proposed for Lease-Sale #68 were first offered in Lease-Sale #35; only 13 tracts, which were thought to have the greatest potential for oil in this area, were leased at that time. (Many of these have since been abandoned. ) Most of these tracts were again offered in 1979. Only one other tract was taken by an oil company. In Lease-Sale #68 most of these same tracts will be offered for the third time. ' It is difficult to predict if they will attract greater interest at this time than they have in the prior lease- sales. The Proposed Notice of Sale, to be announced in January, will indicate which tracts near Huntington Beach the Secretary of the Interior is pro- posing to offer. If the City wants any of these tracts deleted or wants the Secretary to impose special terms or conditions on the lease of those ti-acts, it can make its concerns known through OPR and the Governor ' s voffice. The Secretary is not required to adopt the City' s/State' s com- ments, because he is charged with ."balancing" federal interests with state and local ones Possible Impacts of the Lease-Sale If the lease-sale is held and if oil companies do acquire new tracts and if these are developed, some impacts are possible; the most impor- tant for Huntington Beach are summarized below: 1. Aesthetics: If tracts are leased, exploratory drilling rigs may be visible offshore temporarily. A few of the tracts are close to the City' s shoreline and the rigs may be readily visible. How- ever, most of the tracts are farther away than any existing platform and would be difficult to see most of the time. If the -exploration proves successful, it is possible that new platforms may be built. (There are, however, already four existing platforms in this area and two more are planned to be built regardless of Lease-Sale #68. ) These platforms would remain for decades and depending on their location, could be visible from the City. i Long Beach Q 00000 Huntington °°°°° Beach I I Newport 0 f I 0 0 : 0 Be ach 0 o 0 0 0 0 °0 0°0 0°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00000 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::.o•::: 00 00 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o .0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 ..............:. .............. .... ......... ......:. .... . 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 ° 00000 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00 00000 0 00 0° o 0000 0 0o 0 00 0 Offshore Platform • 0o0ao; 00000, ° 0000o, • Tracts Previously Leased/Now Abandoned o°°o o. . Tracts Previously Leased/Now in Production Tracts Proposed for Lease Sale No. 68 '•. Existing State Leases State and Federal Leases Offshore Huntington Beach Figure 1 i- Lease-Sale Page 3 t From one perspective, any additional offshore facility detracts from the natural ocean scenery. From another point .of view, the San Pedro Bay is not a pristine area and already is the site of several platforms and heavy shipping traffic. Thus, another plat- form would not significantly change the character of the area, although it may be unsightly to some people. A recent report by the Bureau of Land Management which was protested by the .City, seemed to under-estimate the aesthetic value of the City' s shoreline, especially in light of its recent efforts to improve the Townlot area of Bolsa Chica Beach. 2. Oil Spills: If tracts are leased, and found to contain producible oil reserves, new drilling and production activities may be conducted. Any additional facility, of course, increases by some amount the chance of an oil spill. Historical analyses of these facilities, however, indicate that the increased chance of a spill likely from Lease-Sale #68 is small. A large spill would probably have significant adverse impacts on the City' s beaches; but, most evidence indicates that the effects on sandy beaches such as those here are generally short-term. The im- pacts of spills and their, mitigations, and spill prevention and planning, are discussed at length in two City reports: "The Coastal Energy Impact Program" , (1980) and "Oil Spill Contingency Planning. in Huntington Beach" (1981) . 3. Shipping Traffic Safety: Many of the tracts near Huntington Beach are in designated shipping lanes and in the Precautionary Area (PAR) near the entrance to the Long Beach/Los Angeles Port (see Figure 2) . If exploratory rigs or permanent platforms were to be located in these lanes or the PAR, the chances of a ship colliding with a plat- form would be greatly increased. This could have serious consequences for the City, because much of the shipping traffic involves oil tank- ers; thus, a collision could result in a serious oil spill from a tanker. Furthermore, the facilities on the platform itself may spill oil as a result of damage in a collision. Currently, the . Coast Guard prohibits any oil-related structures, temporary or permanent, from locating in shipping lanes or in the PAR. The Coast -Guard also recommends that special identification facili- ties, such as special radar location materials, be put on any plat- form within 2 miles of a lane or the PAR. If the current Coast Guard regulations remain in effect and their recommendations are adopted, then potential problems related to ship- ping traffic will be greatly reduced. 4. More Efficient Use of Existing Facilities: Positive impacts could result, too, from the lease-sale. As discussed above, the tracts considered "prime" have already been leased, explored, and, in a few cases, developed. Some of the remaining tracts proposed to be of- fered in Lease-Sale #68 are adjacent to (or even between existing) ng Existing Beach Leased Tracts Thr ee �Z1 Ljhe o • Huntington Proposed ++++ + + ✓ Beach Sale No.. 68 + + • + + + Newport Tracts ::•;:::;•.. •�+ Beach + + + + + + + + r f:. Existing °• + + + + + `: ':• Precautionary + +; �, +:: +►: ++ + + + Area • + + + + " `• Existing%**, Traffic + . Lanes 0 Existing ; ? . Leased Long Tracts Beach Th ree 1� Proposed ++ ++� • �Ze \� Sale No. 68 � + + LZhe 1 Huntington Tracts ►++++� + . + Beach + + Newport + + + Beach a + + + Proposed + + + + + : ::: ; Precautionary + + + + + z. Area + + + + + + + + Existing,, , +• ti: ,� Traffic + + ; Lanes to The upper figure depicts shipping lanes and the precautionary area as they currently exist: The lower figure shows the revised precautionary area proposed by the U.S. Coast Guard. Figure 2 Lease-Sale Page 4 leases. It is possible that in some cases, excess capacity for oil storage, separation and treatment (or even excess drill slots) in ex- isting or planned facilities could be used if Lease-Sale #68 resulted in the discovery of more oil near those existing facilities. The result would be the production of more domestic oil and the more efficient use of existing or already planned facilities. Actions of Other Jurisdictions Last month several Southern California cities and counties met to discuss the upcoming lease-sale. Many nearby jurisdictions were represented in- cluding Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. Several of these jurisdictions were concerned about the lease-sale, especially those in areas where. there are no existing off- shore oil. facilities. However, no joint effort to. oppose the- lease-sale was instigated. Some cities did, however, act on their own. OPR has in- dicated that the State will not likely object to Lease-Sale #68. However, the State may recommend excluding tracts in "unique or sensitive areas" such as near the Channel Islands and certain ecological preserves. The State may also recommend that restrictions be placed on the leasing, for example, requiring that no structure be permitted in tracts crossed by shipping lanes. After the Proposed Notice of Sale is released in. January, OPR is planning to meet again with representatives of local governments. City staff is planning to attend this meeting and perhaps members of the Council would be interested as well. As soon as the date and location of that meeting is set, staff will relay that information to the Council. MM:j lm - _" Some nearby jurisdictions have experessed concern about the upcoming lease-sale; others have not taken an official position. Conversations with staff from several of these jurisdictions revealed the following: 1) Newport Beach will probably ask the federal government to delete those tracts closest to it, arguing that the costs of potential environmental damage would outweigh the benefits of any oil discovered on those particular tracts. 2) A similar approach will likely be taken by the City of Los Angeles. 3) Laguna Beach has written a letter to the federal government requesting that the tracts closest to their city be deleted, arguing that any oil facilities would detract from their pristinge seascape and. thereby damaging their local tourist industry. Laguna is also concerned that their rocky intertidal zone is more sensitive to spill damage than sandy beaches elsewhere. 4) Orange County submitted comments on the EIS but has not taken further offical action regarding the lease-sale. 5) Long Beach and Seal Beach did not comment on the EIS nor did they attend the meeting with OPR last .month. • Page #8 - Council Minutes - 1/4/82 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE - TO BE PLACED ON NOVEMBER BALLOT - PROPOSED CHANGE FROM APRIL TO JUNE DATE Disdussion was held regarding changing the date of the General Municipal Election from April to June to consolidate with the County election. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Thomas, to place before the voters the proposition of changing the April election date to coincide with the County election in June. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Mandic NOES: Finley, Bailey, Kelly ABSENT: None A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mandic, to place the proposed change in date of the General Municipal Election on the November 1982 ballot. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Mandic NOES: Bailey, Kelly ABSENT: None L PROPOSED OFFSHORE OIL LEASE-SALE #68 - DISCUSSION Councilwoman Bailey stated her concerns regarding the proposed Offshore Oil Lease-Sale #68. Discussion was held regarding the matter. A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Kelly, to request the Mayor to follow up on the matter and report back to Council. . The motion carried unanimously. TRAVEL EXPENSES RELATED TO LEAGUE COMMITTEES Discussion was held regarding travel expenses for Councilmembers serving as liaison to California League of Cities Committees. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, to authorize travel expenses for Councilman Pattinson as Orange County League of Cities delegate to State Public Safety Commission; for Mayor Finley, serving as liaison to the League of California Cities Policy Committee on Community Development; and to Councilwoman Bailey serving as liaison to the League of California Cities Policy Committee on Transportation. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None I>I STREET SIGNS DIRECTING TRAFFIC TO OLD WORLD AND TO HB PLAYHOUSE Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to direct staff to prepare a letter to Old World and to the Huntington Beach Play- house advising each of them cost of placing street signs directing traffic to