    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                  COAS-TAL

                                  DEVELOPMENT
                                                        NOW",
                                  THE CALIFOkNIA EXPERIENCE

                                  4

                                                ftlk                          40%

                     HD
                     9567
                     .C2
                                  ENERGY

                     C38
                     1981      J
                                  CALIFORNIA - COASTAL - COMMISSION

                 COASTAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT:
                      THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE

                        A Guide for Coastal Local Govemments

              IQ

                            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

                                                 SEPTEMBER 1981

                 This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone
                 Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratior@ under the provisions of the
                 Federal Coastal Zone ManagementAct of 1972, as amended and from the California Coastal
                 Commission under the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976.

                                                  *tatr of Glifornia
                                                      GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
                                                        SACRAMENTO 95614

                     EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
                             GOVERNOR

                     Dear Reader:

                       California's coastal land and water areas are used for many facilities that contribute to
                     the nation's energy needs. A principal goal of my administration has been to protect coastal
                     resources and also provide for these energy facilities that meet a public need.

                       Since the enactment of the California Coastal Act of 1976, the California Coastal
                     Commission has been at the forefront in dealing with a multitude of energy developments
                     proposed along the coastline. Consideration of these proposals has involved issues of
                     national importance. During the last four years, the Coastal Commission has dealt with
                     power plant siting, port master planning, energy planning in the preparation of local coastal
                     programs in 68 coastal cities and counties, and offshore petroleum exploration and
                     development.

                       This handbook is intended to share the insight of the Commission with local govern-
                     ments, energy companies seeking state approval of their development proposals, and other
                     coastal states involved in energy development. This information will be helpful to those
                     concerned with addressing this nation's pressing energy needs. The handbook also
                     demonstrates that it is clearly possible to meet those needs without despoiling our
                     natural environment.

                                                                            Sincerely,
                                                                       NW,44 @ 1@44^
                                                                           EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.
                                                                           Governor

                                                     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

                      Naomi Schwartz
                      Chairman, California Coastal Commission

                      Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director

                      L. Thomas Tobin, Manager,
                      Energy and Ocean Resources Division

                      Celia L Weaver
                      Author and Editor

                      Jody Loeffler
                      Production Manager

                      Kristin Bergstrom
                      Dena Bergstrom
                      Graphic Artists

                      Jennie D. Engel
                      Secretary

                                                                    CONTENTS

                    Introduction    ..............................................................................                   1
                    1     Power Plant Siting     ...................................................................                 3
                                The Designation Process     ...........................................................              3
                                Power Plant Siting Proceedings    ......................................................             3
                                Relation to Local Planning and Regulation     ............................................           3
                    2     Port Master Plans     .....................................................................                7
                                Port Plan Certification  ..............................................................              7
                                Appeals  ..........................................................................                  7
                                Relation to Local Planning and Regulation      ............................................          8
                    3     Local Coastal Programs        .............................................................               11
                                Different Planning Approaches     .....................................................             11
                                The Problem of Anticipating Energy Development         ....................................         13
                                Partial Solution: The Special LCP Amendment        .......................................          13
                                Evaluating LCP Amendments        ......................................................             14
                                Improving Plannning Decisions     .....................................................             14
                    4     Coastal Development Permits         ........................................................              19
                    5     Coastal Development Permit Case Studies              ...........................................          25
                                Case Study      1 :  Pipeline from OCS Platforms to Onshore Facilities      ...................     26
                                Case Study      2:   Onshore Pipeline for Processed Oil     ................................        29
                                Case Study      3:   Pipeline from Terminal to Refinery    .................................        31
                                Case Study      4:   Upgrading a Marine Terminal      .....................................         34
                                Case Study      5:   Oil and Gas Processing Facility Expansion      ..........................      36
                                Case Study      6:   Exploratory Drilling in an Onshore Pristine Area     .....................     37
                                Case Study      7:   Drilling and Production in an Urban Area     ...........................       39
                                Case Study      8:   Drilling and Production in an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area       ... 41
                                Case Study      9:   Exploratory Drilling Offshore in State Waters    ........................      43
                    6     State Participation in the Federal OCS Leasing Process             ...............................        49
                                The Federal OCS Leasing Program        .................................................            49
                                State and Local Participation in the Program     .........................................          49
                                Issues Surrounding OCS Lease Sales       ...............................................            51
                    7     State Consistency Review over OCS Energy Development                  .............................       55
                                What Is Consistency Review?     .......................................................             55
                                How OCS Consistency Review Works         ...............................................            55
                    8     OCS Consistency Review Case Studies            ...............................................            61
                                CaseStudy,*10: Challenger Minerals, Chevron, Conoco, and Texaco Plans of Exploration            ... 63
                                CaseStudyOll: A Plan of Exploration off Santa Rosa Island            .........................      67
                                CaseStudy0l2: A Plan of Exploration off Anacapa Island            ...........................       71
                                Case Study "13: Union Oil Plan of Development           ...................................         77

                     Abbreviations    ............................................................................           81
                     Bibliography   .....................................       .......................................      82
                      Appendices
                                Appendix A:-   Master Chart of Issues and Mitigation Addressed in Case Studies    .......... 85
                                Appendix B:    Coastal Act of 1976, Chapter 3     ......................................     87
                                Appendix C:    California Environmental Quality Act Permit Review and Timetable    ........  101
                                Appendix D:    California Coastal Commission Regulations for Regular Permits (Public
                                               Resources Code 13053 - 13109.6)      ...................................      103
                                Appendix E:    California Coastal Commission Regulations on OCS Federal
                                               Consistency Determination    ..........................................       123
                                               OCS Consistency Review Timetable      ..................................      131
                                               Commission Action on OCS Consistency Certifications     ..................    132

                      INTRODUCTION                                                    Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Hueneme will be
                                                                                      affected by certified port master plans. Similarly, not
                                                                                      all cities and counties will be affected by the power
                         Coastal energy facility siting and planning often            plant exclusionary designation process. All these
                      involve complex technical, environmental, and eco-              tools are presented, however, to give a comprehen-
                      nomic issues that extend beyond thejurisdiction of a            sive picture of how coastal energy development in
                      single city or county. For example, an energy                   California can be planned and controlled.
                      company may apply for a permit from a local                        The majority of the handbook consists of accounts
                      jurisdiction to construct a pipeline for transporting           of specific Coastal Commission permits and OCS
                      processed oil to a marine terminal that is outside              consistency actions which serve as case studies to
                      the local jurisdiction where the pipeline originates,           illustrate the range of issues and Coastal Act con-
                      where it would be loaded onto tankers for shipment              cerns associated with siting different types of energy
                      to yet another local jurisdiction. What are the criteria        facilities in different geographic settings. These case
                      to be used by the local Planning Commission, City               studies also highlight the conditions of approval
                      Council or Board of Supervisors to analyze such a               developed for each permit and consistency review
                      project?                                                        to address these concerns and issues. Local govern-
                         The California Coastal Act of 1976 includes                  ments can use these accounts of Commission'
                      specific policies for regulating coastal energy facility        actions over the last four years to guide their own
                      planning and siting. This handbook is based on the              decisionmaking. Case studies of Commission OCS
                      Coastal Act and is primarily intended for California            consistency actions are included to illustrate how
                      local governments with coastal development per-                 closely OCS plans must be coordinated with onshore
                      mit authority to help them deal with coastal energy             facility siting that local governments do control. In
                      development It explains what local governmen&                   fact many energy facilities sited onshore, such as
                      responsibilities are under the Coastal Act; which               pipelines and processing plants, are directly tied to
                      coastal energy facilities and activities fall under their       offshore energy development as Chapter 5 demon-
                      coastal development permit authority and which do               strates.
                      not It explains how Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)                  While the primary focus is toward local govern-
                      will be used in siting coastal energy facilities, It also       ment the handbook can be useful to others. By
                      discusses what kinds of energy facilities and activities        explaining what local government responsibilities
                      are subject to appeal under the Coastal Act and how             and authorities are, energy developers are provided
                      the Coastal Commission has dealt with similar                   with an outline of how local governments will
                      subjects in the past Finally, it explains how the               consider their development proposals. By explaining
                      Coastal Commission has handled issues where                     which local decisions on energy facilities and activi-
                      local governments are involved but have no direct               ties can be appealed to the Coastal Commission
                      permit authority                                                and what the Coastal Commission has done on
                         Thus@ the handbook focuses on the tools available            similar issues, energy developers are provided with
                      to the Coastal Commission and local governments                 some idea of the precedents and past requirements
                      with certified LCPs under the Coastal Act to plan for           placed on energy projects by the Commission. By
                      and to regulate coastal energy development both                 discussing the coastal energy development issues
                      onshore and offshore. Onshore, these tools include              California has faced and how it has handled them,
                      LCPs, port master plans, power plant designations,              other states with different legal requirements are
                      and coastal development permits. Offshore, they                 given some ideas about the concerns they might
                      include coastal development permits for develop-                consider in their review of similar developments
                      ment in State waters and tidelands, "consistency"               And, byexplaining the requirements placed on local
                      review authority over federal or private activities in          governments and the Commission, the public is
                      the coastal zone and activities on federal lands and            offered a clearer understanding of what to expect in
                      in federal waters, and State participation in the               individual governmental decisions.
                      federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing                      The handbook is organized into eight chapters,
                      process,                                                        Six of the chapters discuss different planning or
                         Some of the information in this handbook will not            regulatory tools available for managing coastal
                      be directly applicable to every local jurisdictiori. The        energy development and its applicability to local
                      Coastal Commission retains original permit authority            government regulation under the Coastal Act
                      over development in coastal waters, including tide-             (Chapters 1-4, 6-7). Chapters 5 and 8 present the
                      lands, submerged lands, and public trust lands, and             case studies for coastal development permits and
                      also retains consistency review authority over OCS              OCS consistency reviews, respectively. The handbook
                      oil and gas development activities. In addition, only           also includes a bibliography of energy-related refer-
                      local jurisdictions adjacent to the Ports of San Diego,         ences and appendices.

                                                                                  1

                                               i4t

                                                                                                           Q U

                       CHAPTER 1                                                         Once an area is designated, the Energy Commis-
                                                                                       sion cannot approve a new power plant site in that
                                                                                       area without Coastal Commission approval. The
                       POWER PLANT SITING                                              designations give the electric utilities clear direction
                                                                                       at the planning stage as to where coastal power
                         The 1976 Coastal Act and the Warren-Alquist                   plants are not appropriate under Coastal Act poli-
                       Act which established the State Energy Commis-                  cies. The Coastal Act encourages expansion of
                       sion, provide the State's approach for controlling              existing power plant sites if additional generating
                       power plant siting within the coastal zone. To                  capacity is necessary, thus protecting currently
                       simplify the approval process for siting power plants,          undeveloped coastal areas. In fact the designations
                       the California Energy Commission has been given                 cannot preclude "reasonable expansion" of the
                       overall permit authority for power plant siting through-        nineteen existing coastal power plants. The Energy
                       out the State. Other State and local agencies and               Commission staff recently completed a study on the
                       private parties can participate in the Energy Com-              feasibility of expanding the nineteen coastal power
                       mission siting procedures as intervenors, The Coast-            plants which concluded that the Coastal Commission
                       al Commission, however, has a special role in the               power plant designations do not preclude expansion
                       siting of power plants in the coastal zone. The                 at any of the existing coastal power plant sites.
                       Coastal Act [Sections 30413(b), (c), and (d)] requires          Power Plant Siting Proceedings
                       the Commission to designate specific areas of the                 In those areas of the coast that the Commission
                       coastal zone which are not suitable for siting new              does not designate, a power plant may be built
                       power plants or related facilities, and also provides           without Coastal Commission approval. However, an
                       for special Commission involvement in Energy                    area not recommended for designation may none-
                       Commission power plant siting procedures within                 theless contain valuable coastal resources, The
                       areas not designated by the Commissior-L                        Commission can protect these areas from any
                       The Designation Process                                         adverse effects of power plants through participation
                         The Coastal Commission must identify sensitive                in the Energy Commission proceedings. Section
                       resources along the coast and must designate areas              30413(d) of the CoastalAct requires theCommission
                                                                                       to provide an extensive report to the Energy Com-
                       as unsuitable for power plant siting because of                 mission on any coastal zone site proposed to be used
                       conflicts with the objectives and policies of the               for a thermal power plant or transmission lines, This
                       Coastal Act These resource designations are based               report must include proposed modifications that
                       on the potential impacts from "thermal power                    should be made to the proposed site and power plant
                       plants7 which have a generating capacity of over 50             that would mitigate any potential adverse effects on
                       megawatts and which usually cover an area from                  coastal resources. Section 25523 of the Public Re-
                       100 to 1,500 acres. Generally areas are designated              sources Code requires the Energy Commission to
                       as unsuitable because they are adjacent to or within            include in its decision onanycoastal site the provisions
                       sensitive plant and wildlife habitat areas, agricultural        recommended by the Coastal Commission in its
                       lands, or recreational areas.                                   report, unless the Energy Commission finds those
                         As required by law, the first designation process             provisions are not feasible or would result in greater
                       was completed and adopted by the Commission in                  environmental damage.
                       1978 and subsequently forwarded to the Energy
                       Commission. The adopted report defines the ap-                  Relation to Local Planning
                       proach and criteria used to implement Coastal Act               and Regulation
                       policies It also contains specific findings for each
                       section of the coast which has been designated as                 Although they do not have direct permit authority
                       unsuitable for power plant siting. All of the protected         over thermal power plants exceeding 50 megawatts
                       designated areas are displayed on 162 maps cover-               in generating capacity, local governments can affect
                       ing the entire coastal zone (see Figure 1 for overall           State decisions on power plant siting within their
                       designafions).* The designations are revised bien-              jurisdictions to a certain extent Local governments
                       nially.                                                         can recommend to the Coastal Commission sites
                                                                                       for inclusion in the protected designated areas, The
                       *Copies of the 162 designation maps are available for the cost  Coastal Commission then determines during its
                       of reproduction from the Coastal Commission's San Francisco
                       office.                                                         biennial revision if such areas warrant protection

                                                                                  3

                                           REDWOODSPARKS

                                      Humbolt
                                          Ci

                                    I" EEL RIVER DELTA
                                                                     BLANKET DESIGNATIONS
                                    4" LOST COAST

                                            LOST COAST

                                                                              Coastal zone areas designated as unsuitable
                                         I" MENDOCINO COAST                   for power plant construction

                                         Mendocino
                                                                              CCC designations adopted 9-5-78
                                             Sonorna\

                                               :'4 Mari

                                                        San Mateo
                                                            SAN MATEO-SANTA CRUZ COAST

                                                                   BIG SUR COAST

                                                                     Monterey-'-@

                                                                         San Luis
                                                                           Obispo    L.L

                                                                                               ------------
                                                                            Santa Barbara i.

                                                                                   PT. CONCEPTION
                                                                                        ...,..Ventura Los Angeles
                                                     N
                                                                                                           Omn@

                                                                                                                  San Diego
                                                                                                                  m
                                           0         50       100
                                                                       Figure 1
                                                  MILES

                             NOTE: No federal parks or other federal lands have been designated. (Not under state jurisdiction)

                                                                         4

                      from power plant siting according to the established         imposed on Commission designations around exist-
                      designation criteria. If a new or expanded power             ing sites, the land. use designations contained in the
                      plant is proposed in an area, the affected local             LCP cannot preclude reasonable expansion around
                      government can participate as an intervenor in the           existing power plant sites. Thus, permanent struc-
                      Energy Commission proceedings to evaluate the                tures which may interfere with future expansion of the
                      project Compensation for such participation is               facility would not be appropriate permitted uses.
                      available from the Energy Commission.                        The LCP can include policies to protect adjacent
                        A Local Coastal Program (LCP) also can contain             wetlands and sensitive habitat areas in accordance
                      policies to guide development in areas adjacent to           with the Coastal Act
                      existing power plants, Similar to the constraints

                                                                                5

                                                                            ov I

                                                                                                                   LIA

                                                                                                                  YF

                       CHAPTER 2                                                           Chapter 8 policy is Section 30707, which provides
                                                                                           specific standards for the design and construction
                                                                                           of new and expanded tanker terminals. These
                       PORT MASTER PLANS                                                   standards include minimizing oil spillage and risk of
                                                                                           collision, providing access to the most effective oil
                                                                                           spill containment and recovery equipment and
                          In the same manner that certified Local Coastal                  possessing onshore deballasting facilities to receive
                       Programs govern land and water uses in the coastal                  fouled ballast water. Port decisions on some projects
                       zone for 68 coastal cities and counties, certified Port             can be appealed to the Costal Commission after the
                       Master Plans govern such coastal activities within                  port plan has been certified. In considering these
                       the four established commercial port districts- the                 appeals, the Coastal Commission must apply the
                       Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, and Los Angeles,                      general coastal management policies of Chapter 3
                       and theSan DiegoUnified PortDistrict Manyenergy                     in addition to those of Chapter 8. The Commission
                       facilities are located within these port districts, The             has certified all four port master plans, except for a
                       Port of Hueneme@ for example, serves as the major                   few specific areas and issues where additional
                       service and supply base for offshore energy develop.                planning is underway. These uncertified areas will
                       ment in the Santa Barbara Channel. Long Beach                       be resubmitted to the Commission for approval as
                       and Los Angeles Ports contain large tanker terminals                amendments to the certified port master plans, Until
                       for offloading foreign and domestic oil which is                    then, theCommission retains primary permitauthority
                       refined in the area. Case Studies 1, 3, and 4,                      over the uncertified portions of the port plans. In
                       discussed in Chapter 5, describe facilities located                 certified areas of the ports, all development approved
                       within ports Considering the number and intensity                   by the port governing boards must conform with the
                       of energy, related activities in the ports, it is important         certified plan.
                       to understand how energy projects in these juris-
                       dictions are handled.                                               Appeals
                       Port Plan Cer6flcation                                                 In certified areas, the Commission retains appeal
                                                                                           authority over certain projects described in Section
                          The Coastal Commission must certify Port Master                  30715 of the Coastal Act Included are the following
                       Plans submitted by each of the four ports if it finds               specific types of energy facilities and activities: (1)
                       that the plans adequately carry out the policies of                 developments for the storage@ transmission and pro-
                       Chaptei-8 of the Coastal Act which provides specific                cessing of liquefied natural gas and crude oil in
                       policies applicable only to ports. An example of a                  quantities which would significantly impact State

                                                           PORT RISK MANAGEMEM PLANS

                               Safety and risk management are important considerations in large ports where hazardous materials
                            are handled regularly ThereforA the Commission has required the development of risk management
                            plans as a condition of certification of port master plans for hazardous liquid cargo facilities in the Ports of
                            Los Angeles and Long Beach
                               In response to this requirement these two ports, with the support of the Commission, have developed
                            plans for reducing risks within San Pedro Bay and safety siting criteria for evaluating future hazardous
                            cargo and other vulnerable facilities, Risks associated with fires and explosions, toxic gases, and hazards
                            presented to people and property in and around the ports have been analyzed through simulated
                            accidents, The ports also have developed implementation programs as part of their risk management
                            plans, which include safety standards and new regulations, procedures, and contingency plans for risk
                            management and energy project permit evaluations Upon Commission approval, the plans will become
                            part of the certified port master plans.

                                                                                   7

                       and national oil and gas supplies; (2) oil refineries;            local governments LCP.
                       and (3) petrochemical production plants.                             In addition, it is common for energy projects to
                                                                                         affect both port and city or county jurisdictions, For
                       Relation to Local Planning                                        example, a port may plan to construct a major coal
                       and Regulation                                                    export terminal that would require a coal slurry
                                                                                         pipeline to be located in an adjacent city or county.
                          Generally only those local jurisdictions adjacent              To assure that such a proposal is accommodated in
                       to the four ports will be affected by the certified port          the local jurisdiction' s LCP, both thejurisdiction and
                       master plans. It is important however, for these                  the adjacent port must become familiar with the
                       jurisdictions to be acquainted with the port plans                allowable uses in the certified port master plan and
                       and to take them into account in their LCPs and                   LCP respectively.
                       permit procedures. Forexample, areas delineated in                *Copies of these maps showing port boundaries are available for
                       certified port maps* as wetlands, estuaries, or existing          the cost of reproduction from the Coastal Commission's San
                       recreation areas are administered through the affected            Francisco office-

                                                                                     8

                                                                                           IV,
                                                                                                                          it

                     CHAPTER 3                                                          The City of Huntington Beach LUP, which
                                                                                      allows onshore oil and gas drilling in its resource
                                                                                      production land use designation, established a
                     LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS                                           siting priority for new oil-related uses within this
                                                                                      designation. New oil and gas facilities must be sited
                        An LCP, as defined by the Coastal Act includes a              according to the following priority. (1) within existing
                     local government' s Land Use Plan (LUP), zoning                  consolidated islands, (2) within new consolidated
                     ordinances, zoning district maps and, where required,            islands, (3) on existing oil parcels, (4) on new parcels
                     other implementing actions applicable to the coastal             outside the coastal zone, and (5) on new parcels
                     zone. Local governments are required to consider                 within the coastal zone. The LUP also designates
                     anticipated major energy facilities in the preparation           where energy facilities cannot continue as the future
                     of their LCPs. "Consider," however, does not mean                land use by placing an overlay over a particular
                     11 accommodate." There are four basic steps which                existing oil production area to designate the per-
                     each local government follows to formulate policies              mitted future use of this area as visitor- serving. Such
                     for areas in its LUP where there is existing or                  an overlay shows where oil production is allowed to
                     anticipated energy development                                   take place through depletion of the underground
                            �   inventory the existing energy and industrial          reservoir, but indicates that the energy facilities in
                                facility sites in the local coastal zone;             this area are inappropriate for continued use or
                                                                                      expansion. The City's Oil Code and Oil District
                            �   compile a list of anticipated projects with           provide performance standard criteria for facilities in
                                Coastal Commission, energy industry and               various zoning designations and -are the means for
                                energy agency help;                                   evaluating permit applications in detail.
                            �   determine, using Coastal Act policies, which             San Luis Obispo County uses a performance
                                existing sites are appropriate for expansion,         standard approach in its LUP and applies three
                                limitation, or removal as soon as feasible;           different levels of review before a project is approved
                                and                                                   depending on the type of facility or activity and its
                            �   develop, for new sites and unanticipated              location. The more comprehensive the review level
                                projects, a siting process to provide direction       required, the more detailed the information require-
                                to energy companies as to where to con-               ments of the applicant and the more stringent the
                                sider and where to avoid new industrial site          development standards applied to the project
                                proposals.                                               The Santa Bailbara County LUP developed a
                        Since this handbook is for local governments                  new coastal-dependent industry designation for all
                     with coastal development permit authority, it is                 existing energy facility sites. All energyrelated activ-
                     assumed that their certified LCPs include land use               ities are principally permitted uses in these desig-
                     plans and implementing ordinances adequate for                   nated areas, except thermal power plants and lique-
                     addressing new and expanding coastal energy de-                  fied natural gas (LNG) terminals which are pre-
                     velopments consistent with Coastal Act policies,                 empted from local government jurisdiction, and
                     This chapter discusses different LCP planning ap-                high voltage transmission lines which are condi-
                     proaches taken by several local governments, the                 tionally permitted in these areas. The same energy.
                     prevalent problem encountered in energy planning,                related activities may be conditionally permitted
                     and the process for amending LCPs to handle future               uses in other land use designations. The conditional
                     energy needs that cannot be currently anticipated.               use permit is discretionary and projects can be
                                                                                      denied if they do not meet applicable development
                     Different Planning Approaches                                    standards or are inappropriate with the land use
                        Generally, in areas where energy facilities already           designations The conditional use permit provides
                     exist local governments have included comprehen-                 somewhat more flexibility for an area where energy
                     sive energy policies and regulations in their LCPs.              and industrial facilities may be appropriate, but
                     These policies provide specific direction for future             where a particular facility development plan is not
                     energy facility siting. In areas where there is little or        yet precise enough to evaluate it for conformity with
                     no existing energy or industrial facilities of any kind,         the policies of the LUP. The matrix in Figure 2, which
                     the LCPs generally do not contain the level of detail            is included in the Santa Barbara County LUP, is an
                     or guidance as those for developed areas This is to              excellent way to clearly show which energy facilities
                     be expected.                                                     are allowable in particular land use designations,

                        2--82739

                                                                                                                                                          OVERLAY
                                                                          PRINCIPAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS                                          DESIGNATIONS

                                                                     Mountainous                                    Coastal     All
                                                          Agricukure Areas and       All       Rural    All Other Dependent    Other   Community Recre- Habitat   View
                          ENERGY RELATED ACTMTJES         1       11 Open Lands  Commercial Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Facilities ation Areas Corridor

                          1. Exploratory wells                    P     CUP                    CUP                    P        CUP                        CUP CUP

                          2. Onshore oil development in-          P     CUP                    CUP                    P        CUP                        CUP     CUP
                             cluding wells, pipelines, storage
                             tanks, processing facilities, and
                             truck terminals

                          3. Processing facilities for offshore                                                       P                                           CUP
                             oil development including
                             marine terminals

                          4, Thermal power plants'

                          5. LNG Terminal'

                          6. Pipelines and related        P       P       P          P,          P         P          P         P          P       CUP    CUP     CUP
                             facilities, Le., pump stations

                          7. High voltage transmission   CUP CUP        CUP        CUP         CUP        CUP       CUP        CUP       CUP              CUP
                             lines
                          8. Piers, staging areas                CUP                           CUP                    P                                           CUP

                          9. Aquaculture                         CUP    CUP                    CUP                    P         P                                 CUP

                          'County jurisdiction over power plants and LNG terminals has been preempted.

                                                         KEY
                                                            P @ permitted use as long as all standards set forth in land use plan policies are met
                                                         CUP @ requires conditional use permit

                       L  Source. Santa Barbara County LUP                                 Figure 2

                       Humboldt County, a frontier area for OCS develop,              coast In the ideal world, through comprehensive
                     ment and attendant support facilities, has handled               planning of the entire coastal zone, energy com-
                     the uncertainty of future energy and industrial                  panies would know exactly where they should pro-
                     development plans in an innovative way in its                    pose to locate any type of facility and local govern-
                     Humboldt Bay Area Plan. Similar to Huntington                    ments would know what facilities have to be con-
                     Beach, it has established a priority system for                  sidered. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that energy
                     ranking sites among the industrial land use desig-               companies are able to anticipate what facilities
                     nation which applicants must follow.'A Priority "2"              might be proposed any further than two or three
                     site cannot be used until the infeasibility of using a           years in the future. The companies involved in Outer
                     Priority "I" site is shown (see Inset).                          Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration and develop-
                         In areas with no existing energy or other industrial         ment for example, repeatedly state that it is difficult
                     facilities and where little or none is anticipated at the        to determine the types and location of facilities
                     time of LCP preparation and certification, the LUPs              which are needed onshore before offshore tracts are
                     generally designate these land areas for uses other              leased and explored Under these circumstances,
                     than coastal- dependent industrial and energy facil-             local governments cannot be expected to plan for
                     ities, Furthermore, they generally do not contain                energy facilities, particularly in areas where little or
                     standards, as found in the San Luis Obispo County                no industry currently exists. Such is the case for
                     LUP, for evaluating future proposals. However, it is             northern California cities and counties potentially
                     particularly important for LCPs in such areas to                 affected by a series of frontier OCS lease sales off
                     include provisions to analyze and process plans for              their coastlines,
                     unanticipated energy development If the LCP does
                     not include such provisions, a special section of the            Partial Solution: The Special LCP
                     Coastal Act (Section 30515) provides a mechanism                 Amendment
                     for review of major, unanticipated energy projects,                 To deal with this uncertainty and to provide for an
                     which is discussed below.                                        energy facility siting process, the Coastal Act con-
                     The Problem of Anticipating Energy                               tains a special amendment provision for major
                                                                                      energy projects (Section 30515). This amendment
                     Development                                                      process can be used only when an energy project is
                         The Coastal Act requires local governments to                proposed which meets a public need of more than
                     consider anticipated major energy facilities while               local importance and could not have been antici-
                     preparing their LCPs, The planning approaches                    pated at the time the LCP was certified An energy
                     outlined above are for determining where and what                company proposing such a project must first request
                     l,inds of energy facilities will be needed along the             the local government to amend its certified LCP.

                                                 HUMBOLDT COUNTY PRIORITY RANKING FOR
                                           COASTAL-DEPENDENT OR COASTAL-RELATED USES
                         Alternative sites shall be rated according to the following prionties.
                             Priority 1 Sites. Sites with existing facilities suitable, with minor alteration to accommodate the
                             proposed us-, or that could accommodate the proposed use through expansion
                             Priority 2 Sites: Sites requiring the construction of new facilities which do not convert wetlands,
                             Preferred sites within this category are those requiring the least site alteration (eg, dredging; grading
                             habitat modification).
                             Priority 3 Skes: Sites where the proposed use would require conversion of wetlands
                             Priority 4 Skes: Sites requiring dredging of a new deep water channet
                         The proposed use shall be located on a site with the lowest priority rating (Le, Priority I is the lowest). A
                         Priority 3 or 4 site shall be used only I the following findings can be made that the proposed use cannot
                         feasibly be accommodated in a Priority 1 or 2 site or use of Priority I or 2 sites would be more
                         environmentally damaging, to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and adverse
                         environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent f@aslble
                         Source Humboldt County Industrial Sifing Study, CoasW Energy Impact Program

                                                                                 13

                          The standard of review for amendments to LCPs                         STEP 3: Can the project meet the three tests of
                          are the policies of Chapter3 of the CoastalAct If                     Section 30260? A special provision of the Act
                          the local government refuses to submit an amend-                      Section 30260, allows additional consideration of
                          ment to its LCP for Commission action, the company                    coastal- dependent industrial facilities if they fail to
                          itself can request the Commission to do so. Thus the                  meet the other policies of Chapter 3. Under this
                          company, as well as the local government may                          section, a coastal- dependent industrial facility must
                          initiate an amendment process. This is one of only                    meet three tests in order to be permitted: (1) there
                          two cases where an LCP can be amended without                         must be no feasible* less environmentally damag-
                          local government concurrence. The other pertains                      ing location for the project (2) it must not adversely
                          to public works projects,                                             affect the public welfare, and (3) adverse environ-
                                                                                                mental effects must be mitigated to the maximum
                                                                                                extent feasible If the project fails to meet these tests,
                          Evaluating LCP Amendments                                             the project must be denied. If the project meets the
                             The Coastal Commission will evaluate LCP                           three tests, it may be approved.
                          amendment requests for qualifying energy projects
                          using the three-step process described below (see                     Improving Planning Decisions
                          Figure 3). The Commission has used this process to
                          evaluate permits and appeals before LCP certifi-                        Most LUPs and local ordinances impose require-
                          cation and to evaluate OCS consistency reviews                        ments for information which the applicant must
                          After LCP certification, the Commission will con-                     submit as part of the permit application. These
                          tinue to apply this process to LCP energy amend-                      requirements and the Commissiorf s own permit
                          ments and permits under its primary permit authority.                 requirements also apply to the LCP amendment
                          Under this three-step process, all energy projects                    requests for energy facilities. The following infor-
                          must meet the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal                    mation should be provided to determine whether
                          Act Sections 30200 through 30264.                                     Coastal Act policies are addressed in a proposed
                                                                                                project
                          STEP 1: Does the proposed project carry out the
                          policies of Chapter 3 contained in Sections 30200                          e   A plot plan of the entire area under lease or
                          through 30255 of the Coastal Act) Can conditions                               ownership, showing the relationship of pro-
                          be imposed on the project to bring it into conform-                            posed facilities (e.g., location of welf(s)) to
                          ance with these policies? If so, then the project can                          ultimate potential development
                          be approved If not the evaluation continues to Step                        9   A topographic map in sufficient detail show
                          2.                                                                             ing the relationship of proposed facilities to
                                                                                                         other buildings, structures, and/or natural
                          STEP 2: Can the project be considered a coastal-                               or artificial features, including sensitive
                          dependent use? Coastal- dependent development or                               habitats, prime agricultural lands, recrea-
                          use is that "which requires a site on, or adjacent to                          tional areas, scenic resources and archaeo-
                          the sea to be able to function at all" (Section 30101).                        logically sensitive areas within 1,000 feet of
                          Ports, commercial fishing facilities, offshore oil and                         the facility(ies). (See Coastal Commission
                          gas development and mariculture are specifically                               Interpretive Guidelines on Wetlands for
                          mentioned in the Coastal Act as coastal- dependent                             specific requirements.)
                          (Sections 30001.2; 30411), although not all activities                     e   A plan for the consolidation of facilities.
                          or facilities associated with such developments
                          would be considered coastal- dependent uses. Coastal-                      *   A phasing plan for the staging of develop,
                          dependent developments are given priority over                                 ment which indicates the anticipated time-
                          other developments on or near the shoreline (30255),                           table for project installation, completion,
                          except for agriculture which is treated equally (30222).                       and decommissioning.
                          If the project does not meet the coastal- dependent                   *The key word isfeasible@ which means able to be accomplished
                          criterion, then it must be denied If it is considered                 within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
                          coastal- dependent industrial development then                        economic, erwironmenta@ social, and technological factors
                          the evaluation proceeds to Step 3.                                    (Section 30108).

                                                                                          14

                                        EVALUATION PROCESS FOR LCP AMENDMENTS

                               1. Is project consistent with and does it carry out Sections 30200 - 30255 of Chapter 3?
                                      I
                                    YES
                                      I                                       NO
                              [APPROVALI

                                                               2. Is project coastal- dependent)

                                                                    YES

                                                                                             DENIAL

                                                               3.   is' project coastal- dependent industrial
                                                                    facility as described in Sections 30260-
                                                                    30264? May be permitted if it meets
                                                                    Sections 30261 and 30262 and the
                                                                    following three tests of 30260:

                                                                    A    Alternative locations are infeasible
                                                                         or more environmentally damaging
                                                                    B.   To do otherwise would adversely
                                                                         affect public welfare

                                                                    C.   Adverse environmental effects are
                                                                         mitigated to the maximum extent
                                                                         f
                                                                         e
                                                                           asible

                                                                       YES

                                                                 JAPPROVA                           [DENIAL
                                                                      Figure 3

                                                                            15

                               �   A plan for eliminating or substantially miti-                     An oil spill contingency plan indicating
                                   gating adverse impacts on habitat areas,                          sources, flow patterns, location and type of
                                   prime agricultural lands, recreational areas,                     cleanup equipment designation of respon-
                                   scenic resources, archaeological@y sensitive                      sibility for cleanup, disposition of wastes@
                                   sites and neighboring residents due to                            and reporting of incidents.
                                   siting, construction or operation of facilities.                  A description of fire prevention procedure&
                               �   Plans and profiles of any major grading                           Evidence of compliance with applicable air
                                   required for construction and production of                        uality regulations,
                                   the facility showing pre-project and post                         q
                                   project elevations and the amount and                         9   Local infrastructure, such as water, sewer,
                                   location of fill needed                                           fire protection, and road capacity, required
                               �   An analysis of the visibility of proposed                         to service project needs.
                                   facilities from offsite public viewing areas                  *   Procedures for the abandonment and res-
                                   and a landscape plan to minimize this                             toration of the site which shall indicate
                                   visibility@ Such landscape plans should in-                       restored contours of the land, topsoil re-
                                   clude the methods to be used for screening                        placement and revegetation upon abandon-
                                   energy facilities, such as fencing, plants,                       ment unless abandonment in- place is
                                   depression below grade, or other techniques                       determined to be less environmentally
                               � A summary description of the procedures                             damaging.
                                   for the transport and disposal of all solid
                                   and liquid wastes.

                                                                                       16

                      CHAPTER 4                                                        lands or submerged lands, or on public trust lands,
                                                                                       whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal
                                                                                       zone (Section 30519(b)). The water area of the
                      COASTAL DEVELOPMENT                                              coastal zone extends from the mean high tide line
                      PERMITS                                                          out to sea three nautical miles and also includes a
                                                                                       three-mile limit around offshore rocks and islands,
                                                                                       As with its appeal jurisdiction, the Commission's
                         The previous chapter discussed the planning and               primary permit authority is defined geographically.
                      zoning tools available to local government via the               Oil and gas drilling and production in state waters-
                      LCP. This chapter reviews the coastal development                from the shoreline out to three miles-requires a
                      permit authority available to local government once              coasta I development permit directly from the Coast-
                      its planning and zoning framework is in place, In                al Commission. Unlike the local governmerif s pri-
                      addition, it describes specific energy facilities and            mary permit authority or the Commission's permit
                      activities which wflI come under local permit authori-           appeal authority, the standard of review for any
                      ty as well as which ones will not and those energy               development which comes under the Commis-
                      facilities where permit jurisdiction will most likely be         sion's primary permit authority is Chapter 3
                      shared by the local government and the Coastal                   of the CoastalAct. TheCommission most likelywill
                      Commission.                                                      use the LCP for the area where the development is
                         Basically, there are three types of coastal develop-          proposed as a guide on local development policies.
                      ment permit authority.                                              Permit authority of local government and the
                            �  where local government has primary permit               Commission can overlap when a development
                               authority,                                              occurs in both primary permit jurisdictions. Such is
                            �  where the Coastal Commission has primary                the case for energy@related facilities which are on-
                               permit authority, and                                   shore (generally in a local government' s permit
                            �  where the Coastal Commission has permit                 jurisdiction) but which also extend seaward of the
                               appeal authority@                                       mean high tide line in, on, or over the water (in the
                                                                                       Commission's primary permit jurisdiction). Such
                         After LCP certification, local government "I                  developments include energy facilities such as
                      exercise primary coastal development permit                      marine terminals, piers, and pipelines. In these
                      authority over most development in the coastal                   cases, the local government regulates that portion
                      zone, even over certain developments not otherwise               of the facility located in its permit jurisdiction, and
                      under its general permit and planning jurisdictior-L             the Commission regulates, in a separate action, that
                      For example, proposed onshore pipelines of any                   portion of the project located in its permit juris-
                      kind in the coastal zone are "developments" under                diction. Therefore, two coastal development permits
                      the Coastal Act and would require a coastal develop,             are required for these types of energy developments
                      ment permit from a local government after LCP                       For example, in considering a proposed marine
                      certification, even if the local government does not             terminal facility, the Coastal Commission has permit
                      have or assert jurisdiction over similar develop,                authority over all terminal facilities in the coastal
                      ments in its jurisdiction outside the coastal zone.              zone before LCP certification. After the local govern-
                      The sta ndard of review for evalua ting such coastal             ment' s LCP is certified, an applicant applies to the
                      development is the local government's LCP.                       local government for a coastal development permit
                         Certain projects acted on by the local govern-                for those facilities located within its coastal zone and
                      ment are subject to appeal before the Coastal                    to the Coastal Commission for portions of those
                      Commission. As the following chart shows, projects               facilities located within the Commission's primary
                      that can be appealed are defined in terms of                     permit authority. If the terminal facilities proposed to
                      geographic areas and topical areas, such as any                  the local government are a designated use in the
                      energy facility costing over $50,000. The standard               LCP, the permit review process provided in the LCP
                      of review used by the Commission to evaluate                     implementing ordinances is conducted If the facili-
                      projects submitted on appeal is, again, the local                ties are not proposed as a designated use, the LCP
                      government's LCP.                                                amendment process is applied.
                         The Coastal Commission retains primary permit                    State environmental review is conducted under
                      authority for development proposed to be located in              the guidelines set forth in the State Permit Stream-
                      water areas in the coastal zone, including any tide-             lining Act (AB884) (see Appendix C). In general,

                                                                                 19

                                                            COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AUTHORITY

                           Jurisdiction                        Pre LCP Certification                Post LCP Certiflcation

                                                                                                    Coastal Development Permits over onshore develop.
                           Local Government                                                         ment in coastal zone, except development in tidelands,
                           Primary Authority                   General Plan Permits                 open coastal waters, submerged lands, and public trust
                                                                                                    lands,
                                                                                                    Standard of Review: LCP
                                                               Coastal Development                  Development in open coastal waters, tidelands, subm
                           Coastal Commission                  Permits                              merged lands, and public trust lands,
                           Primary Authority                   Standard of Review.-                 Standard of Review.- Chapter 3, 1976 Coastal Act
                                                               Chapter 3, 1976 Coastal              with guidance from LCP
                                                               Act

                           Coastal Commission                                                       1.  Developments between sea and first public road
                           Appeal Authority                                                             paralleling the sea, or within 300 feet of inland
                           from Local Goverhment                                                        extent of any beach, or of the sea where there is no
          C)                                                                                            beach, whichever is the greatest distance.*
                                                                                                    2.  Developments within 100 feet of any wetland
                                                                                                        estuary, stream, or within 300 feet or the top of
                                                                                                        seaward face of any coastal bluff.
                                                                                                    3.  Any development approved in a coastal county that
                                                                                                        is not designated as the principal permitted use
                                                                                                        under certified local zoning ordinance or zoning
                                                                                                        district map.
                                                                                                    4.  Any energy facility costing over $50,000.00.
                                                                                                        Standard of Review of 1: LCP and Chapter 3
                                                                                                        Public Access and Recreation Policies
                                                                                                        Standard of Review of 2, 3, 4: LCP

                              *The grounds for appeal pursuant to (1) shall be limited to: (a) development fails to provide adequate physical access of public or private commercial use
                               or interferes with such uses; (b) development fails to protect public views from any public road or from a recreational area to and along the coast (c)
                               development is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area; (d) development may significantly alter existing natural landforms; and
                               (e) development does not comply with shoreline erosion and geologic setback requirements.

                      under these guidelines, the agency with the most                 electric power plant being reviewed by the California
                      comprehensive permit authority over the project is               Energy Commission. The Warren-Alquist Energy
                      designated the " lead agency" for the Environmental              Resources Conservation and Development Act of
                      Impact Report (EIR), with other permit agencies                  1975 exempts new power plants with capacity
                      becoming "responsible agencies."                                 greater than 50 megawatts and electric transmis-
                         Multiple agency review over other types of energy             sion lines connecting such plants to the existing
                      facilities also occurs As in the pipeline example                electricity transmission system from local govern-
                      mentioned earlier, the California Public Utilities               ment permit authority, and the Coastal Act exempts
                      Commission or Federal Energy Regulatory Com-                     them from Coastal Commission permit authority
                      mission is also involved if the pipeline is a public             (Section 30264).
                      utility or a common carrier pipeline. Privately owned               Because permit jurisdictions are defined by geo-
                      pipelines require only the regular land use and                  graphic area, to specify what types of energy facilities
                      environmental permits, generally those from local                would come under local government or Com-
                      governments.                                                     mission jurisdiction is comparable to mixing apples
                         As with pipelines, all electric transmission lines            with oranges, Nevertheless, the chart on the following
                      proposed for the coastal zone are considered "de-                page shows a breakdown of energy facilities by per-
                      velopments" under the Coastal Act and the local                  mit jurisdictiori. The information is for general illus-
                      government would have coastal development permit                 tration only. The delegated permit responsibilities
                      review over them. The only exception would be                    must be decided in individual permit applications
                      electric transmission lines proposed as part of'a new            based on consultation with the Commission.

                                                                                 21

                                                           ILLUSTRATION OF PROBABLE PERMIT AUTHOR17Y                                                BOTH
                                                                                                                                              LOCAL/COASTAL
                                                                                                        LOCAL             COMMISSION            COMMISSION
                           ENERGY FACILITIES/ACTnqTIES'                                            PRIMARY PERMIT        PRIMARY PERMIT           PERMITS

                           Onshore oil and gas exploration and production, including                       X
                           wells, storage tanks@ processing facilities and truck terminals.

                           Onshore pipelines                                                               X

                           Pipeline landfalls, outfalls                                                                                               X

                           Onshore processing facilities for offshore oil                                  X

                           Marine terminals                                                                                                           X

          N)
                           Piers                                                                                                                      X

                           Onshore staging area (excluding piers)                                          X

                           Oil and gas exploration and production in State waters                                               X

                           Thermal power plants 2

                           Electric transmission lines                                                     X

                           Liquefied natural gas terminal3

                            All projects costing over $50,000 can be appealed to the Commission
                           2Energy Commission permit authority
                           3Public Utilities Commission permit authority

                                                                   ,Caw

                                                                                                                   low

                      CHAPTER 5

                      COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
                      PERMIT CASE STUDIES

                         This chapter describes the Coastal Commission's                   which raised issues of oil spillage@ proximity to
                      actions on nine coastal development permits related                   environmentally sensitive habitats, and cumu-
                      to oil and gas development The chapter begins with                    lative development impacts.
                      three case studies related to pipelines:                            As mentioned in the Introduction, onshore facili-
                         e an offshore-to- onshore pipeline, carrying OCS               ties are closely tied to offshore energy activities as
                          produced oil to onshore facilities, which raised              the first five case studies illustrate. Local govern-
                          the issues of consolidation and oil spill pro-                ments must be aware, then, of the total development
                          tection;                                                      picture.
                         9 an onshore pipeline for processed oil, which raised            Moreover, enormous differences exist among
                          concern over pipeline routing, site restoration               energy facilities and their attendant impacts. A gas
                          and provision for public access; and                          processing plant presents different problems from a
                         e an onshore pipeline connected to a port marine               tank farm; linear development such as pipelines or
                          terminal, which involved vessel traffic safety, oil           electrical transmission lines, display different char-
                          spill protection, and consolidation related to the            acteristics from facilities in single-point locations.
                          terminal.                                                     Thus, a variety of energy facilities has been selected
                         From pipelines the case studies move to.                       to demonstrate the requirements and impacts
                                                                                        associated with different facility types and the coast-
                         e the upgrading of a marine terminal subject                   al resource issues that could arise from siting these
                          only to Chapter 8 policies related to port devel-             facilities in the coastal zone. Of course, there will be
                          opment and                                                    issues common to nearly all facilities; oil spill
                         *the expansion of an oil and gas processing                    protection is a major one. Discussion of such
                          facility, which raised concern over land use                  common issues has been avoided under each case
                          compatibility, oil spill protection, and air pol-             study, unless it has led the Commission to imposing
                          lutant emissions.                                             different conditions for remedying the problen-L
                         Finally, the chapter covers four case studies                    By no means, though, do the case studies
                      dealing with oil and gas drilling and production:                 exhaust the list of issues associated with siting,
                         e exploratory drilling in an onshore pristine area,            constructing or operating different types of energy
                          which raised concern over agricultural produc-                facilities. Nor do they presume that the conditions
                          tivity, geologic hazards, and proximity to sensitive          required are either set in concrete or are the only
                          habitat areas;                                                appropriate conditions to be required Rather, permit
                         *drilling and production in an urban area, which               conditions should be viewed as an evolving process,
                          raised the issues of noise abatement and aban-                something that can respond to changing technology,
                          donment and restoration of outmoded facilities;               which, in turn, may change the siting and design
                                                                                        requirements of an energy facility. The conditions
                         &drilling and production within an environmentally             discussed in the case studies, therefore, are merely
                          sensitive habitat area; and                                   illustrative of those which can be imposed on
                         *exploratory drilling offshore in State waters,                projects to minimize certain kinds of impacts,

                                                                                  25

                                                                  PIPELINE LAY BARGE

                                                                      WELDING             WEIGHT
                              LINE-UP                                 STATIONS           COATING
                              STATION                                                    STATION

                                                         PIPE LAY BARGE

                                                                                          ARTICULATED
                                                                                             STRINGER

                                                                                         PULL-AHEAD ANCHOR LINES

                       CASE STUDY * 1: PIPELINE FROM OCS PLAT-                     project after LCP certification. The Coastal
                       FORMS TO ONSHORE FACILITIES                                 Commission would be responsible for that
                                                                                   portion of the project between the Port bound-
                         This first case study illustrates the impor-              ary and the State three mile limit The Port,
                       tance of selecting a route for a pipeline which             after certification of its Risk Management Plan,
                       will minimize or eliminate adverse environ-                 would be responsible for that portion of the
                       mental impacts. Offshore, there may be con-                 project within its jurisdiction.
                       flicts routing through seismic hazardous areas
                       or important, marine biological resources, such                In the spring of 1979, the Commission received a
                       as kelp beds, due to potential oil spillage from            coastal development permit application for con-
                       a pipeline. Routing through heavily used vessel             struction of a 16-inch diameter subsea pipeline from
                       anchorage areas also increases the risk of                  offshore production platforms to the Port of Long
                       damage to pipelines which could cause oil                   Beach. The pipeline would carry processed crude oil
                       leakage. Conditions were required in this per-              from Shell Oil Companys three OCS platforms
                       mit to minimize these risks. The conditions                 offshore Long Beach to an existing oil distribution
                       include avoiding sensitive biological areas and             pipeline network in the Port, which serves nearly all
                       heavily used anchorage areas; consolidating                 the Los Angeles area refineries.
                       facilities at eidsting sites to minimize habitat               At the time of the permit application, the Port of
                       disturbance from construction and operation                 Long Beach had not yet completed its Risk Manage-
                       activities; and providing effective oil spill con-          ment Plan (see pg. 7), and, consequently oil and
                       tingency plans and containment equipment.                   hazardous cargo transportation projects were not
                         Because this case study involves a project                permitted uses under its certified port master plari.
                       entirely within a Ports jurisdiction, the local             Thus, the Commission retained primary permit
                       government would not be responsible for issu-               review over two miles of the pipeline within the Port
                                      P
                                     'v
                     7

                       ing a coastal development permit for this                   boundary in addition to nine miles of the pipeline

                                                                              26

                                                               JET SLED STORAGE FRAME
                                                                   & HOIST DK. HOUSE
                                                                                                      DIRECTION OF BARGES

                                       PIPE BURY BARGE

                                                      HOSES TO JETS LED

                             PIPELINE TO
                                 SEA BOTTOM                          JETSLED
                                                                                              %

                       between the Port boundary and the Statds three-             recreational boats, was abandoned in favor of using
                       mile limit                                                  existing facilities within the Port of Long Beach,
                        Another six miles of the pipeline would be located         based on Commission staff comments on the pre-
                       outside the States three-mile boundary and under            liminary draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
                       federal jurisdictior-L Normally, the Commission would          Under the Coastal Act, coastal-dependent indus-
                       review this portion of the project under the federal        trial facilities are encouraged to locate or expand
                       Iconsistency' provisions (see Chapter 7), but Shell         within existing sites (Section 30260). The Act also
                       had applied for the project before the Commission's         requires oil and gas development to consolidate
                       authority for consistency review became effective.          facilities (Section 30262(b)). The offshore route of
                       Nonetheless, the entire development project includ-         the proposed pipeline, as it approached the Port
                       ing the platforms and possible siting alternatives,         land area, would parallel the existing pipeline route
                       went through extensive preliminary State agency             from the oil production islands offshore the City of
                       review coordinated by the Governor' s Office of Plan-       Long Beach on State submerged lands. The pipeline
                       ning and Research (OPR) under the Califomia                 landfall at the Port also would use an existing
                       Environmental Quality Act (CEGA) procedures.                pipeline corridor serving drilling activities offshore
                       During the review, Shell responded cooperatively to         Long BeacK Thus@ the project would make maximum
                       early agency comments. For example, with the help           feasible use of existing corridors, minimizing sub-
                       of the California Department of Fish and Game@ a            surface disruption and concentrating activities atten-
                       pipeline route was selected which avoided natural           dant to pipeline operation and maintenance.
                       and artificial offshore reefs. In response to U.S.             Moreover, the proposed pipeline could carry up
                       Coast Guard and Coastal Commission staff com-               to 70,000 barrels of oil a day. Because peak
                       ments, Shell agreed not to place any of the three           production from Shell's platforms is projected to be
                       platforms within 500 meters of the vessel traffic           24,000 barrels of oil per day, considerable excess
                       lanes, in addition; a crew boat launch and staging          capacity would be available for use by other pro-
                       area planned for Huntington Harbor, designed for            ducers in the area which would reduce the need for

                        3--82739
                                                                              27

                                          ONSHORE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION

                                 BACKFILLING

                                                     O,W_

                                                                                                                       PIPE COATING

                                                                                       LOWERING IN

                                    CLEANUP AND
                                    RESTORATION

                       additional pipelines to shore. The proposed develop,            against oil spillage. The pipeline would be buried at
                       ment,  ,therefore, represented a long-term planning             least four feet from the breakwater to the landfall. In
                       solution to San Pedro Bay OCS oil transportation                addition, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture,
                       For these reasons, the Commission found that the                one of the three platforms would be equipped to
                       project supported consolidation to the maximum                  immediately shut down the pumps which move the
                       extent feasible.                                                oil through the pipeline.
                          Because the proposed pipeline would not pass                    Shell also had an oil spill contingency plan, which
                       -through any sensitive habitat areas and there were             provides direction for Shell personnel and the
                       no existing recreational activities in the area except          industry's area oil spill cooperative, the Southern
                       the Queen Mary Hotel, the Commission found that                 California- Petroleum Contingency Organization
                       construction impacts related to pipeline installation           (SCPCO), in the event of an oil spill. However, based
                       and burial were temporary and, in this case, did not            on information in the project EIR that SCPCO
                       conflict with the existing uses or the long-term                needed more effective boom deployment capability
                       productivity of the affected marine environment                 for the mouths of the area's bays and harbors, the
                          The pipeline route, however, would pass through              Commission found this plan inadequate to protect
                       heavily used vessel anchorage areas, a concern                  coastal resources under Section 30232. Conse-
                       because many pipeline oil spills result from anchors            quently, it required that the oil spill contingency plan
                       dragging on exposed pipelines. The Commission is                be revised to improve SCPCO's capability to deploy
                       required to protect against oil spillage under Section          oil spill containment booms across the Alamitos
                       30232 of the Act thus, the Commission required that             Bay, Newport Beach Harbor, Anaheim Bay, and the
                       the pipeline be buried at least ten feet through Coast          San Gabriel and Santa Ana River mouths.
                       Guard identified anchorage areas. The permit as                    In summary, the Commission found that trans-
                       conditioned, was later amended to relocate the                  portation of the oil to shore provided for significant
                       pipeline route away from a heavily used anchorage               oil spill prevention due to its advantages over tanker-
                       area to a more northerly route with minimal anchor-             ing options, It further found that as conditioned, the
                       age usage.                                                      pipeline design, construction, and operation would
                          Shell had proposed the use of other precautions              minimize the spillage of crude oil.

                                                                                  28

                                                                                                                           CLEARING AND
                                                                                  TRENCHING                                   GRADING

                          WELDING
                                                                                                                         STRINGING
                                                       LINE UP
                                                                                       BENDING

                      CASE STUDY *2: ONSHORE PIPELINE                                  its Carpinteria processing facility to the Mobil Oil
                      FOR PROCESSED OIL                                                Company Rincon processing plant A pipeline was
                                                                                       proposed to eliminate future tankering of the oil.
                        Selecting a route that wHI minimize or elim-                   Almost six miles in length, the new pipeline would
                      inate adverse environmental impacts is equally                   connect with existing crude oil distribution pipelines
                      important for onshore pipellines. While the                      extending to the Los Angeles area refineries. The
                      Commission had approved LCP@ which allow                         pipeline would be constructed according to appli-
                      pipelines in numerous types of land use desig-                   cable codes, such as the Code of Federal Regulations,
                      nations, environmentally sensitive habitat                       and to industry standards and specifications like
                      areas, archaeological and paleontological sites,                 those of the American Petroleum Institute. Chevron
                      and seismically hazardous areas must be avoid-                   planned to install a minimum of auxiliary equipment
                      ed if possible. If not, then maximum mitigation                  because sufficient facilities existed at both Carpinteria
                      of adverse impacts must be provided. This case                   and Mobil Rincori. Pumps for driving the oils would
                      study focuses on several conditions related to                   be at the Carpinteria facility, with no intermediate
                      pipeline routing that can be used to assure site                 pumps anticipated Meters would be installed at
                      restoration, minimal disruption of visual and                    Carpinteria and at Mobil Rincon to measure the oil
                      cultural resources, and dedication or ease-                      throughput
                      ment of lands for public access. After LCP                         The width of the land required for the onshore
                                                                                       pipeline would vary according to availability and
                      certification, the local government would have                   clearance from obstacles such as power lines,
                      primary permit authority over this project.                      structures, steep terrain, and underground utilities.
                                                                                       During the construction phase, an estimated fifty
                        As part of a larger project proposal to transport              foot wide working zone would be required After
                      and process offshore oil and gas, Chevron USA, Inc.              construction, the right-of-way would be narrowed to
                      submitted a coastal development permit application               twenty-five feet or less.
                      to the South Central Coast Regional Commission                     Chevron planned to route most of the pipeline
                      for an underground ten-inch crude oil pipeline from              along the Southern Pacific Railroad roadbed and the

                                                                                 29

                         remainder along public thoroughfares, and on State                worked with the California Division of Mines and
                         or private lands. Because portions of the pipeline                Geology to develop permit conditions that imple-
                         would cross relatively undisturbed, cultivated, or                mented the Guidelines for Geologic Stability of
                         vacant land, some of which was sloped and visible to              Blufftop Development. Chevron was required to
                         the public from the beach or highway, the project                 provide final grading plans and other geotechnical
                         would affect coastal scenic and visual qualities                  reports to the Commission's Executive Director and
                         (Section 30251). The Regional Commission re-                      the State Geologist to ensure that the project met
                         quired Chevron to restore all disturbed sites to their            the requirements of Section 30253(l) and (2).
                         previous condition and approximate previous grade                 Before issuing a permit the Regional Commission
                         within three months of completing pipeline con-                   also required Chevron to submit maps of the final
                         struction. All sites previously covered with native               onshore pipeline route, including cross sections of
                         vegetation would be replanted with the same-, control             intersections with roadways, streams, and utilities
                         measures would be used to prevent erosion until                   and diagrams of the relationship to other features
                         vegetation could e    *stablish itself. In addition, the          in roadway and railroad rights-of way.
                         excavated materials would be replaced and compacted,                 The final issue raised in selecting the pipeline
                         if necessary, with none to be disposed outside of the             route concerned public access (Section 30212).
                         pipeline route, except right-of-way debris, which                 Both State and local planning programs recognized
                         would be deposited in a non-hazardous existing                    the need for lateral access in the area of the Chevron
                         landfill site.                                                    Carpinteria facility. The City of Carpinteria's General
                            The exact pipeline route to be used by Chevron                 Plan indicated a bike trail to be located in this area.
                         was subject to minor modifications due to hazards                 The Regional staff recommendation pointed out the
                         and archaeological considerations. The joint                      need for an offer to dedicate the trail corridor. Such a
                         Environmental Assessment and Environmental Im-                    dedication would be compatible with the scope of
                         pact Report (EA/EIR), developed simultaneously                    the project and the need for public access as shown
                         under California Environmental Quality Act(CEGA)                  by existing plans and patterns of public use The
                         procedures, indicated significant archaeological re-              proposed project could result in cumulative impacts
                         sources in the project area, especially in the Carpinteria        by extending the life of the existing oil and gas
                         bluffs where the site of a large Native American                  processing facility and inducing similar energy and
                         village was found Because the Coastal Act requires                industrial facilities to locate in the area. A corres-
                         protection of archaeological resources (Section                   poncling increase in vehicular traffic would detract
                         30244), the Commission required that a Native                     from the aesthetic quality of this undeveloped area.
                         American representative and an archaeologist be                   Requiring additional public access near the bluff
                         present during any further investigation along the                edge would somewhat compensate for these im-
                         onshore pipeline corridor. If any burial site was                 pacts, A bicycle path also would provide, depending
                         discovered during these investigations or during                  on exact location, additional access to service the
                         excavation, the pipeline would be rerouted to leave               pipeline@ a benefit to the applicant Thus, before
                         the site undisturbed If safety factors prevented such             issuing a permit the Regional Commission required
                         rerouting, anything unearthed from the burial site                Chevron to record an irrevocable offer to dedicate to
                         would be reburied as close to the site as possible, at            a public agency or private association an easement
                         the expense of the applicant Any reburial would                   for public access and recreational use.
                         take place under the direction of the Native American
                         American Society or the findings would be sent to                    As with most energy facilities, the Chevron on-
                         the Native American Society in the affected counties.             shore pipeline involved many difficult issues. The
                           Similarly, the EA/EIR discussed a number of                     fact that Commission staff was closely involved in
                         geologic hazards in the area. Several faults are                  defining the scope of the EA/EIR enabled Coastal
                         classified as active or potentially active and could              Act policy concerns to be addressed early in the
                         pro ce ground shaking and surface rupture Further-                process and several mitigation measures to be
                         m o@ @_Ul
                            re, the slopes of Rincon Mountain and the                      included in the EA/EIR. This reduced the time
                         coastal blq@s had experienced, and could again                    required by the Commission to process the permit
                         experience, landslides,                                           This also applies to local government once it has
                           During the EA/EIR stage, the Commission staff                   assumed coastal development permit authority.

                                                                                      30

                     CASE STUDY 03: PIPELINE FROM                                     Shell requested that the application be removed
                     TERMINAL TO REFINERY                                             from consideration pending resolution of the issues.
                                                                                      The company met with the California Air Resources
                        The third case study addresses issues raised                  Board (ARB) to consider alternatives for meeting
                     for pipeline and marine terminal facilities- air                 the agency's regulations. Meanwhile@ the Port of
                     and water quality, oil spillage, and vessel traffic              Long Beach discussed with Commission staff the
                     safety. It also demonstrates how a facility                      possibility of constructing a new marine oil terminal
                     related to the project can be subject to permit                  in the Back Channel to which the new pipeline
                     condition. Requirements in this permit to mini-                  would be connected Given the resolution of the air
                     mize these impacts include relocation and                        quality and port planning issues, Shell then requested
                     consolidation of facilities at the terminal to                   that the Commission act on its application.
                     provide better vessel traffic clearance and                         There were several advantages and disadvantages
                     maneuverability, effective operational proce-                    associated with the proposal which the Commission
                     dures for handling oil spills; periodic testing of               had to weigh in conjunction with applicable Coastal
                     terminal personnel on implementing such pro-                     Act policies The first disadvantage was the air
                     cedures; and access for terminal facility in-                    quality emission problem and the project' s incon-
                     spection.                                                        sistency. with State air quality regulations, Section
                        This case study also involves a project strad-                30253(3) of the Act requires any coastal develop,
                     dling an LCP boundary and a Port boundary.                       ment permit to be "consistent with requirements
                     Policies in both Chapters 3 and 8 of the                         imposed by an air pollution control district or the
                     Coastal Act apply. After LCP certification, the                  State Air Resources Control Board as to each
                     local government would have primary author,                      particular development" The applicant agreed with
                     ity over that portion of the project within its                  an ARB requirement to make construction contingent
                     LCP boundary and the Port, after certification                   on a completed New Source Review by the South
                     of its Risk Management Plan, would have pri-                     Coast Air Quality Management District and on all
                     mary authority over that portion within its                      requirements of the District and the ARB.
                     boundary.                                                           The major advantage of the proposed project
                                                                                      would be the consolidation of facilities, enabling
                                                                                      greater amounts of crude oil to be offloaded in the
                        The project proposed by Shell Oil Company, was                port Chapter 8 of the Act encourages existing ports
                     a 42- inch pipeline for transporting waterborne crude            to modernize and construct facilities within their
                     oil and semirrefined oil supplies from Berth 118 at              boundaries to minimize or eliminate the necessity
                     Pier E in the Port of Long Beach to Shell and Atlantic           for future dredging and filling to create new ports in
                     Richfield Company (ARCO) refineries in Los Angeles               new areas of the State (Section 30701(b)). Con-
                     County. About five miles long, the pipeline would                solidafing crude oil unloading operations with ARCO
                     cross Cerritos Channel in a 15-foot deep subter-                 at Pier E would enable Shell to accomplish several
                     ranean trench, which would be dredged to -80 feet                objectives. The combination of water depth (52-62
                     MLLW (mean- low- low-water) and backfilled to                    feet) and the increased offloading capacity created
                     approximately -65 feet MLLW after placement of the               by the new pipeline at Pier E would permit the use of
                     pipe The capacity of the new pipeline would be                   larger tankers than were currently possible at Shell's
                     large enough to allow Shell to transfer existing crude           existing facilities. Therefore, " lightering" of crude oil
                     oil operations from Mormon Island in the Port of Los             from larger to smaller tankers would no longer be
                     Angeles to Pier E in the Port of Long Beach, and to              necessary to bring the oil into the port, which would
                     share ARCOs existing marine terminal there. The                  decrease the risk of oil spills associated with such
                     project would reduce the number of tanker visits                 transfers, The Pier E site offered a further advantage
                     and total tanker time in port because the proposed               in that the approach to the terminal was safer than
                     pipeline would have the capability of offloading the             the approach to Mormon Island The entrance to
                     same amount of oil faster than tankers.                          Pier E was direct and unobstructed with one gentle
                        In March 1977, the staff recommended that the                 turn required in a wide turning basin, while access to
                     Commission deny the proposed pipeline, citing its                Mormon Island was via a four-mile-long channel
                     inconsistency with State air quality requirements                requiring several turns, passing numerous cargo
                     and its noncomformance with port planning. Before                berths, and passing beneath a highway bridge.
                     the Commission acted on the recommendation,                          Nevertheless, the use of ARCO's Pier E facility

                                                                                 31

                         would pose the risk of tanker collision and oil                equipment on ability to implement contingency
                         spillage. The Channel width at Pier E was 560 feet             plans.
                         Tankers could be brought to Berth 118 that were as               A final condition to ensure compliance with
                         wide as 175 feet Across the Channel at Pier D was a            Section 30261 (a) provided for access for inspectors
                         cargo facility the Port planned to modernize for bulk          authorized by the Commission's Executive Director
                         loading which could accommodate vessels up to                  to monitor permit conditions The State Lands
                         100 feet wide in its 35 foot depth. With vessels of            Commission employs marine oil terminal inspectors
                         these maximum widths at Piers E and D, only 285                who could be used to monitor compliance with the
                         feet remained for passing vessel maneuvering and               conditions of the permit under an agreement with
                         clearance. This was not wide enough for two vessels            that agency.
                         to pass in the Channel. Using U.S. Army Corps of                 The last issue raised in this project involved the
                         Engineers minimum standards for channel width                  method used to unload the tankers. As oil is
                         design, the widest vessel that could pass through the          unloaded, the remaining oil vapors mingle with the
                         Channel in this situation would be about 114 feet              incoming air to form a potentially explosive mixture.
                         wide, so increased use of Pier E by large tankers              It was ignition of such a mixture that destroyed the
                         could restrict vessel arrivals and departures.                 tanker Sansinena'in the Port of Los Angeles in
                           Because ARCO's terminal facilities were so inte-             December 1976, causing the death of some crew-
                         grallytiedtothe proposed pipeline, theCommission               men and property damage as far away as six miles.
                         included it in its scope of project review, thus               The Coastal Act requires new development to mini-
                         subjecting the terminal to Coastal Act policies.               mize risks to life and property in areas of high
                         Section 30261(a) of the Act specifically addresses             geologic, flood, and fire hazard (Section 30253(l)).
                         new and existing terminal facilities and provides              The Commission found that using inert gases to fill
                         standards for their design. The Commission found               the tanks as they were being unloaded would reduce
                         that the Pier E oil terminal activities were not               the formation of a potentially explosive mixture and
                         designed to minimize risks of collisions from move-            thus minimize the risk of explosion. Consequently, it
                         ment of other vessels or oil spillage. Therefore, it           required all tankers using the new pipeline to pump
                         required that several conditions be placed on the              inert gases into the oil tanks as they were being un-
                         project to address these inadequacies and to bring             loaded Tankers which did not use inert gas could still
                         the project into conformance with Section 30261 (a).           use the existing Pier E oil terminal, but they would be
                         First the Commission required the ARCO terminal                required to discharge into the less efficient existing
                         to be relocated, or that a new one be constructed, in          24-inch pipeline
                         the Pier E area which would provide greater vessel               Because the inert gas process takes gases out of
                         traffic clearance and maneuverability than at the              the tanker smokestack and puts them through a
                         existing facilities. The Commission next required              scrubber before sending them into the oil tanks,
                         that a terminal operations plan be submitted by the            there is water effluent from the scrubber. The
                         applicant or the party responsible for operating the           effluent which contains acid, would be continually
                         terminal for review and approval by the Commis-                discharged while the system was operating during
                         sion's Executive Director. All operations at the               offloading at the terminal. To ensure compliance
                         project site would have to comply with the provisions          with Section 30231 of the Act which requires that
                         of the approved manual and no oil could be                     development proposals minimize the adverse effects
                         unloaded into the pipeline until such approval had             of waste water discharges, the Commission re-
                         been received. The manual also had to comply with              quired approval from the Regional Water Quality
                         U.S. Coast Guard requirements and had to include:              Control Board or notice from the Board that no such
                         (1) specific contingency plans for catastrophic oc-            approval is required
                         currences such as explosions, fires, and earth-                  Again, this project was very complex due both to
                         quakes; (2) an oil spill contingency plan; (3) pro,            the scope of issues and to the inclusion of ancillary
                         visions for qualified pilots, tug operators, crew and          facilities. As a footnote, two years later, ARCO sub-
                         terminal personnel, and communications person-                 mit,ted a permit application to relocate the existing
                         nel; (4) the most effective equipment to prevent               tanker terminal berth and support facilities on Pier E
                         control, and clean up oil spills; (5) sufficient co-           at Berth 118 to Berth 121 in accordance with the
                         ordination with industry cooperatives and govern-              conditions of this permit This application also
                         ment agencies responsible for responding to oil                received Commission approval.
                         spills; and (6) periodic testing of personnel and

                                                                                  32

                         'n."'Ng

                       CASE STUDY *4: UPGRADING A
                       MARINE TERMINAL

                          The previous and this case study illustrate                    Although the same issue of safety and oil spillage
                       differences between the treatirrient of port-                  were involved in this project as in Case Study 03, the
                       related projects. This next case study is limited              Commission could apply only Chapter 8 policies to
                       to a terminal facility within the portJurisdiction             its review. Section 30707 of the Coastal Act addres-
                       only. Therefore, once its Risk Management                      sing new or expanded marine terminals, was not
                       Plan is certified, the Port would have primary                 applicable because the facility was not being ex-
                       permit authority over such facilities. As in the               panded. However, the more general Section 30708,
                       previous case study, the issues of vessel traffic              pertaining to all port-related developments, did
                       safety and oil spillage apply and mitigation of                apply and specified that substantial adverse environ-
                       these impacts includes the development of a                    mental impacts and traffic conflicts between vessels
                       terminal operations manual and inspector                       be minimized
                       access to the facility.                                           To conform to these standards, the Commission
                                                                                      again required the development and approval of a
                                                                                      terminal operations plan and inspector access to
                          In the summer of 1980, the Commission received              ensure that safe port operations were available and
                       an appeal of a project approved by the South Coast             would be carried out To further minimize potential
                       Regional Commission. The project proposed by the               adverse impacts to public safety, Union also agreed
                       Los Angeles Harbor Department and Union Oil                    to conform to the Los Angeles Port Risk Manage-
                       Company, would modernize terminal and storage                  ment Plan upon its completion and certification by
                       facilities which receive, store, and repump crude oil          the Commission
                       in the Port of Los Angeles via pipeline to Union's               After consulting with the U.S. Coast Guard, the
                       refinery in the area. Unlike the previous case study,          Commission decided not to require tankers to be
                       this permit application and subsequent Commission              equipped with inert gas systems to offload at the
                       review were limited to the terminal itself. The modi-          terminal, as it had in previous permits, because an
                       fications involved replacement of existing equip-              amendment to the federal tank vessels regulations
                       ment not expansion of facilities, which would allow            would accomplish the same result Effective January
                       crude oil storage at a higher temperature for easier           1980, this amendment would require all new for-
                       handling. Because the Port had not yet completed               eign and domestic crude oil and product tankers
                       its Risk Management Plan, the Commission retained              over 20,006 deadweight tons (dwt) entering U.S.
                       permit review authority over projects concerning the           ports to be fitted with inert gas systems. In addition,
                       transport and storage of oil and hazardous bulk                all existing tankers are to be fitted with these
                       cargo.                                                         systems by May 1983.

                                                                                 34

                        CASE STUDY *5: OIL A14D GAS
                        PROCESSING FACILITY EXPANSION

                           Potential increases in air emissions, tanker                 depressed grading of the facilities to reduce facility
                        traffic, and oil spill risks due to higher oil                  heights. It also required landscaping of the area.
                        production rates and difficulties with the exist-                  A major concern, of course, was protection
                        ing site location were issues of concern sur,                   against the spillage of crude oil. Because the
                        rounding expansion of an oil and gas pro-                       expansion would induce heavier oil tanker traffic
                        cessing plant in this case study. Conditions                    and the use of larger tankers due to higher production
                        required effective oil spill containment and                    rates, the risk of oil spillage would increase. More-
                        recovery equipment and contingency planning,                    over, the project' s proximity to the undeveloped
                        use of onshore pipeline, if found to be feasible,               creek area would increase the need for effective
                        to transport oil to the refinery, and air pollution             onsite oil spill containment and cleanup equipment
                        control measures required by the County Air                     and planning procedures,
                        Pollution Control District (APCD).                                 The Commission was not the only agency con-
                           After LCP certification, the local government                cerned with the impacts of this project The Santa
                        would have primary permit authority over the                    Barbara County APCD and the County Department
                        onshore facility described in this case study,                  of Environmental Resources had spent two years
                        although the plant processes oil and gas pro-                   working out conditions for the proposed develop-
                        duced offshore-                                                 ment with ARCO. These conditions would (1) im-
                                                                                        prove County air quality, including reducing sulfur
                                                                                        odors, (2) encourage use of a pipeline for transport-
                          Atlantic Richfield   Company (ARCO) owns and                  ing Santa Barbara Channel oil production to market
                        operates the Ellwood processing plant located in                and (3) enhance the immediate site environment
                        Santa Barbara County which separates and treats                 through landscaping, noise control, and depressed
                        crude oil and gas produced on the company's                     grading of the facilities. The basic premise of these
                        Platform Holly offshore in State waters. After pro-             conditions was that the allowable oil production rate
                        cessing, the oil is carried two miles by pipeline to            was a function of the air emissions: the lower the
                        the Aminoil Company storage tanks and marine term@              emissions, the greater the allowed production. Where
                        nal where it is loaded onto tankers for shipment to             applicable to coastal resources, these conditions, in
                        the Port of Long Beach.                                         the form of a county ordinance, were adopted by the
                          In early 1977, ARCO applied to the South Central              Regional Commission in its findings and conditions.
                        Coast Regional Commission for a coastal develop-                   To mitigate the adverse impacts of air pollution
                        ment permit to modify the Ellwood plant by installing           emissions and oil spillage, the Regional Commission
                        new equipment which would increase production                   required ARCO to transport its processed oil to
                        and processing capacity. The proposed project                   refineries through an onshore pipeline, if such
                        involved adding and modifying facilities at a site              pipeline was determined to be feasible. Use of the
                        already used for oil processing. Although the existing          tanker terminal facilities would cease if a pipeline
                        development was below the level of the first public             became feasible. The facilities would be subject
                        road and was heavily screened by trees and other                however, to any conditions the Commission deemed
                        vegetation, it could be seen from the shoreline and             necessary for compliance with the standards under
                        from adjacent recreation areas, Siting the new                  Section 30261 (a) of the Act
                        facilities in the same manner as the existing develop-             To further guard against oil spills, the Regional
                        ment would not protect views to and along the                   Commission limited ARCO's production to 6,500
                        ocean and scenic coastal areas or be visually                   barrels of oil per day until the company could
                        compatible with the character of the surrounding                establish the availability of the most effective feasible
                        area. Therefore, the Regional Commission required               containment and recovery equipment for oil spills,

                                                                                   36

                        CASE STUDY *6: EXPLORATORY DRILLING                               project would affect surrounding agriculture. Be-
                        IN AN ONSHORE PRISTINE AREA                                       cause it would be located in open grassland in a rural
                                                                                          area, the project also would present a potential fire
                           This case study illustrates that in coastal                    hazard. This hazard would be compounded by the
                        areas where there are no existing energy facili-                  fact that the County had a limited capability to re-
                        ties, even small energy projects can create                       spond to an oil well fire.
                        controversy. Issues associated with the project                      The proposed drill sites would not be seen from
                        were agricultural productivity, protection of                     California Highway One, the coastal scenic route,
                        scenic, archaeological and biological resour-                     although drilling activities would be partially visible
                        ces, and development near an active fault                         from the highway during the time that the portable
                        zone. Conditions to minimize the adverse im-                      drilling mast would be in place. Impacts on archaeo-
                        pacts of the project included detailed grading,                   logical resources, however, might be greater. An
                        drainage and revegetation plans, site restor,                     archaeological survey conducted within 400 acres
                        ation including the mulching and reseeding of                     of the leasehold identified several archaeological
                        topsoil removed during construction, com-                         sites The project Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
                        paction and gravel surfacing of well. pads, oil                   stated that these sites could be directly impacted by
                        spill containment berms, and construction of                      drilling wells, road grading, and building of access
                        facilities to meet earthquake safety standards.                   roads and associated features placed in their vicinities
                           After LCP certification, onshore oil and gas                      As stated earlier, the project would be sited
                        production described in the next three case                       within the watersheds of the Garcia River and
                        studies would be under local government pd-                       Lagoon Creek near wetlands on the fringes of
                        mary permit authority.                                            Hunters Lagoon and approximately two miles south-
                                                                                          east of Manchester State Park The California Depart-
                                                                                          ment of Fish and Game considered the mouth of
                           In the fall of 1979, the Commission received an                the river and the wetland areas of Hunters Lagoon to
                        appeal from a North Coast Regional Commission                     be of high resource value. Furthermore, the Calif-
                        decision approving a proposal to drill one exploratory            ornia Department of Parks and Recreation had
                        oil well and two confirmation wells on a cattle ranch             recently completed acquisiton of the parcels sur-
                        near Point Arena in Mendocino County. These                       rounding the lagoon With the exception of the
                        would be the first oil wells permitted in this scenic             coastal prairie or grassland communities, the bio-
                        rural area. Some residents were concerned that                    logical communities adjacent to the project site
                        approval of these wells would signal to the U.S.                  were diverse and relatively undisturbed, particularly
                        Department of the Interior that proposed OCS                      the wetland habitats of the rivermouth and lagoon.
                        leasing for oil development offshore Mendocino's                  Winter runoff from the project area would collect
                        coast would be acceptable. In addition, attorneys for             into two steep-sided ravines which are tributaries to
                        the Porno Indians, who have a small reservation near              Lagoon Creek During and immediately after heavy
                        the rancti, worried about the effects of oil drilling on          rains, Lagoon Creek would carry water into Hunters
                        that community and wanted strict archaeological                   Lagoon.
                        surveys before any drilling might start The California               The project site would be 5,000 feet from the San
                        Department of Fish and Game biologists were                       Andreas Fault an area of high geologic hazard. The
                        concerned about the drilling because the wells                    project EIR stated that the major potential for oil
                        would be in the watersheds of the Garcia River and                spills from seism  *ic disruption would be along pipe-
                        Hunters Lagoon, where wild swans breed Although                   lines and at the location of oil storage facilities rather
                        the mouth of the river and the lagoon were about                  than at the oil wells. The report did not contain,
                        three miles away, the Fish and Game biologists                    however, a record of seismic activity in the project
                        worried that an oil spill during the rainy season                 area to substantiate this finding.
                        might make its way through the gulches to the                        Because of the proximity of the project site to the
                        waterways, Consequently, as much controversy sur-                 San Andreas Fault to the pristine habitats of Garcia
                        rounded this small project as any large-scale facility.           River and Hunters Lagoon, and to significant archaeo-
                           Impacts from the project would include the                     logical sites, the Commission found that the risk of
                        removal of about six out of 1,500 acres of pasture-               degradation by construction activities and the hand-
                        land in the leasehold from active grazing use. In                 ling, storage, and transportation of crude oil and
                        addition, dust noise, and noxious odors from the                  other hazardous substances from the proposed

                                                                                     37

                      development warranted stringent conditions. First               The Commission further required the installation of
                      the oil produced from each permitted well was                   exhaust mufflers, sound suppressing enclosures,
                      limited to the minimum amount of oil and duration               and other noise abatement methods to reduce
                      of time necessary for testing the resource potential            noise disturbance to the maximum extent feasible.
                      of the oil field. Conversion of the exploration wells to          To restore the site, removal of all equipment
                      production wells would require a separate coastal               materials, and structures was required within ninety
                      development permit Upon completion of the testing               days of the abandonment of use. Well sites were to
                      program or abandonment of the exploratory or                    be graded within ninety days of the abandonment of
                      confirmation wells, the wells would be capped and               use. Well sites also were to be graded to contour, the
                      all equipment removed from the site in accordance               surface scarified, and reseeded with grasses. All
                      with the California Division of Oil and Gas require-            depressions, cavities, holes and other excavations
                      ments.                                                          were to be filled and packed with native earth.
                        Second regarding construction impacts, the                      Requirements to protect potential and discovered
                      Commission required the applicant to submit for                 archaeological sites were similar to those imposed
                      review and approval detailed plans, worldng drawings,           on the project described in Case Study 42. Further-
                      and construction specifications prepared by regis-              more, to ensure that the project would meet the
                      tered professional engineers showing the location of            requirements of Section 30232(l ) and 30262 of the
                      drill pads, drilling equipment storage facilities, and          Coastal Act regarding geologic hazards, the Com-
                      access roads, These plans were to include detailed              mission required a report prepared by a registered
                      grading, drainage and revegetation plans designed               structural engineer reviewing the design of all storage
                      to minimize erosion from surface runoff and to                  tank, pump, and pipeline facilities to be constructed
                      protect the vegetated slopes leading to Lagoon                  to determine how these facilities would withstand
                      Creek and the Garcia River. The applicant had to                vibrations and onsite fault displacement caused by
                      erect a fence separating the well site and access               the maximum credible earthquake for the area. The
                      roads from the surrounding pastureland and had to               report also had to specify necessary standards for fill
                      restrict all construction activity to within the fenced         compaction, containment berms, and structural ties
                      area To minimize erosion during the rainy season,               so that oil, drill fluids and chemicals would not
                      grading or other construction activity was prohibited           escape the site.
                      during the months of November through March. All                   Finally, the Commission required the preparation
                      topsoil removed by construction had to be mulched               of a fire prevention plan which would list equipment
                      and reseeded for use in site restoratiori. Access               and personnel available on the site in the event of a
                      roads and well pads were required to be compacted,              fire and the action to be taken prior to the arrival of
                      surfaced with gravel and maintained to reduce dust              an organized fire department

                                                                                 38

                      CASE STUDY 07: DRILLING AND
                      PRODUCTION IN AN URBAN AREA

                         Unlike the previous case study, the proposed                  revisions to its Oil Code under its LCP to impose
                      drilling in this case study would occur in an                    restrictions on drilling near residences, Furthermore@
                      established oil district, but in a residential                   staff from the California Office of Noise Control
                      neighborhood. Consequently, the major im-                        agreed that in order to meet established noise
                      pacts of the project were noise generation and                   standards the proposed drilling would have to be
                      visual compatibility with the surrounding area.                  prevented at night
                      Conditions limited the hours of the drilling                       After considering this issue, the Commission
                      operation, and required fencing and land-                        found that the noise from the projecfs activities had
                      scaping around the facility, and removal of                      to be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. To
                      abandoned drilling equipment and site res-                       preserve the overall quality of the environment in the
                      toration at another drill site in the area owned                 Alamitos Heights neighborhood and to protect the
                      by the applicant                                                 public health and welfare from the serious adverse
                         After LCP certification, the local govem-                     effects from the proposed drilling operations, the
                      ment would have primary permit authority over                    Commission decided to uphold the noise abate-
                      this project.                                                    ment condition imposed by the Regional Commis-
                                                                                       sion. An alternative would have been to require
                         Pan Western Petroleum Company proposed to                     insulation of all motors, well pumps, and other
                      drill two exploratory wells and to install production            noise-generating equipment although such require-
                      equipment on an existing drill site where seven                  ment would not address vehicular traffic noise.
                      production wells were currently operating in the City              Another issue considered by the Commission
                      of Long Beach. The actual drilling of the two                    was the visual impact of the project due to its
                      exploratory wells would last approximately three                 proximity to single-family residences, The existing
                      months.                                                          drill site was not landscaped and had no wall or
                         Although oil development had occurred in the                  fence around the property to block the view of heavy
                      Long Beach area for the past fifty years, the proposed           machinery, open pits, and operations at the site or to
                      exploratory drilling would be located within an                  prevent dust from the site from travelling across the
                      established neighborhood which preceded oil de-                  streets into the residential areas. The Commission
                      velopment by a few years, The Commission received                found that the visual compatibility of the site with the
                      the coastal development permit application on                    surrounding neighborhood would be greatly en-
                      appeal from Pan Western, who contested conditions                hanced if a block slumpstone fence and land-
                      imposed on the project by the South Coast Regional               scaping were installed along the perimeter of the
                      Commission. The particular condition being objec-                drill site. Planting groundcover also would decrease
                      ted to was a requirement to limit drilling to daylight           erosion and thus minimize dust to the surrounding
                      hours and to reduce noise, odors, and vibrations to a            area. The Commission further required the instal-
                      level below human perception. The Regional Com-                  lation of an automatic sprinkler system on the
                      mission found that such noise abatement would                    project site
                      make the project more compatible with the sur-                     Another drill site in the same area which also was
                      rounding residential land use.                                   owned by Pan Western but was no longer in use
                         An oil well drilling operation produces noise from            contained abandoned sumps, pits, and other debris
                      many activities, including handling drill pipe, deliver-         from past drilling activities. As part of the mitigation
                      ing equipment by large truck and drilling motors                 for approval of the exploratory drilling, the Com-
                      and pumps, The Regional Commission had received                  mission required Pan Western to remcive this equip-
                      numerous letters and a petition from nearby resi-                ment to the site where drilling was being proposed
                      dents complaining of disturbing noise from the                   and to restore the abandoned site with appropriate
                      current drilling operation, especially at night At the           groundcover and landscaping, in accordance with
                      time, the City of Long Beach was considering                     the consolidation requirements of Section 30262.

                                                                                 39

                      CASE STUDY *8: DRILLING AND PRODUC-                               formations in California The ecosystem of the area is
                      TION IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE                              unique, supporting several rare plant and a few rare
                      HABITAT AREA                                                      animal species In addition to the dune formation
                                                                                        are the Santa Maria River and adjacent flood plain
                         Although Coastal Act policies do not en-                       and a related freshwater marsK Coastal marsh
                      courage oil and gas drilling and production in                    areas such as this represent very uncommon coastal
                      environmentally sensitive habitat areas, facili-                  resources that are rapidly disappearing in California.
                      ties such as well pumps which meet the coastall-                  These small coastal marshes and lagoons play an
                      dependent industrial facifitydermition can none-                  important role in the coastal ecosystem's food
                      theless be sited in such areas even if they cannot                chain, supporting a larger number of individuals,
                      meet the resource protection policies of the                      given their relative size, than most inland habitats.
                      Act but it (1) alternative locations are infeasible               To the east of the lease are extensive agricultural
                      or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do                       lands and immediately north is more dune habitat
                      otherwise would adversely affect the public                          The Regional Commission determined that while
                      welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects                    the proposed project conflicted with the Coastal Act
                      are mitigated to the maximum extent. feasible.                    policy for the protection of sensitive habitat areas, it
                      This case study discusses expansion of an oil                     nevertheless qualified as a coastal-dependent indus-
                      and gas producing field which had been oper,                      trial facility. And because it would involve expansion
                      ating in a pristine coastal dune habitat since                    within an existing site, it was consistent \with the
                      1948. Because the proposal would result in a                      basic intent of Sections 30260 and 30262, providing
                      62 percent increase over existing develop-                        reasonable long term growth for existing coastal-
                      ment, extensive conditions were imposed to                        dependent energy facilities, Project impacts, how-
                      protect the geologic integrity and the special                    ever, would require maximum feasible mitigation
                      biological, archaeological and visual resources                      The Regional staff recommendation identified
                      found there. These conditions were largely                        particularly unique or sensitive habitat areas requir-
                      developed by the applicant's consultant who                       ing special protection: (1) the marsh area and
                      conducted an environmental assessment of                          lagoon, (2) the foredunes and beach area, and (3)
                      the area. This case study focuses on the bio-                     the willow thicket and flats vegetation. Accordingly,
                      logical and visual mitigation measures es-                        the Regional Commission limited development
                      pecially designed for the unique dunes eco-                       within willow areas to construction of necessary
                      system.                                                           roadway and pipeline corridors, prohibiting well
                         After   LCP certilfication, the local govem-                   locations or other major facilities. It required Union
                      ment would have primary permit authority over                     to employ a qualified biologist to observe final
                      this project.                                                     staked locations of facilities and roadways within the
                                                                                        area of the floral populations.
                                                                                           A major condition required revegetation enhance-
                         At the beginning of 1980, Union Oil of California              ment in areas of temporary disturbance such as
                      applied to the South Central Coast Regional Com-                  pipeline corridors and areas surrounding construc-
                      mission for a five-year expansion of oil production               don sites. Union was required to spread vegetation
                      activities on its existing lease within the designated            debris removed from the pipeline corridor during
                      Guadalupe Oil Field. Union Oil proposed installation              construction back over the surface of the corridor.
                      of drilling equipment similar to existing equipment               To guarantee compliance with this condition, the
                      within the field, which would involve thermal recovery            Regional Commission required Union either to post
                      techniques using steam injection equipment Ther-                  performance bonds or to monitor the work of the
                      mal recovery techniques are generally used to                     construction crews. To reduce the area disturbed
                      increase production in older fields such as this. The             during construction, thus increasing the rate of
                      proposa), which included drilling up to 256 wells@                revegetation, the Regional Commission limited all
                      represented ultimate development of the lease that                equipment and storage of materials to the specific
                      might not be fully implemented; the final level of                corridors under construction. As a means of mini-
                      development would depend largely on the initial                   mizing adverse impacts to the dunes, whose ridge-
                      results of the first wells.                                       tops are especially vulnerable to wind exposure and
                         Aside from the magnitude of the project the lease              man-induced disturbance, the Regional Commis-
                      area contains one of the least disturbed coastal dune             sion required Union not to construct any oil facilities

                                                                                   41

                         over or along ridge tops except for pipeline corridors           tional mitigation where required during the five-year
                         and roadways which must cross over ridge areas,                  development schedule.
                         Furthermore, the company was required to stabilize                  The proposed oil field expansion would be visible
                         the sandy ridge tops through hydromulching, netting              from public roads and recreational areas and there-
                         or other approved measures to achieve the maxi-                  fore was subject to the requirement of Section
                         mum rate of revegetation. A final component of the               30251 of the Act that new development be sub-
                         revegetation enhancement was to limit construction,              ordinate to the character of its setting. The Regional
                         to the maximum extent feasible, to after the flowering           Commission found that the project would not be
                         period of dominant floral species and before the                 consistent with this policy unless the following
                         rainy seasor-L                                                   mitigation measures were followed:
                           Consolidation of facilities also minimized impacts
                         to the dunes ecosystem. Union agreed to consoli-                        *  Siting major facilities (well pools, tanks,
                         date ten production wells in the foredune area by                          steam generators, etc.) off ridge top areas.
                         slant drilling, to locate steam injection and producing                 *  Painting facilities considered partially visible
                         wells at common wellsites and pipelines adjacent to                        a neutral background color that will signi-
                         service roads, and to concentrate steam drive gener-                       ficantly reduce their visibility.
                         ators on existing pads.                                                 *  Orienting highly visible facilities on an asy@
                            To further reduce impacts on the rare plant and                         metrical axis to the major public use area so
                         wildlife species from drilling- related activities in the                  that the smallest area of the facilities is
                         lease area, the Regional Commission imposed                                viewed
                         conditions which required (1) lining all well sumps                     9  Designing screens of appropriate material
                         with an impermeable material or using tanks; (2)                           for highly visible facilities which will blend
                         covering all sumps and facility ponds associated                           the structures into the surrounding land-
                         with the proposed project (3) appropriately dis-                           scape.
                         posing of drilling wastes, (4) covering all sand piles
                         associated with facility excavation; (5) surfacing all
                         cleared areas as soon as practicable following                      This project was the largest and most complicated
                         clearing activities; (6) grading tank areas to allow the         oil development reviewed by the Regional Com-
                         effective containment of potential oil spillage by pro-          missior-L Conditions on the project were designed to
                         posed dikes; and (7) specially constructing well                 address the maximum development in the lease
                         pads and pipelines located adjacent to marsh areas.              rather than on a permit- by- permit basis. Instead of
                         To ensure both the proper implementation of these                going before the Regional Commission for approval
                         mitigation measures and revegetation of disturbed                of site specific plans on subsequent construction
                         areas, annual surveys of areas impacted by con-                  phases within the five-year development schedule,
                         struction would be conducted by a qualified biolo-               Union could submit the plans to the Commission's
                         gist This approach allowed the application of addi-              Executive Director for administrative approval.

                                                                                     42

                       CASE STUDY *9: EXPLORATORY DRILLING                                 projects that adequate oil spill contingency planning
                       OFFSHORE IN STATE WATERS                                            and availability of oil spill containment and cleanup
                                                                                           equipment onboard the drilling vessel can be a
                                                                                           means to protect marine resources in the event of a
                          This case study was the first permit to come                     spill. Consequently, the Commission had estab-
                       before the Commission for offshore oil drilling.                    lished minimum requirements for such equipment
                       The issues of major concern were protection of                      to be located on a drill-ship or on a production
                       marine resources and nearby environmentally                         platform. The equipment was primarily designed to
                       sensitive habitats from long-term exposure to                       provide a first line of defense for a major spill or to
                       oil and from catastrophic oil spills and the                        contain and clean up small spills (see Case Study
                       cumulative impacts of oil and gas development                       1`10, Chapter 8). Because the emphasis of the
                       Ylitigation to minimize such adverse impacts                        equipment locatedonsite was to control the spill as
                       included maximum feasible oil spill contain-                        much as possible until additional resources could
                       ment and control equipment to be located                            arrive from the company responsible for the spill or
                       onsite and an onsite oil spill equipment deplor                     the oil spill cooperative, efficient oil spill equipment
                       ment exercise.                                                      deployment capability also was necessary. The
                          After LCP certification, the Commission will                     Commission found that efficient deployment was
                       retain primary permit authority over oil and gas                    particularly important at these drilling sites because
                       development in tidelands, submerged lands,                          of their proximity to environmentally sensitive habi-
                       public trust lands and open coastal watem                           tats and onshore areas, Therefore, the Commission
                                                                                           decided to conduct an unscheduled oil spill equip-
                          In the summer of 1981, Atlantic Richfield Com-                   ment deployment exercise for a simulated instan-
                       pany (ARCO) proposed to drill up to nine explora-                   taneous spill of 500 barrels of crude oil. During the
                       tory wells on State tidelands, approximately nine                   exercise, ARCO would be required to deploy all the
                       miles west of the Cityof Santa Barbara and two miles                vessels, oil recovery devices, and oil storage con-
                       offshore Goleta and Coal Oil Point (see Figure 4).                  tainers onsite and to demonstrate their operation.
                       ARCO previously had drilled several wells on the                    Other equipment and resources from the area's oil
                       parcels and had one production platform, Holly, in                  spill cooperative@ Clean Seas, would respond if
                       operation on an adjacent lease.                                     needed in accordance with ARCO's oil spill contin-
                          Drilling of the exploratory wells would take from                gency plan.
                       30-60 days per well. The limited oil and gas produced                  This permit application from ARCO to drill explor-
                       by the test would be barged to Long Beach for                       atory wells would be the first of several such permits
                       processing. Drill muds and cuttings produced by                     to come before the Commission. The State Lands
                       the drilling would be barged to a disposal site                     Commission had approved resumption of drilling
                       onshore.                                                            requests from Union for Point Conception, Shell for
                                                                                           Molino and Pierpont and currently was reviewing
                          The proposed drilling sites would be located near                requests from Texaco and ARCO/Aminoil for drilling
                       trawling areas, kelp beds, marine mammal haul out                   The Santa Barbara Channel would experience a
                       and resting areas, and two marine life refuges,                     continual increase in offshore oil development acti-
                       Goleta Slough and Devereaux Lagoon. The major                       vities, both on the Outer Continental Shelf and in
                       threats to these resources would be twofold- (1)                    Statetidelands.
                       from long-term exposure to oil due to small spills,                    Cumulative effects (Section 30105.5)* from off-
                       seeps and sewage outfalls; and (2) from short-term,                 shore oil exploration activities include air pollution,
                       catastrophic events such as an oil spill.                           oil spills@ conflict with navigating vessels and com-
                          Coal Oil Point has long been known for its                       mercial and sport fishing      -boats, demand for on-
                       naturally occurring oil seeps. These seeps could be                 shore sites for service bases, helicopter landings,
                       causing harm to local marine organisms. ARCO                        hazardous waste dumpsites to dispose of drill muds
                       agreed to contain the oil from these seeps in an                    and cuttings, and changes in marine and coastal
                       experimental program, mitigating a potential ad-                    ecosystems. Visual and noise impacts are some of
                       verse effect on marine life in the vicinity if such
                       containment was successful.                                         *The Coastal Act was recently amended to define "cumulative
                                                                                           effecf'as including incremental effects of an individual project in
                          The Commission had found in its consistency                      connection vAth effects of past projects, the effects of other
                       review of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) drilling                    current projects, and the effects of probable future projects,

                          4-82739
                                                                                     43

                                                  Yol-

                                NJ

                    the more obvious possible effects. Development                present greater threats of adverse effects,
                    and production activities also cause substantial                Because the Santa Barbara Channel area has
                    impacts, being much longer in duration and greater            supported offshore oil development since 1898,
                    in scope than exploration activities.                         much infrastructure related to offshore oil activities
                       Mitigation of these cumulative impacts is, never-          already exists, Concentration of offshore oil develop-
                    theless, possible. Careful oil spill contingency plan-        ment in areas where there is existing infrastructure
                    ning is one important measure, which is discussed             prevents impacts from spreading to "frontier" areas
                    above. Close review of proposed site locations is             where no support facilities exist This reduces indi-
                    another way to mitigate effects: sites close to               vidual and cumulative impacts to the coastal zone in
                    sensitive biological areas or vessel traffic routes           compliance with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act

                                                                             45

                                                          Gaviota

                                                                                                    City of
                                                                                                  Santa Barbara
                            Concep i'.
                                 f
                          pt.

                                                                                            Go eta
                                                                               Coal Oil Pt. .
                                                                                   Pkc-      p  c
                                                                                   308        309
                                                                                         t                                                Carpin
                                                                           AREA OF EXPLORATION

                                         SANTA                                 BARBARA
                                                                                                                       CIIA NVE

                             SAN MIGUEL
                               ISLAND                                                                                               ANACAPA
         0)                                                                                                                          ISLAND

                                                                                             SANTA    CRUZ    ISLAND

                                                             SANTA RO
                                                                     SAISLAND
                                                                                              ree  M He

                                                                e

                                                                                                                                           CAL

                                                                              0       5       10

                                                                                    MILES                     N
                                                                                  Figure 4
                                                                                                                                           CAL

                                         'XA

                      CHAPTER 6

                      STATE PARTICIPATON IN THE
                      FEDERAL OCS LEASING
                      PROCESS
                                                                                      State and Local Participation
                         Energy development beyond the State three mile               in the Program
                      limit on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is                     The 1978, OCS Lands Act Amendments signi-
                      regulated by the federal government Although the                ficantly modify the decision-making process for
                      State does not have permit authority over OCS                   lease sale activities. While responsibility for imple-
                      energy development it can influence the leasing of              menting OCS leasing procedures rests with the
                      tracts for such development through formal partici-             federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under
                      pation mandated by Congress in the federal OCS                  DOI, opportunities for State and local government
                      leasing program. This chapter explains how the                  participation exist in several steps of the process.
                      State becomes involved in the lease sale process                Public hearings are held on the OCS five-year
                      and what local government's role is in the process. It          leasing schedule, the Call for Information, the draft
                      also points out the pertinent issues in relation to the         EIS, and the Proposed Notice of Sale. In addition,
                      Coastal Act surrounding OCS lease sales.                        State and local governments can submit comments
                                                                                      on the environmental studies program including
                      The Federal OCS Leasing Program                                 specific studies, resource reports, tract selection
                         The federal OCS Lands Act requires the Depart-               and the Secretarial Issue Document (Figure 5). The
                      ment of the Interior (DOI) Secretary to develop a five-         BLM and DOI subsequently take these comments
                      year schedule for leasing areas of the OCS for oil              under advisement in determining which tracts are to
                      and gas exploration and development The basic                   be leased under a particular lease sale. Local
                      purpose of the OCS leasing program is to develop                governments can supplement the federal OCS
                      new sources of domestic petroleum production                    leasing process and assist in State OCS review by
                      The 1978 amendments to the OCS Lands Act                        providing information on coastal resources, policies
                      further require the Secretary to select the size,               and potential land uses and impacts that should be
                      timing, and location of sales in a manner that                  considered in developing and reviewing EIS& While
                      balances the potential for the discovery of oil and             they are not excluded from communicating directly
                      gas with the potential for environmental damage                 with DOI or BLK local governments also should
                      and the potential for the adverse impact on the                 submit their comments via the governor of their
                      coastal zone- This last factor must be considered in            state, to assure official consideration as a part of the
                      light of coastal management programs and the                    Governor's recommendation which must be ad-
                      laws, goals, and policies of an affected state accord-          dressed in the OCS decision-making process.
                      ing to the statute and DOI's regulations.                         Local government participation in the federal
                         On a particular sale@ DOI asks for information on            OCS leasing process should focus on these objec-
                      offshore areas that either should or should not be              tives:
                      considered for lease. In general, the oil industry                    *  increasing public awareness about OCS
                      submits information on areas which it believes may                       development and grassroots participation
                      contain oil and gas, and the State and other parties                     in the leasing process;
                      submit information on areas where oil and gas                         e  providing accurate information on local
                      development would pose unacceptable problems                             coastal resources during the preparation of
                      DO] then selects tracts for further study and consid-                    the draft EIS, and
                      eration for sale, prepares an Environmental Impact                    *  developing a position consensus on the
                      Statement (EIS) on those tracts, and holds public                        lease sale with other affected counties and
                      hearings on the EIS. After public comment a final                        cities.
                      EIS is written and, ultimately, the Secretary of the
                      Interior decides which tracts, if any, DOI will lease              There are many ways to implement these objec-

                                                                                 49

                                                                     PRE-SALE DECISIONS AND REQUIRED
                                                                     DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DOCUMENTS

                                                                                              LEASE SALE
                                                                                              SCHEDULING
                                                                                              (APPLIES TO ALL
                                                                                              LEASE SALES)
                                                                                                                       PROPOSEED. FAlo.C I'
                                                                                                                         SCHEDULE

                                                                                                TRACT
                                                                                              SELECTION
                                                    rGEOLOGICAL
                                                         AND
                                                     GEOPHYSICAL     - - -
                                                      ANALYSIS

                                                          4'
                                                      CONTINUING                                                             TTER-
                                                                                                                         GOVERNMENTAL        CONTINUING
                                                                                                                           PLANNING
                                                                                                                      I     PROGRAM
                                                                     CALLFOR
                                                                     IN 17ORMATION

                                                                                                                            REGIONAL
                                                                                                                         ENVIRONMENTAL -'JP CONTINUING
                                                                                                                             STUDIES

                                                                     TENTATIVE TRACT
                                                                     SELECTION, NOTICE
                                                                     & STATE BRIEFING

                                                                                           ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                                                              ANALYSIS

                                                                     HAZARDS

                                                               (UNDER INTERIOR REVIEW;
                                                                     SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

                                                                                              LEASE SALE
                                                                                              DECISION

                                                                     SECRETARIAL
                                                                      ISSUE    I                  a
                                                                     DOCUMENT  _j

                                                                                                  0

                                                                                                SALE

                                                                     FINAL TRACT
                                                                     L
                                                                     I G P    I
                                                                     STIN & UBLI                  I
                                                                     NOTICE OF SALE

                                                                       F=7     DOCUMENTS WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATE AND LOCAL INPUT

                                                                               ONGOING PROGRAM (INITIALLY USED FOR DECISION MAKING)
                                                                                         CF

                                                                                            Figure 5

                                                                                                  50

                      tives. For Lease Sale 53, the Coastal Commission                each affected county, and Commission staff. The
                      funded local energy planners in each affected                   Working Group provided a centralized forum in which
                      County through federal Coastal Energy Impact                    to discuss local issues and resource information
                      Program (CEIP) grants to address OCS issues in                  and general questions about the lease sale Infor-
                      their local plans, particularly the Local Coastal               mation from these discussions, together with the
                      Programs (Figure 6). Each planner followed a                    counties' written comments and recommendations,
                      common work program which included the following                were incorporated into Coastal Commission and
                      elements, largely borrowed from methodology de-                 State comments to BLM and DOI on the lease sale.
                      veloped   by the New England River Basin Com-                   Furthermore, the Working Group supplemented the
                      mission:                                                        training and knowledge of the local planners and
                                                                                      prevented isolation from one another. Similar ad
                            �   assembling local expertise and identifying            hoc groups can be formed at the local government
                                local policies relevant to OCS development            level once local public interest is stimulated
                            �   developing OCS exploration and produc-
                                bon scenarios to determine specific on-               Issues Surrounding OCS Lease Sales,
                                shore facility siting requirements;                      The Coastal Commission has generally supported
                                                                                      OCS leasing off southern California, believing that
                            �   identifying siting options for consideration          offshore oil and gas development should continue to
                                in accommodating anticipated OCS needs,               be developed in those areas of highest potential for
                                including an inventory of existing and pro-           petroleum production and where supporting infra-
                                posed enercly facilities;                             structure already exists. On the other hand, the
                            �   assessing onshore environmental impacts;              Commission and the State, through the Governor,
                            �   developing policies and mitigation strate-            have informed DOI that leasing of specific tracts
                                gies for incorporation into local zoning and          should not occur because of the risks to sensitive
                                regulatory plans; and                                 environmental resources. For example, the Com-
                                                                                      mission has objected to leases of tracts near Santa
                            �   participating in the    BLM environmental             Monica Bay and around the Santa Barbara Channel
                                assessment process.                                   Islands to protect the environmental resources of
                                                                                      these areas. Proposed lease sales off northern
                      These six elements form a logical planning pro-                 California also are inconsistent with California's
                      cedure which can be followed by local government                Coastal Management Program (CCMP) based on
                      staff for evaluating any lease sale. It should be noted,        the Coastal Act policies of consolidating industrial
                      though, that the Coastal Commission is continuing               development ensuring compatibility of develop-
                      its CEIP local government participation grants to               ment with areas of high scenic quality, preserving
                      Humboldt Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and San                  marine and coastal resources including commercial
                      Luis Obispo Counties until 1983.                                fishing, tourism, recreation, and agriculture indus-
                         Because the trend in OCS leasing appears to                  tries, and protecting against the spillage of crude oil.
                      encompass larger areas proposed for leasing, it is                 The Commission also has found that pre-lease
                      important for the affected coastal counties and cities          sale activities are subject to the CCMP and require
                      to develop a mechanism for coordinating actions                 consistency review (discussed in Chapter 7). It has
                      both among them and between them and the State.                 advised DOI that Lease Sale 53 is subject to a
                      Again, the Coastal Commission established an ad                 consistency review as provided in the federal Coastal
                      hoc Working Group for Lease Sale 53, comprised of               Zone Management Act (CZMA). DOI has asserted
                      the CEIP-funded local planners, a local government              that it need not meet the consistency provisions of
                      coordinator reporting to the Board of Supervisors in            the CZMA This legal issue is currently in litigation.

                                                                                  51

                                                                             ...         DEL
                                                                                         NORTE

                                                                                 Z%!:-@l

                                                                        . . . . . ...

                                                  EEL RIVER                                                                   FIVE BASINS
                                                          BASIN                                                                      OF
                                                                                                                            PROPOSED OCS
                                                        30 tracts -
                                                                                                                            LEASE SALE 53
                                                        0 Bbl Oil
                                               71 BiUion Cf Gas                         HUMBOLDT                  Northern and Central California
                                                                        . ... ....

                                                           POINT ARENA                           MENDOCINO
                                                                                                                         0
                                                                     BASIN                                                       MILES
                                                                    30 tracts                               j
                                                           25 Million Bbl Oil
                                                           25 Billion Cf Gas

                                                                                                        SONOMA(

                                                                   BODEGA BASIN
                                                                                8 tracts
                                                                      8 Million Bbl Oil
                                                                      8 Billion Cf Gas      ..............
                                                                                                                    RIN
                                                                                                                               SAN
                                                                                                                                FRANCISCO
                                                                                         FA

                                                                                                                                  SAN
                                                                                                                                  MATEO
                                                                         SANTA CRUZ
                                                                                           6     cts
                                                                                113 Million Bbl ii                                       SANTA
                                                                                113BUltion f as*                                         CRUZ

                                                           CALL FOR NOMINATIONS AREA
                                                           8.4 million acres
                                                                                                                                         MONTEREY

                                                           TRACT SELECTION                                                    . . . . . . . .
                                                           Each tract equals 5760 acres                                     . . . . . . . .
                                                           Total 1.3 million acres

                                              FY           STATE TIDELANDS                                                             ................
                                                           3 mile limit                                                                                         SAN
                                                                                                                                                                LU:SpO
                                                                                                                                                                OBS
                                                                                                              SANTA MARIA
                                                                                                                         BASIN
                                                           USGS Estimates of                                           115 tracts
                                                                                                                               c
                                                           Most Probable                                      402 Million Bbl Oil
                                                           Recoverable Resources                              404 Billion Cf Gas
                                                           8/79                                                                                                        SANTA
                                                                                                                                                                       BARBARA
                                                                                                                                                    . .. ....... . .
                                                           SOURCE: DOI/BLM 11/1978                        Figure 6

                                                                                                                 52

                                                       TI

                        CHAPTER 7                                                           if the state does not act within six months of
                                                                                            receiving a plan from the federal agency which, for
                        STATE CONSISTENCY REVIEW                                            OCS plans, is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). If
                                                                                            a state objects, it must give detailed reasons why it
                        OVER OCS ENERGY                                                     objects and how the project could be altered to be
                        DEVELOPMENT                                                         consistent with its coastal management program.
                                                                                            The federal Secretary of Commerce can override
                           Under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands                    that objection in matters of national security.
                        Act the State (and local government) has a role in                    Failure of a company to submit information
                        pre-leasing activities for OCS energy development                   which the Coastal Commission determines neces-
                        The Governor is the official "commenter" and it is                  sary for a complete and proper consistency review is
                        incumbent though not mandatory, on the federal                      also grounds for an objection to an OCS plar-L Based
                        government to seriously consider the State's posi-                  on inadequate information, the Commission has
                        tion in deciding which tracts are to be leased The                  objected to one development plan at the end of the
                        federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)                          six-month time period because the applicant failed
                        provides another tool, however, for Coastal Com-                    to submit requested information regarding its oil
                        mission participation in OCS activities, It is called               spill contingency plan and air quality emissions. The
                        OCS consistency review. This chapter explains                       company has since resubmitted the plan after
                        what OCS consistency review is, how it works, and                   compiling the requested data.
                        what its relevance is to local govenments.                            Although the California Coastal Management
                                                                                            Program (CCMP) was approved in November 1977,
                        What is Consistency Review?                                         the Coastal Commission could not apply the consis-
                                                                                            tency provisions until August 1978 due to litigation
                           Sections 307(c) and (d) of the CZMA provide for                  by the oil industry.* That case challenged the
                        State review of four types of federally@ related activities         National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
                        which may affect the land or water use in a state's                 (NOAA) certification of the CCMP and the consis-
                        coastal zone.                                                       tency provisions of the CZMA The Court of Appeals
                               �  federal activities directly affecting the                 held that the certification was valid and that challen-
                                  coastal zone,                                             ges to the consistency provisions were wholly spec-
                               �  federal assistance to State and local gov-                ulative and not ready for review. Subsequent to that
                                  ernments;                                                 decision affirming the Commission's CCMP, the
                               �  federally licensed and permitted activities;              Coastal Commission has processed over thirty
                                  and                                                       consistency reviews, Most plans of exploration have
                               �  federally licensed and permitted activities               been processed on an average of ten weeks from
                                  described in detail in OCS plans,                         receipt to Commission action.
                                                                                               Review of the first plan of development subject to
                           For the purposes of this handbooK             only the           the consistency provisions was accomplished within
                        fourth type of consistency review concerning OCS                    the allotted statutory period (see Appendix E).
                        development will be discussed.
                           Consistency review can only be applied by a state                How OCS Consistency Review Works
                        after its coastal management program has been                       Post Lease Sale. After an oil company purchases
                        approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
                        Then the state can review activities described in                   an offshore lease for exploration and development
                        detail in an OCS exploration or development plan                    it becomes subject to many federal and state regu-
                        which affects any land or water use in the coastal                  lations. The regulations at this post lease sale stage
                        zone. The Coastal Commission already has'deter-                     are imposed after oil companies have spent time
                        mined in its coastal management program that                        and money determining whether to explore and
                        exploratory drilling and development on the OCS                     develop the areas. These regulations tend to " miti-
                        affects the land and water uses in the StaW s coastal               gate" adverse environmental effects than to delete
                        zone. A federal permit cannot be granted for the                    inappropriate tracts, Under the Department of the
                        activity without state concurrence that the project is              Interior (DOI) "due diligence requirement" a com-
                        consistent with its federally approved coastal man-                 *American Petroleum Institute v. Knecht. 456 F. Supp 889
                        agement program. Concurrence can be presumed                        (C. D. Cal 1978), aff d 609 F. 2nd 1306 (9th Cir. 1979).

                                                                                      55

                      pany must explore a lease and file a plan of                   a Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (VTSS) or 500
                      development within five years of purchase or the               meters of a VTSS. The Commission also believes
                      lease expires.                                                 that Coast Guard approval of placement of structures
                         DOI generally imposes lease stipulations on all             near sea lanes should be subject to consistency
                      lessees (Figure 7). In Lease Sale 48, held in June             review and thus should be part of the multiple permit
                      1979, leases were sold with stipulations that require          review.
                      the lessee@ among *other stipulations, (1) to use a               The NPDES permit review falls under the CCMP
                      pipeline whenever feasible; (2) to perform archaeo-            policy of protecting water quality and marine re-
                      logical and biological surveys in areas believed to be         sources. The permit covers discharges of drilling
                      of special significance; and (3) to cover protrusions          muds and cuttings from the drillship. The Com-
                      of pipelines and other equipment on the sea floor to           mission has determined that its concurrence is
                      protect commercial trawling gear. These stipulations           required only when the discharges from the explor-
                      are supplemental to other controls called OCS                  atory drilling activities are within 1,000 meters of
                      Orders which are imposed by the USGS for all OCS               State waters. If the company includes consistency
                      oil and gas operations. OCS Orders are discussed               determinations for other OCS- related activities such
                      under Plan of Exploration.                                     as the Corps and NPDES permits, along with its
                                                                                     consistency certification for the OCS plan, the
                         Plan of Exploration. Once a company decides                 Commission can act on all activities at once
                      to drill an exploratory well on an oil or gas prospect            The federal permits can be granted only after the
                      under its lease, it must file a Plan of Exploration            company has submitted a consistency certification
                      (POE) with USGS, which includes an Environmental               for each permit activity, and after the Commission
                      Assessment Oil Spill Contingency Plan, and an                  has concurred with these certifications. The Com-
                      application to drill. After USGS accepts the POE, it           mission can impose requirements in the consis-
                      must send a copy of the POE to the Coastal                     tency concurrence with which the applicant must
                      Commission for consistency review along with                   comply. These have required the applicant to provide
                      permit applications to other federal agencies for the          certain onsite oil spill containment equipment and
                      project The POE must include a consistency certifi-            to keep the VTSS free from all structures, If the
                      cation stating that the activity is consistent and will        Commission concurs with the company's certifi-
                      be carried out in a manner consistent with the                 cation that the permit activities will be consistent
                      CCMP. Because the Commission has already deter-                with the CCMP, then all the federal permits reviewed
                      mined in the CCMP that exploratory drilling affects            can be granted. If the Commission objects, then it
                      land and water uses in the coastal zone, it now must           must support its objections by findings,
                      decide if this particular project is consistent with the          Once the company receives its consistency con-
                      CCMR To help make this consistency decision, the               currence and federal permits, it can begin drilling
                      staff sends copies of the POE to other State agencies          the exploratory well, subject to USGS Pacific Region
                      with the necessary technical expertise: State Lands            OCS Orders, OCS Orders cover, by number
                      Commission and Division of Oil and Gas (drilling                      e identification requirements for wells, drill-
                      operations), Division of Mines and Geology (geologic                    ships and platforms (1@1 I);
                      hazards), State Water Resources Control Board
                      (pollution discharges and oil spill containment                       e drilling operations, such as casing and
                      equipment), State Air Resources Board (air quality),                    cementing requirements (*2);
                      and Department of Fish and Game (effect on                            * plugging and abandoning wells (",3);
                      marine resources, oil spill contingency plan).                        e determination of well production rates (*4);
                        Under its multiple permit review procedures, the
                      Commission also encourages simultaneous review                        * production safety, including blow-out pre-
                      of the other federal permits related to the project                     vention equipment and best available and
                      when an OCS plan is submitted, namely, the U.S.                         safest technology (05);
                      Army Corps of Engineers permit for placement of                       * well completion for development operations
                      structures in navigable waters and the Environ-                         (16);
                      mental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant
                      Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit                           * pollution prevention and control, including
                      The Commission has interpreted its review of the                        discharges of solids, makeup of drilling
                      Corps permit to be limited to activities located within                 muds, and oil spill contingency plans (*7);

                                                                                56

                                          1, POST LEASE SALE

                                             (A) Company gets lease subject to                                    HOW OCS CONSISTENCY REVIEW WORKS
                                                  lease stipulations

                                          IL OCS EXPLORATION
                                          (B)  Company submits plan of explor@
                                               ation to:
                                               (1)  USGS for drilling permit
                                               (2)  Corps for navigational safety                                                                                                         (E)  Drilling begins, subject to:
                                                    permit
                                               (3)  EPA for NPDES permit for                                                                 (D) USGS Permit Corps,                            (I) PaCifiC OCS Orders
                                                                                                      (C) CCC Consistency                                                                      (2) USGS onsite inspections
                                                    muds and cuttings discharges                            Concurrence                           EPA permits,
                                               (4)  Coast Guard for review if near                                                                Coast Guard approval                         (3) EPA Corps permit condi-
                                                    or within VTSS                                                                                                                                 tions
                                               (5)  Co astal Commission for con.                                                                                                               (4) CCC Consistency provisions
                                                    si,tenq Review
                                                    (a) CC  sends to state agen-
                                                       cies for review

                                                                                                  (G)  Company submits permit apphca-
                                                                                                       tions for POD-related facilities
                                                                                                       onshore & in state waters to:
                                                                                                       @1@ Local government
                                                                                                        2   Local government with certi-
                                                                                                            fied LCP and/or CCC for
                                                                                                            cc astal development permit
                                                                                                       (3)  Ot@er state agencies
                                             111. OCS DEVELOPMENT
                                             (F)  Company submits Plan of
                                                  Devel ment to:
                                                       OES for development
                                                  1)   U                                                                                                            (1) USGS Permit Corps,
                                                       permit                                                                                                             EPA permits,
                                                  (2)  Corps for navigational                                                                                             Coast Guard approval
                                                       safety permit                                                    ronmental assessment
                                                  (3)  EPA for NPDES permit                                             rnment begins CEQA
                                                  (4)  Coast Guard for review
                                                       if near or within VTSS                                           1/state/]ocal review
                                                  (5)  Other federal agencies
                                                       where applicable                                                                                                   (K) Local/State
                                                  (6)  Coastal Commission                                                                                                    permits
                                                       for consistency review
                                                       (a) CCC sends to state
                                                          agencies for review
                                                       (b) CCC sends to local
                                                          government for                                 (1) CCC Consistency                                                                                   I
                                                          review                           L+                 Concurrence

                                                                                                                                                                                          (L)  Development and production begins,
                                                                                                                                                                                               S bject to:
                                                                                                                                                                                               (1) Pacific OCS orders
                                                                                                                                                                                               (2) USGS onsite inspections
                                                                                                                                                                                               (3) EPA, Corps permit conditions
                                                                                                                                                                                               (4) Other federal agency permit
                                                                                                                                                                                                   con ditions
                                                                                                                                                                                               (5) CCC consistency provisions
                                                                                                                                                                                               (6) Coastal Development permit
                                                                                                                                                                                                   conditions
                                                                                                                                                                                               (7) Other State/Local permit
                                                                                                                                                                                                   conditions
                                               POST    LEASE I

                                                       Party gets
                                     (A) FCo-
                                                  ease stipult.,

                                                                                                                                          J
                                                                                                                                             m:
                                                                                                                                           6A

                                                                                                                                          w

                                                                                                                              Figum 7

                                                                                                                                      57

                              �  operating procedures for new platforms                  The staff of the Commission sends copies of the
                                 (18);                                                POD to other State agencies with the necessary
                              �  oil and gas pipeline safety and environ-             technical expertise: State Lands Commission and
                                 mental protection (`@'9);                            Division of Oil and Gas (drilling operations), Division
                                                                                      of Mines and Geology (geologic hazards), State
                              �  oil and gas production rates to prevent              Water Resources Control Board (pollution dischar-
                                 waste of resources (0 11);                           ges and oil spill containment equipment), Depart-
                              �  public inspection of records (only non-              ment of Fish and Game (effect on marine resources
                                 proprietary data) (012);                             and oil spill contingency plan), Department of Parks
                                                                                      and Recreation, and the State Air Resources Board
                              �  production measurement and comingling                (air quality). In addition to these State agencies, the
                                 (013); and                                           Commission sends copies of the POD to the
                              �  approval of suspension of operations (0 14).         affected local governments for review and comment
                                                                                      including the local Air Pollution, Control Districts
                          Orders 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 deal with the                (APCDs).
                       development phase.                                                The Commission's consistency review of a
                          Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act                 POD can focus only on activities on the OCS, such
                       Amendments of 1978, DOI has some regulatory                    as platform placement or can include associated
                       authority over OCS air emissions. These regulations            onshore facilities such as a processing plant or
                       are of great concern to California because the                 pipeline. Because a coastal development permit is
                       offshore wind patterns bring air pollutant emissions           required for any coastal zone facilities, and infor-
                       from OCS operations to the onshore areas. The Los              mation on onshore facilities is more general in
                       Angeles Basin in particular already has severe                 consistency certification than that required by a
                       problems in meeting air quality standards, The                 permit application, the Commission has limited its
                       scope of the Statds authority over air discharges              consistency review to activities on the OCS with
                       from the OCS under the Clean Air Act is in litigation.         general policy guidance to a company for onshore
                          The USGS regularly inspects the OCS operations              development facilities. This policy by the Com-
                       to ensure compliance with regulations and orders,              mission also aids the preparation or implementation
                       The Coastal Commission has worked with USGS to                 of a Local Coastal Program. A discussion of this
                       include surveys of compliance with consistency                 policy is included in Case Study 1"13 in the next
                       requirements such as onsite oil spill containment              chapter.
                       and cleanup equipment                                             If the Commission has concurred with all the
                                                                                      USGS, Corps, and EPA permit activities, then these
                          Plan of Development Following the discovery                 federal agencies can issue the permit However, in a
                       of an oil and gas field, the company's Plan of                 POD, the USGS first prepares a lengthy Environ-
                       Development (POD) proceeds in much the same                    mental Assessment taking several months to a year
                       way as a POE in determining its consistency with the           to complete. In the past the State and USGS have
                       CCMP. However, the State and local governments                 joined efforts to prepare a combined Environmental
                       also have permit authority for the support facilities          Assessment/EIR to analyze impacts on both the
                       proposed in the coastal zone.                                  OCS and State environments where onshore facil!
                          First the company submits a POD to USGS to                  ties are included in the POD and where the environ-
                       develop and produce from an oil or gas field dis-              mental review period would be shortened. The
                       covered during exploratory drilling. As with the POE,          Governor's Office of Planning and Research coordi-
                       the POD includes an Environmental Assessment                   nates the many agencies involved in permit review at
                       Oil Spill Contingency Plan, drilling and production            this stage. It should be noted that consistency
                       program and permit applications to USGS to drill               review usually occurs before local permit approval
                       and lay gathering lines. Once USGS accepts the                 including coastal development permits.
                       POD, it sends a copy of the POD to the Coastal                    Once the company receives its federal, state, and
                       Commission for consistency review. The company                 local permits, it may begin its development activities,
                       must prepare a more extensive consistency certifi-             again subject to OCS Orders, applicable lease stipu-
                       cation due to the scope and duration of the develop-           lations and any special conditions imposed on this
                       ment phase. Many more Coastal Act policies will be             particular Plan of Development USGS also conducts
                       involved, such as industrial development and public            regular inspections of the operation to assure com-
                       access, if a coastal zone facility is proposed                 pliance with its regulations.

                                                                                 58

                 5--W39

                                                                  t..   nception
                                                                                 - - - - - - - Le
                                                                                      Three Mil
                                                                                                                                          Santa Barbara

                                                                                               I

                                                                                                                                                                                        Ventu

                                                                                                                              Santa Cruz Island
            0
                                                                                               Sa ta Rosa island

                                                                                                                                     Linlit

                                                                                                  ThtCe
                                                                                                         1 A

                                                   CONSISTENCY REVIEWS

                                                         1978

                                                         1979

                                                         1980                                      0                10               20
                                                                                                                     I               i                                         N
                                                    01981                                                         MILES                      Figure 8
                                                         PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT

                     CHAPTER 8

                     OCS CONSISTENCY REVIEW
                     CASE STUDIES

                        This chapter explores four examples of Coastal                  Outer Continental Shelf activity in the Santa
                     Commission actions under the consistency pro-                    Barbara Channel represents the conflicts inherent
                     visions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)                between development and resource preservation.
                     related   to oil and gas development offshore in a               The Channel ranks high in oil and gas resource
                     known resource area, the Santa Barbara Channel:-                 potential as demonstrated by its inclusion in OCS
                                                                                      Lease Sales35,48,53, and68. Offshore oil andgas
                            �  five OCS plans of exploration which raised             drilling and production has occurred in the Channel
                               concern over the adequacy of oil spill con-            since the 1950s. On the other hand, the northern
                               tainment and cleanup equipment onsite;                 Channel Islands are one of the last pristine environ-
                                                                                      ments left in California, and they serve as breeding
                            �  a Chevron OCS plan of exploration which                and resting grounds for seabirds and marine
                               proposed drilling within six nautical miles of         mammals.
                               Santa Rosa Island and raised concern over                Two of the consistency case studies illustrate the
                               marine mammal and sensitive habitat pro-               Coastal Commission's process for considering the
                               tection;                                               national interest as specified by the CZMA and the
                            �  another Chevron plan of exploration which              policies of the Coastal Act In Cast Study 011, the
                               proposed drilling within six nautical miles of         exploration of oil resources was authorized because
                               a sensitive habitat area and within the buffer         alternative locations were infeasible and appropriate
                               zone of a vessel traffic lane posing safety            mitigation measures could substantially reduce the
                               problems; and                                          adverse environmental effects On the other hand, in
                                                                                      Case Study * 12, the protection of marine species
                            �  a Union Oil plan of development for a plat-            outweighed exploration because the adverse im-
                               form in eastern Santa Barbara Channel,                 pacts on the marine resources could not be lessened
                               which involved consideration of the scope              by mitigation measures and the proposed drilling
                               of consistency review as related to onshore            was not essential to productivity or development of
                               processing facilities,                                 an oil field.

                                                                                61

                            DRILL SHIP

                          CASE STUDY*10: CHALLENGER MINERALS,                                                  Channel's variable wind patterns, circular currents,
                          CHEVRON, CONOCO, AND TEXACO PLANS                                                    and remote location, however, oil spillage and
                          OF EXPLORATION                                                                       response to an oil spill were a concern.
                                                                                                                  The areas in the Channel most sensitive to oil
                                                                                                               spill effects are the breeding areas of marine mam-
                               Regardless of the precautions taken against                                     mals and seabirds on the offshore islands. Other
                          well blowouts and resulting spills of crude oil in                                   valuable but less sensitive areas include kelp beds,
                          the open ocean, the state-of-the-art in oil spill                                    open water fishing areas, rocky intertidal coastline,
                          control equipment cannot effectively contain                                         and boat harbom Any coastal area, including sandy
                          spills in high seas conditions. The Commission                                       beaches, can be damaged by oil spills for a period of
                          has addressed this problem on numerous oc-                                           time. Because of the changing wind patterns and
                          casions and has developed standards to be                                            currents and the number of days an intact spill can
                          included for onsite equipment to provide a first                                     stay on the water, a spill from any location in the
                          line of defense for oil spills in OCS plans of                                       Channel area can affect sensitive areas. Based on
                          exploration and development When the fol-                                            the results of the Bureau of Land Management
                          lowing plans of exploration (POEs) were sub-                                         (BLM) computer simulations of oil spill paths from
                          mitted for consistency certification, the Com-                                       different locations, the Inset shows the percentage
                          mission decided to review the adequacy of                                            of spills from each POE area that would hit the
                          these requirements to ensure that such equip-                                        offshore islands within three days under the worst
                          ment could control spills, as mandated by the                                        case assumptions. Spills from all locations generally
                          Coastal Act                                                                          would travel offshore. The worst cases show about @
                                                                                                               32 percent chance that spills from west of Point
                              In the summer of 1980, the Commission re-                                        Conception would hit San Miguel Island, a breeding
                          viewed five OCS plans of exploration for consistency                                 area for several marine mammal species.
                          determinations. These plans were submitted by four                                      The companies submitting the five POEs agreed
                          different oil companies. The five OCS parcels in the                                 to have the same onsite oil spill containment
                          Santa Barbara Channel subject to exploration were                                    equipment which the Commission required of fifteen
                          not located in an area close to marine wildlife                                      previous POEs: (1) 1,500 feet of open ocean oil spill
                          breeding areas (Figure 9). Because of the western                                    containment boom, (2) one oil skimming device

                                          OIL SPILL TRAJECTORIES FOR THE FWE PLANS OF EXPLORATION

                                        Probabilities (in percent) that an oil spill starting at the approximate location of each Plan of Exploration will
                                        reach certain land areas Mthin 3 days

                                        1.    CC-8-80 Lease Parcel 215, 7-8 miles southwest of Ventura
                                              If spill occurs:                 Santa Cruz Island                      9%
                                                                               Anacapa Island                       21%
                                        2.    CC-9-80 Lease Parcel 324, 7- 10 miles southwest of Point Conception
                                              If spill occurs:                 San Miguel Island                    32%
                                                                               Santa Rosa Island                    15%
                                        3.    CC-10-00 Lease Parcel 315, 10 miles west of Point Conception
                                              If spill occurs.                 San Miguel Island                    18%
                                                                               Santa Rosa Island                      1%
                                        4.    CC- I 1 -80 Lease Parcel 248, 16 miles south of Santa Cruz Island
                                              If spill occurs:                 San Nicholas Island                    7%
                                                                               Begg Rock                              2%
                                        5.    CC-12-80 Lease Parcel 325, 5 miles southwest of Point Conception
                                              If spill occurs.                 San Miguel Island                    32%
                                                                               Santa Rosa Island                    15%

                                                                                                        63

                                    TEXACO

                                    CC'10

                                                                                    Thlee   Mile
                                                                            0      77-             1 it-                              Santa Barbara
                                        HE RO                       CONOC
                                          C6-9                   Ol   CCI-12-

                                                                                D  U IF
                                                                  allta                  ala               a 12

                                                                                                                                                      HE  IRO
                                                                                                                                                        CC-8-

                                                                                                                                                                       d
                                                                   San Miguei'islan@                                                                       Ana a,.    n
                                                                                                                                          d                 I         q
                                                                                                                            Santa Cruz Islan
                                                                                           Santa Rosa Island

                                                                                                                                            t

                                                                                                                           ile

                                                                                              Three
                                                                                                                   CHALLENGER
                                                                                                                     MINERALS I

                                           N                                                                             CC-11

                                                                                                          10             20
                                      Figure 9                                                            1
                                            I
                                             7ON                   -C
                                            V
                                             R @ @a

                                                                   s-

                                                                                                        MILES

                        capable of open ocean use, (3) fifteen bales of oil                    deploying the boom to contain the spill.
                        sorbent material; and (4) a boat capable of deployw                     But even in a small spill of 238 barrels, recovery of
                        ing the oil spill boom on the site at all times or within              the oil would probably require two additional work-
                        fifteen minutes of the drilling vessel. The Commission                 boats and a skimmer capable of collecting that
                        allows the onsite boat to seek safe harbor if seas                     much oil within several hours after arrival on the
                        exceed six feet though, both because of the diffi-                     scene. Thus the second line of defense entails a
                        culty in maintaining these boats onsite under high                     speedy backup system. Oil companies operating
                        wave conditions and the drastically reduced effici-                    offshore belong to oil spill cooperatives which have
                        ency of oil spill equipment in seas over six feet                      equipment capable of handling large offshore spills.
                           This equipment however, cannot provide effective                    It is essential that cooperative equipment and per-
                        containment and cleanup under adverse weather                          sonnel be strategically located for rapid assistance,
                        conditions such as high wind and waves. Rather, the                    should that assistance be required.
                        standards for onsite equipment are designed to                          The Commission found in September 1980 that
                        provide a first line of defense for a major spill or to                the oil spill containment and cleanup equipment as
                        contain and cleanup small spills that may occur.                       specified in the proposed POEs again provided
                        The equipment must be able to surround the largest                     1. maximum feasible mitigation at this time" and,
                        area possible within a short period of time. If the                    therefore, concurred with the consistency certifi-
                        equipment is too large or difficult to handle, its                     cations of Chevron, Texaco, Challenger, and Conoco.
                        purpose is defeated For instance, logistical prob-                     Concurrence by the Commission, however, was not
                        lems with deployment of oil spill containment boom                     an indication of satisfaction with the degree of pro-
                        in excess of 1,500 feet would lengthen deployment                      tection afforded coastal resources by the oil spill
                        time and decrease the effectiveness of onsite equip-                   containment and cleanup equipment referenced in
                        ment "Speed of response is critical to the success                     these plans of exploration.
                        of such efforts, because oil slicks are thickest                        Current studies iunded by the Commission are
                        immediately after the spill occurs and thus most                       reviewing existing oil spill equipment and cleanup
                        easily contained and removed; water-soluble toxic                      capabilities along the California coast (see Inset).
                        hydrocarbons have not yet been released from the                       The study may indicate the need to upgrade and
                        slick in large quantities, and the slick has less time to              increase standards for both onsite and onshore oil
                        spred or move toward shore." The Commission                            spill cleanup and containment capabilities and will
                        staff has found that 1,500 feet of boom could be                       be used in future consistency determinations.
                        sufficient to contain a small slick in calm waters if the
                        boom is in place within one hour after the spill.                      *The Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Offshore Oil
                        Therefore, the emphasis for first line defense is on                   and Ga4 1977.

                                                                                        65

                                                    OIL SPILL RESPONSE CAPABILITY STUDY

                            Background
                               In January 1969, an offshore well in the Santa Barbara Channel blew out and released 33,000 barrels
                            of crude oil. In January 1971, the tankers, Oregon Standard and Arizona Standard, collided near the
                            Golden Gate Bridge and spilled 20,000 barrels of Bunker C oil into the San Franicsco Bay. In December
                            of 1976, the tanker, Sansinena, blew up in Los Angeles Harbor, spilling 22,000 barrels of Bunker C oil.
                            While spills of this magnitude are infrequent their expected incidence can be statistically predicted.
                            From the data available, the Pacific Region OCS Office of the Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM) has
                            computed projected oil spill accident rates for operations in the Lease Sale 48 (Santa Barbara Channel)
                            and 53 (Point Conception to the Oregon border) areas, These rates (number of spills of 1,000 barrels or
                            more per billion barrels of oil handled) were applied to quantities of oil expected to be produced,
                            pipellned, and tankered in the lease sale areas over the approximately 20-year life of the fields, In Lease
                            Sale 48, five spills of 1,000 barrels or more are predicted.
                               Both history and predictions show the necessity of having adequate response capability to oil spills.
                            The oil companies have joined together to form oil spill cooperatives which provide personnel,
                            equipment and plans for response to oil spills. These cooperatives will provide assistance to member
                            companies, and on a contractual basis, to non-member companies and the U.S. Coast Guar& The
                            Coastal Commission review of individual oil projects covers oil spill equipmentand procedures atthe site
                            of oil operations, as well as the oil spill cooperatives. However, these reviews do not include comprehen-
                            sive st'udies of the cooperative capabilities It is essential, under the Coastal Act, for the Commission to
                            assure that these cooperatives can provide the maximum feasible response capability to oil spills.

                            Study Program
                               InMarch1980, the Commission obtained federal assistance from the Coastal Energy Impact Program
                            (CEIP) to study oil spill response and to make recommendations for improvement if necessary. The
                            study seeks to determine the adequacy of the spill cleanup response on the California coast with an em-
                            phasis on the live major oil spill cleanup cooperatives, Phase I of this study concentrates on Clean Seas Oil
                            Spill Cooperative in Santa Barbara as a pilot sk*, because most of the California offshore oil development
                            currently takes place along this portion of the coast This phase assesses Clean Seas oil spill containment
                            and cleanup equipment and the wind and wave conditions affecting its deployment and use. It reviews
                            the planning of the Cooperative, as well as federat state@ and local planning efforts. Phase H of the study
                            uses this same method to concurrently evaluate the other four California cooperatives: Southern
                            California Petroleum Contingency Organization and Clean Coastal Waters (Los Angeles), Clean Bay
                            (San Francisco), and the Humboldt Bay Oil Spill Cooperative. From the results of the study, the
                            Commission will recommend standards on equipment and planning techniques to be implemented
                            voluntarily by industry or government or through future permits and federal consistency determinations@
                            or both.

                                                                                     66

                       CASE STUDY * 11: A PLAN OF EXPLORATION                            that thrive in the Channel Islands environment" The
                       OFF SANTA ROSA ISLAND                                             Commission noted that Environmental Impact State-
                                                                                         ments for Lease Sales 35 and 48 and the proposed
                                                                                         Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary have documented
                          The Coastal Commission must, based on                          the fact that marine mammals and seabirds use the
                       the Coastal Act policies for protection of marine                 Channel Islands as resting and breeding areas and
                       resources and environmentally sensitive habi-                     feed in surrounding waters. There is ample evidence
                       tats, assure that the marine mammals and sea-                     that the island related marine environment especially
                       birds on and around the Channel Islands are                       within six nautical miles of the islands, qualifies as
                       protected. Accordingly, any proposed oil or                       environmentally sensitive habitat area. A buffer
                       gas development within six nautical miles of                      around the islands allows additional response time
                       the Channel Islands and offshore rocks is pro-                    for oil spill cleanup efforts, and increases the distance
                       hibited on leases sold in and after Lease Sale                    between spill points (e.g., drillships and platforms)
                       48, to provide a buffer zone for protection of                    and sensitive resource areas to allow for weathering
                       these valuable breeding, feeding, and resting                     and dilution before the spilled oil reaches concen-
                       areas. This case study discusses a plan for                       trations of marine mammals and seabirds,
                       exploratory drilling within the six mile protec-                    Accordingly, the Commission found that be-
                       tive buffer zone of Santa Rosa Island on a                        cause the proposed well was to be drilled within six
                       parcell purchased prior to Lease Sale 48. The                     nautical miles of Santa Rosa Island, it did not meet
                       issues were, of course, protection of marine                      the requirements of the Coastal Act for protection of
                       resources and the potential for oil spillage.                     marine resources and environmentally sensitive
                       Maximum feasible mitigation was required to                       habitat areas, Nonetheless, the POE qualified for
                       minimize adverse impacts, which included limi-                    further review as a coastal- dependent industrial
                       ting the time of drilling to a period of lowest                   facility and could. be found consistent with the
                       marine mammal and seabird activity.                               Coastal Act provided: (1) alternative locations were
                                                                                         infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to
                                                                                         do otherwise would adversely affect the public
                          In early 1979, Chevron USA, Inc. submitted a plan              welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects were
                       of exploration (POE) which proposed drilling one                  mitigated to the maximum extent feasible (Section
                       exploratory well on the Santa Rosa-Cortez Ridge                   30260).
                       approximately 4.3 miles south of Santa Rosa Island,                 The Coastal Commission approached its analysis
                       one of the Santa Barbara Channel Islands (see map,                of these three factors within the framework of a
                       Figure 10). No prior drilling had occurred south of               Commission recommendation to the National
                       Santa Rosa Island, but preliminary geologic data                  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
                       indicated that the location proposed for the explora-             on the proposed Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary,
                       tory well had the most potential for recoverable                  which subsequently was approved by President
                       reserves of natural gas in this region. Chevron                   Carter in 1980. NOAA's proposal to establish the
                       claimed that movement of the proposed well location               sanctuary precluded future leasing within six nautical
                       4.3 nautical miles from the island to a site at least six         miles of the Channel Islands, but allowed exploration
                       nautical miles away would preclude adequate ex-                   and development within the sanctuary on tracts
                       ploration of the area. Because this location was                  which had been leased under previous lease sales.
                       deemed to be its best prospect Chevron further                    Existing leases on 15 tracts from Lease Sale 35 were
                       claimed that if the well were a dry hole, it would relin-         located partially or entirely within six nautical miles
                       quish its five other leases in the area.                          of the Channel Islands,
                          The biological productivity and habitat values of                In its recommendation to NOAA, the Commission
                       the Channel Islands are protected by the Coastal                  developed a policy for reviewing proposed explor-
                       Act with which oil and gas exploration or develop-                ation within the six nautical mile buffer zone. If such
                       ment activities must be consistent (Sections 30230,               exploration indicated the likelihood of an oil or gas
                       30240). In discussing the application of the Coastal              field extending underneath the buffer zone, explor-
                       Act policies to the proposed drilling within six                  ation to delineate the size of the field would be
                       nautical miles of Santa Rosa Island the Commission                permitted inside the zone. Also, in the event that the
                       explicitly recognized the " biological productivity and           applicant demonstrated with geophysical. data that
                       environmental sensitivity of the marine resources                 the most favorable hydrocarbon-bearing structure

                                                                                   67

                       can only be explored from within the buffer zone,                  (3) Maximum Feasible Mitigation of Impacts.
                       such exploratory drilling may be permitted provided             The primary impact from exploratory drilling activi-
                       maximum feasible mitigation measures were taken.                ties upon marine resources identified in the Com-
                         During the consistency review of the proposed                 mission findings was the potential for oil spills.
                       exploratory welt the Commission addressed each                  Although geologic information for the area indi-
                       factor under Section 30260.                                     cated that any hydrocarbons present were probably
                                                                                       gas and not oil, the area had not been subjected to
                        (1) Alternative Locations. The Commission con-                 drilling before. In the event that oil was discovered
                       sidered two alternative locations to that proposed by           and a spill were to occur, Chevron agreed to provide
                       Chevron: drilling of several wells outside the buffer           the additional onsite oil spill containment equip-
                       area or drilling of a directional exploratory well from         ment which had been established in previous Com-
                       outside the buffer area into the most-favored poten-            mission consistency determinations for plans of ex-
                       tial gas-bearing region. Concerning the first alter-            ploration While the discussion of oil spill trajectories
                       native, Chevron testified that it would not drill in            in the Lease Sale 48 Environmental Impact State-
                       other areas because that would constitute an inef-              ment indicated low probability of oil movement
                       ficient method of exploration when it believed it was           toward the island, marine mammals and seabirds
                       absolutely necessary to drill in the proposed location          which feed in the open ocean could be impacted
                       As to the second alternative, drilling contractors              even if oil did not reach the island
                       indicated that slant drilling from a floating drillship            In seeking maximum feasible mitigation of the
                       would be more hazardous than similar drilling from              potential impacts to marine mammals and seabirds,
                       a platform. Chevron presented proprietary geo-                  the Commission staff consulted University of Calif-
                       physical data to the Coastal Commission staff                   ornia, Santa Cruz studies prepared for the Bureau of
                       geologist which demonstrated that the proposed                  Land Management which defined seasonal breeding,
                       well location was necessary to determine the exis-              resting, and feeding patterns of marine mammals
                       tence of natural gas in the region south of Santa               and seabirds in the Southern California Bight* The
                       Rosa Island The Commission found, then, that                    studies indicated that the period from March to mid-
                       alternative locations to this well were infeasible at           June, coincidentally the period proposed for drilling
                       this stage of exploration and under certain circum-             by Chevron, contained the greatest local activity
                       stances would have the potential for greater environ-           along the southern shore of Santa Rosa Island,
                       mental damage. In addition, the proposed drilling               including harbor seal breeding and pupping and
                       location would provide better data on gas resources             seabird nesting and feeding. Although the studies
                       than the two proposed alternatives The Commission               showed that the lowest concentration of marine
                       further found that the information would be impor-              mammals and seabirds occurred between August
                       tant in determining how development or production               and December, activities south of Santa Rosa Island
                       platforms could be located outside the six nautical             were significantly reduced after mid-June
                       mile buffer area consistent with Coastal Act policies              Even though Chevron claimed that an extensive
                       in the event gas would be discovered.                           drilling delay would not provide adequate time to
                                                                                       explore other tracts outside of the buffer zone if gas
                         (2) Public Welfare. Through analysis of this                  was found in this welt the Commission found that
                       factor, the Coastal Commission considered the                   commencement of drilling on or after June 15
                       national interest in energy facility siting. The Com-           would provide the maximum feasible protection of
                       mission found that an objection to this plan of ex-             the marine mammals and seabirds while at the
                       ploration would adversely affect the public welfare,            same time allowing Chevron a full six months of
                       because there had been no previous drilling to                  exploratory drilling prior to its lease termination.
                       determine oil and gas potential south of Santa Rosa                Because of the Commission's long-standing in-
                       Island and the well was proposed to be drilled on the           terest in protection of the marine resources located
                       most favorable geologic structure for a gas find.               *Outer Continental Shelf off Southern California.

                                                                                 68

                                                                  Gaviota

                                                                                                                            City of Santa Barbara

                                          Pt.      tio
                                                                                         Coal Oil

                                                                                                                                                           Carpin

                                                         S a rl t a                    B a,@b   "a

                                                                                                                          C/7 q4?

                              SAN MIGYEL ISLAND,/
                                                         A
                                                                                                                                                  ANACAPA ISLAN

                                                                                                            SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

                                                                     SANTA ROSA ISLAND
                                                                                                               Mile'"
                                                                                         6c                                                            CALIFOR
                                                                                        s

                                                             CHEVRON BLOCK
                                                                      245

                                                                                           0         5       10
                                                                                           I         I        I                                      area
                                          N                                                                                                      @enlarged--
                                                                                                  MILES

                                                                                              Figure 10

                    on and around the Santa Barbara Channel Islands,             Barbara Channel Islands and offshore rocks
                    the Commission findings on this plan of exploration          consistent with the California Coastal Manage-
                    included a very clear statement of its policy regard-        ment Program. A production platform within the
                    ing production platforms within the buffer zone:             six nautical mile area would represent an unac-
                                                                                 ceptable disturbance to the sensitive marine re-
                                                                                 sources surrounding the Channel Islands..".. Any
                    Concurrence with the Exploration Plan for this               exploration by the oil industry within the six nauti
                    one well in no way reflects a lessening of the Com-          cal mile buffer area shall be done with the know-
                    mission's recognition of the need for protection             ledge of this policy. Therefore, any exploration
                    of the six nautical mile ocean buffer around the             within the buffer area shall be done to determine
                    ChannelIslands. It is the policy of this Commission          the extent of oil or gas resources in the area and
                    that an oil and gas production platform cannot be            how such resources can be produced from out-
                    located within six nautical miles from the Santa             side the bufffer zone.

                                                                           70

                         CASE STUDY * 12: A PLAN OF EXPLORATION                              not adequately contain most spills To compound this
                         OFF ANACAPA ISLA14D                                                 deficiency, a surprise drill conducted by Commission
                                                                                             staff and the State Oil Spill Coordinator from the
                                                                                             California Department of Fish and Game to test
                            Several months after the Commission acted                        Chevron' s ability to effectively use the required onsite
                         on Chevron's plan of exploration (POE) off                          equipment revealed that a boat capable of deploying
                         Santa Rosa Island, Chevron USA, Inc. submitted                      the boom was not onsite nor within fifteen minutes of
                         another POE which proposed drilling one explop                      the drillship. And, only 1,000 feet of boom was
                         atory well 5.7 miles north of Anacapa Island                        deployed, not the 1,500 feet required
                         within tJhe six mile protective buffer zone and less                   Because of the lack of reliability of e-,dsting oil spill
                         than 500 yards from the northbound shipping                         containment and cleanup measures for a major spill,
                         lane of tJhe Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme                       the availability of spill response equipment did not
                         (VTSS), which the U.S. Coast Guard created to                       guarantee that pelicans or other marine species would
                         reduce the chances of collision between shipping                    not come in contact with spilled oil Research by the
                         vessels and OCS structures. Issues associated                       Bureau of Land Management suggested that brown
                         with the proposed drilling included vessel traffic                  pelicans are especially vulnerable to oil spillage
                         safety and marine mammal and seabird pro-                           because the fledglings spend a lot of time sitting and
                         tection. Unlike the previous case study, no mitio                   feeding in the waters surrounding the islands while
                         gation was available to resolve tJhe conflicts with                 learning to fly. In addition, any attempt at oil spill
                         the State7s coastal management program and                          cleanup near Anacapa during the breeding season,
                         the Coastal Comrrdssion issued its first objection                  from December through late August could severely
                         to an OCS plan of exploration under its consis-                     disrupt the colony because of their known sensitivity
                         tency review authority.                                             to disturbance on their rookeries.
                                                                                                Although the risk of an oil spill from the operation
                            The previous case study clearly documents the                    itself was low, the location of the drillship less than
                         Channel Islands as environmentally sensitive habitat                500 yards from the shipping lane orVTSS increased
                         area, providing major breeding and resting grounds for              this risk The crew and supply boats servicing the
                         marine mammals and seabirds in the eastern north                    drillship would be crossing the northbound shipping
                         Pacific The precedential establishment of a six nautical            lane in the Channel, creating a risk of collision and
                         mile buffer zone around the islands supports this con-              resulting spill. Because the Coastal Act (Section
                         clusion. Anacapa Island, in particular, is the only stable          30262) indicates a concern for siting OCS facilities
                         breeding area in the western United States for the                  in locations where they will present a substantial
                         California brown pelican The brown pelican is on both               hazard to navigation, the Commission has long
                         the federal and State endangered species lists due to its           opposed siting structures within a VTSS or within
                         threatened survival                                                 500 yards of a VTSS.
                            Chevron previously had dfflled two wells on the OCS                 When the Commission staff consulted with the
                         tract under consideration to delineate the oil and gas              Coast Guard, the Coast Guard did not deny that the
                         field The first well indicated one side of a petroleum              drillship site in the buffer zone could create a
                         reservoir and the second penetrated what Chevron                    substantial hazard to navigation safety. It had issued
                         believed to be the middle of the Sockeye Field This                 a statement of "no objection", however, due to the
                         proposed third well would delineate the northern side               temporary nature of the operation, the use of special
                         of the field (see Figure 11). Chevron indicated that it             lights and buoys on the drillship and the notification
                         would drill during autumn and early winter if the POE               to mariners that the drillship would be located there.
                         were approved The company s analysis showed that a                     To determine the degree of hazard, if any, associ-
                         potential oil spill would have a 16 percent chance of               ated with the drillship@ s proposed location within the
                         reaching Anacapa Island during this period and, in the              VTSS buffer zone, the Commission staff also con-
                         worst case@ would arrive in 4.6 hours, This meant that a            sulted with the National Maritime Research Center
                         spill could reach Anacapa before additional oil spill               which was using a computer simulated model of the
                         equipment could arrive from Clean Seas on the                       Channel to analyze the response of different ship
                         mainland to supplement the onsite containment and                   pilots to drillships in and near the VTSS. The pre-
                         cleanup equipment                                                   liminary study results showed that pilots veered
                            Case Study *10 mentioned that onsite equipment                   away from the drillship when sighting it causing
                         was designed only for a first fine of defense and could             them to go outside of the lanes in some instances

                                                                                        71

                      and potentially colliding with other vessels in the               platform and develop the field; the designation of
                      opposite traffic lane.                                            the federal marine sanctuary, the protection of the
                         After considering this information, the Com-                   brown pelican under the federal Endangered Species
                      mission found that the policies of protecting marine              Act designations of Anacapa Island as a National
                      and coastal resources were not met by the project                 Parl,@ and several State designations of the waters
                      because of the risks of oil spills and the impacts of             around Anacapa as a Marine Life Refuge, Oil and
                      spills on sensitive resources near the proposed                   Gas Sanctuary, and Area of Special Biological
                      drilling site Similarly, the policy to protect environ-           Significance. Chevron had stated that it would install
                      mentally sensitive areas was thwarted by the risk of              a platform to produce the field regardless of whether
                      a spill in an ocean area chosen by both the State and             it drilled the exploratory well that was under con-
                      the federal government as one in need of special                  sideration. Because the company could reach the
                      protection and designations. The Commission fur-                  southerly part of the field with a well drilled direc-
                      ther found that the oil spill containment and cleanup             tionally from a platform installed in the northern
                      equipment which would be available to Chevron in                  section, the Commission determined that "fore-
                      the event of a spill did not meet the policies of                 going drilling of this exploratory well will not preclude
                      Section 30232 due to the inherent limits of the oil               later exploration or development of the portion of
                      spill equipment and response capabilities to protect              the field in which Chevron now wants to drill."
                      the California brown pelican around Anacapa Island                Therefore, it found that the public welfare would be
                      Finally, the Commission determined that the loca-                 adversely affected by its concurrence with the POE
                      tion of the drillship in the VTSS buffer zone would               consistency certification.
                      present a substantial hazard to navigation.                          (3) Maximum Feasible Mitigation of Impacts.
                         Because the POE qualified under the Commis-                    The primary impact from exploratory drilling upon
                      sion's policy for OCS oil and gas leases bought                   marine resources identified in the Commission
                      before Lease Sale 48, which permits drilling within               findings is the potential for oil spills. The staff
                      the six mile sanctuary buffer zone, the issue became              summary on the project indicated two mitigation
                      whether the POE could meet the three criteria under               measures that the Commission could impose on
                      Section 30260. During the consistency review, the                 the POE. The first would limit drilling to a time of
                      Commission addressed each factor in this analysis,                year that would least affect the brown pelican
                         (1) Alternative Locations. The Commission con-                 fledglings and other seabirds on the islands. This
                      sidered four alternative locations to that proposed               would be autumn, when the pelicans have learned to
                      by Chevron. The first alternative would increase the              fly and are no longer sitting and feeding in the waters
                      angle of drilling to a point considered infeasible by             around Anacapa Island and when the pelicans are
                      Chevron and unsafe by the State Lands Commis-                     not breeding. This measure would not provide a full
                      sion and USGS. The second alternative, moving the                 60-90 day time period, though necessary for explor-
                      site further north away from the six mile buffer to the           atory drilling. The other measure would be for
                      island, would only put the site closer to or within the           Chevron to drill at the time of year when the chances
                      VTSS. Thus, these two alternatives appeared either                of spilled oil reaching Anacapa are the lowest and
                      technically infeasible or more environmentally                    would take the longest time to reach the island area
                      damaging. The third alternative called for a second               This would occur during summer. Therefore, the
                      platform which would be viable only if the Coast                  period of least potential harm to the pelicans
                      Guard moved the VTSS outside of the Channel. The                  from spilled oil was also the time that spilled oil
                      fourth alternative@ erecting a platform on the north              would most likely reach the island area in the
                      side of the field, regardless of its size, would be               event of a spill.
                      feasible Consequently, the Commission found that                     Consequently, the Commission found that the
                      the first criterion of Section 30260 was not met                  maximum feasible mitigation measure still left the
                      "because there is a feasible, less environmentally                pelican vulnerable to an unacceptable risk of harm,
                      damaging location available."                                     particularly in view of its endangered status, The six-
                         (2) Public Welfare. There were several issues of               week period from the end of October through early
                      national and State interest associated with this                  December, when risks to the breeding pelican popu-
                      consistency determination which the Commission                    lation would be minimized, was not long enough
                      was required to consider the need to determine the                for the eight to twelve-week period needed for
                      extent of the Sockeye Field to properly design a                  exploratory drilling.

                                                                                   73

                                                     A mit
                                                                                      ------                                                Santa Barbara

                                                               ant a                  1B arb ara
                                                                                                                        r, n e I

                                                                                                                                                                    P'ROPO'SED @XPLO         RA
                                                                                                                                                                                     WELL
                                                                                                                                                                                  ots P-2d5

                                  San
                                       iguel Islan

                                                                                                                                                                                  Anacapa Island
                                                                                                                             Santa Cruz island
                                                                        Santa Rosa Island

                                                                                                                          1            10
                                                                                                              L            I                        Figure 11
                                                                                                                        MILES

                       In conclusion, the POE did not meet any of the             Program (CCMP) and what alternative measures
                    three criteria required under Section 30260. The              existed for Chevron to achieve its purpose of devel-
                    Commission subsequently issued its first objection            oping the oil field in a manner consistent with the
                    to a consistency certification, explaining how the            CCMP. Chevron did not appeal the Commission
                    activity was inconsistent with the specific mandatory         decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
                    provisions of the California Coastal Management

                       6-4W39
                                                                             75

                                                         Santa Barbara

                                                                                                      CHEVRON'S CARPINTERIA
                                                                                                          FACILITY
                                                            z     .... ..
                                                                                                                       RINCON
                                                    MRe                                                                 PROCESSING                             OIL FIELD
                                                                                                                       FACILITY
                                                                                                                                                          A     PLATFORM

                                                                                                                                                       Ventura
                                      Santa
                                                                                                                    Union's Lease                             WEST MONTALVO
                                                                                                                                                              FIELD
                                                                                                            Grace A
                                                                                                                                                              @.Y
                                                                            ch                                        Gilda
                                                                                                        (Chevron)                   (Chewo
                                                                                                            J
                                                                                                                0217               I)o
                                                                                                               @j
            m                                                                                                                                                 Oxnard
                                                                                                                SANTACLARA UNIT
                                                                                                                                                                                    N

                                                                                                                                                ina

                                                                                                                                           P--02031 P-0202.

                                                                                                                                            HUENEME
                                                                                                                   ANACAPA ISLAND             FIELD                          t
                                                 SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
                                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                                  -2 2,203)
                                                                                                                                          (OCS P

                                                                                         7,

                                                    . . . . . . . . . . ..
                                                               @V:

                                                                                                0               5              10
                                                                                                                I              I           Figure 12
                                                                                                             MILES

                    CASE STUDY * 13: UNION OIL PLAN OF                              (BPD). The POD included the proposal to transport
                    DEVELOPMENT                                                     the crude oil and gas from the platform to the
                                                                                    proposed onshore processing facility via 6.5 mile
                                                                                    long pipelines. In addition, Union proposed an
                       In late 1979, the Coastal Commission con-                    onshore processing facility capable of processing
                    ducted the first consistency review of a plan of                36,000 BPD, of crude oil at the Mandalay Dunes near
                    development (POD) under the Coastal Zone                        the City of Oxnard Given the amount of oil projected
                    Management Act (CZMA). Review of this plan                      from Platform Gina production, the capacity pro-
                    considered the California Coastal Management                    posed for the processing facility appeared excessive.
                    Program (CCMP) policies for consollidation of                   Upon further investigation, the Commission staff
                    offshore and onshore facillities. The consistency               ascertained that Union Oil intended the onshore
                    review provided a forum for Commission guid-                    facility to handle production from a future platform.
                    ance to the applicant on alternatives to its                      In the midst of review of the POD for Platform
                    proposed onshore processing facility. The fol-                  Gina, Union submitted a second POD for Platform
                    lowing discussion demonstrates severe pro-                      Gilda in the Santa Clara Unit 12 miles from Platform
                    cedural difficulties when an agency is faced                    Gina (see Figure 13). This piecemeal approach to
                    with a piecemeal rather than a comprehensive                    planning increased the time necessary to analyze
                    approach to planning.                                           the project and to provide adequate guidance to
                                                                                    Union to avoid conflict with the CCMP. The Coastal
                       Union Oil Company proposed to construct a 15-                Commission utilized the full six-month period for
                    slot platform (Platform Gina) in the Hueneme Field              consistency review provided in the CZMA, because
                    four and a half miles offshore (see Figure 12). The             the plan presented new consistency issues, and the
                    POD also proposed construction of pipelines from                consistency concurrence was the first regulatory
                    the platform to a proposed onshore processing                   approval provided to Platform Gilda.
                    facility. The Commission staff was faced with the                 The proposed Mandalay Dunes onshore proces-
                    option of focusing consistency review only on the               sing facility was being sized to handle the production
                    offshore activities, such as platform placement and             from Platform Gina as well as the expected produc-
                    method of transportation, or of including associated            tion of 18,000-20,000 BPD from Platform Gilda (see
                    onshore facilities in the Commission's review.                  Figure 14). It also could accommodate production
                       At the time of consistency review of Union's POD,            from a lease in State waters owned by Shell Oil
                    an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed                 adjacent to the Hueneme Field. The Commission's
                    onshore facility was still in the preparatory stages            consistency concurrence in the platform was based
                    under the City of Oxnard, designated the lead                   in part upon Unior@ s agreement to provide one slot
                    agency under the California Environmental Quality               on Platform Gina for use by Shell in its development
                    Act (CEGA) procedures. The staff recommended                    of an adjacent State lease, thereby consolidating
                    that the Commission should provide only policy                  facilities for the offshore portion of the project
                    guidance to the applicant for the onshore facilities              While the Coastal Commission did not render a
                    in the coastal zone because consistency review took             decision on the location of the proposed onshore
                    place at such an early stage in the entire project              facilities, it used the consistency determination to
                    review process and because a future coastal develop,            provide guidance to Union for investigation of
                    ment permit would be required for both the onshore              alternative sites for onshore processing which com-
                    processing facility and the portion of the pipelines            ply with Coastal Act policies requiring consolidation
                    crossing State waters Consistency review thus should            and mitigation of adverse environmental effects,
                    be limited to the federal permit activities on the OCS.         The Commission suggested two onshore alter%
                    While the Coastal Commission concurred in the                   natives for analysis in the Environmental Impact
                    consistency determination for the platform, it ex-              Report (1) pipelines to the existing Rincon proces-
                    pressly reserved the right for it or the affected local         sing facility partially owned by Union, or (2) pipe-
                    government after LCP certification, to consider the             lines to Chevron's Platform Grace in the Santa Clara
                    sizing and location of the onshore processing facility          Unit which ties into existing pipelines to the Carpin-
                    and pipeline through State waters when reviewing                teria processing facility and alternative pipeline
                    the coastal development permit for such facilities.             routes, Among the questions which the Coastal
                       Peak production from Platform Gina was expected              Commission requested Union to address prior to its
                    to be approximately 6,450 barrels of oil per day                deliberations on the onshore facility were:

                                                                               77

                                                        Santa Barbara                                CHEVRON'S
                                                                                                     CARPINTERIA
                                                                                                      FACILITY
                                                                                                                  RINCON
                                                                                                                  PROCESSING
                                                                                                                                                          OIL FIELD
                                                                                                                  FACILITY
                                                                                                                                                         PLATFORM

                                                                                                                                               Ventura
                                   S a n t a        Barb,2,,,
                                                                                                               Union's Lea e                          WEST M
                                                                                                                    4W               %                  FIELD ONTALVO
                                                                                                                                     %
                                                                                                        GraceA
                                                                                                                 GILDA
                                                                                                  (Chevron)                   (Chewon)
                                                                          SANTA CLARA
            0:)                                                                 UNIT                                                                  Oxnard

                                                                                                                                            %
                                                                                                                                                                            N

                                                                                                                                         Gina

                                                                                                                                            P-2 0 2
                                                                                                                                            E FIELD

                                                                                                                                                                 Z4@1-e
                                                                                                               ANACAPA ISLAND
                                                                                                                                                                     e

                                               SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

                                                                                              0             1              10
                                                                                                             I             i        Figure 13
                                                                                                          MILES

                          � Could Union process the oil and gas at                   federal permit activities for the offshore platform.
                             other existing processing facilities such as            Ten of the ninety slots on Platform Gilda were made
                             Mobil's Rincon facility or Chevron's Carpin-            available for use by Chevron in developing its
                             teria facility?                                         adjacent lease in the Santa Clara Unit thereby
                                                                                     potentially eliminating the need for another Chevron
                          �  Is the proposed new facility necessar)P                 platform The Commission, therefore, found that
                                                                                     Union's provision of 10 slots in its platform for
                          �  If the new facility is needed, why should it be         Chevron met the consolidation policy of the Coastal
                             sized to accommodate production from                    Act
                             the Santa Clara Unit 12 miles away where
                             Chevron is already installing pipelines to                 In summary, this POD presented a timing problem
                             shore specifically sized to handle production           inherent in the consistency review process The
                             from the entire Santa Clara Unit-)                      requirement that a 'Consistency determination be
                                                                                     rendered by the State within six months appears to
                                                                                     require concurrence in the offshore portion of the
                       As mentioned above@ Union also submitted a                    project before sufficient information is developed
                    POD for proposed Platform Gilda in the Santa Clara               for adequate consideration of the onshore impacts.
                    Unit Union proposed to run 9.9 mile long pipelines               Accordingly, the review must be divided. These
                    from this 90- slot platform to the proposed Mandalay             practical difficulties could be overcome if oil and gas
                    Dunes onshore processing facility. Gilda would be                companies engage in additional joint planning for
                    located on a parcel adjacent to Chevron's Platform               onshore facilities and pipelines, and provide compre-
                    Grace less than three miles away. The oil and gas                hensive information about future plans and alter-
                    pipelines from Chevron's Platform Grace tie into                 natives to assist the State in planning for the siting of
                    Platform Hope in State waters which connects with                such facilities in the coastal zone, in accord with the
                    existing lines to the Carpinteria processing facility.           Coastal Act policy for consolidation of facilities, The
                    The Commission again decided to limit its consis-                consistency review process, assuming that timing
                    tency review to those activities for installation and            problems can be overcome, offers the potential for
                    operation of the platform and to review the onshore              assuring that transportation and processing facilities
                    processing facility and portions of pipelines through            for offshore oil are developed in a manner which
                    State waters in the coastal development permit                   maximizes their potential and avoids proliferation of
                    proceedings, The Commission concurred in the                     unnecessary facilities.

                                                                                79

                                                 Ventura

                                                        Harbor

                                                                                              -V:

                                                                             a
                                                                                       Santa Clara River

                                                           McGRATH

                                                             STATE

                                                              PARK

                                                                        McGrath Lake
                                                                                             CITY OF OXNARD

                                                                                            SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. -
                                                                                            MANDALAY STEAM STATION

                                       PROPOSED UNION OIL CO.
                                       ONSHORE FACILITY
                                                                              NDALAY

                                                                               BEACH

                                                                                PARK
                                                                                           Sth STI-

                                                              3       1
                                        0      Y4      36     @4
                                                      MILE
                                                                        Figure 14

                                                                            80

                                             ABBREVIATIONS

                                 APCD     Air Pollution Control District
                                 ARB      Air Resources Board
                                 ARCO     Atlantic Richfield Company
                                 BLM      Bureau of Land Management
                                 BPD      Barrels (of oil) per day
                                 CCMP     California Coastal Management Program
                                 CEIP     Coastal Energy Impact Program
                                 CEQA     California Environmental Quality Act
                                 CZMA     Coastal Zone Management Act
                                 DOI      Department of the Interior
                                 DWT      Deadweight tons
                                 EA       Environmental Assessment
                                 EIR      Environmental Impact Report
                                 EIS      Environmental Impact Statement
                                 EPA      Environmental Protection Agency
                                 LCP      Local Coastal Program
                                 LUP      Land Use Program
                                 MLLW     Mean- low- low-water
                                 NOAA     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                 NPDES    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                                 OCS      Outer Continental Shelf
                                 OPR      Office of Planning and Research
                                 POD      Plan of Development
                                 POE      Plan of Exploration
                                 SCPCO    Southern California Petroleum Contingency Organization
                                 USGS     United States Geological Survey
                                 VTSS     Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme

                                                     81

                                                             BIBLIOGRAPHY

                     General.
                     Ahern, William R. Energy Facilities and the California Coast. Coastal Zone 80 Proceedings,,Volume L
                     American Society of Civil Engineers. November 17-20, 1980.
                     California Coastal Commission. Designation of Coastal Zone Areas Where Construction of an Electric
                     PowerPlant Would Prevent Achievement of the Objectives of the California CoastalAct of 1976. Revised
                     January 1, 1980.
                     California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. California Coastal Plan. December 1975.
                     Office of Coastal Zone Management U.S. Department of Commerce. State of California Coastal
                     Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. August 1977.
                     Office of Planning and Research, State of California. California Permit Handbook Sacramento: Department
                     of General Services Publication Section, May 1980. Stock No. 0031-0026-0.
                     Raspar, Nathan. Energy as an Alternative Source. Coastal Zone 78 Proceedings, Volume L American
                     Society of Civil Engineers, March 13-15, 1978.

                     ocs
                     Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Planning for Offshore Oil Development; Gulf of
                     Alaska OCS Handbook 1978. Alaska State Library No. HT 393 A42 A455.
                     Bureau of Land Management US. Department of the Interior. Final Environmental Impact Statement,
                     Proposed 1981 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore Central and Northern
                     California and Eel Basin Supplement. October 1980.
                                     Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale
                     Schedule, March 1980-February 1985. 1980.
                     California Coastal Commission. Oil Spill Response Capability Study Phase 1: Clean Seas, Preliminary Draft
                     Report April 1981.
                     Chorich Martir-L Cooking With Offshore Oil. A Handbook for California Local Government. OCS Training
                     Project USC Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies, Marine Advisory Services, Sea Grant Program. August
                     1978.
                     Karp, Irwin D. Consistency Review of OCSActivities Off California. CoastalZone8O Proceedings, Volume
                     III. American Society of Civil Engineers. November 17-20, 1980.
                     New England River Basin Commission Methodologies for OCS-Related Facilities Planning. NERBC-RALI
                     Project March 1978.
                                      Factbook. NERBC-RALI Project
                                       Case Studies in OCS Planning. NERBC-RALI Project July 1978.
                                    Strategiesfor State Participation in OCS Exploration Decisions, Conference Proceedings.
                     NERBC- RALI Project March 22, 1979.
                                     . Pipeline Landfalls: A Handbook of Impact Management Techniques. April 1981. Prepared
                     under interagency agreement EPA-78-DX0063 with Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory@ Cincinnati
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                     Office of Planning and Research, State of California. Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Southern
                     California, Volumes One and Two. Prepared for the California Coastal Commission October 1977.

                                                                        82

                    Office of State Planning, State of Massachusetts, Offshore Oil Development, Implications for Massachusetts
                    Communities. November 1976.
                    Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Activities in the Pacific (Southern
                    California) and their Onshore Impacts: A Summary Report May 1980. Prepared for the U.S. Departmentof
                    the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the Council on
                    Environmental Quality. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Information Progran-L May 1980. U.S. Geological
                    Survey Open File Report 80-645.
                    Weaver, Celia Lawrer-L The 053 Working Group: Local Participation in the Federal OCS Leasing Process.
                    Coastal Zone 80 Proceedings, Volume II. American Society of Civil Engineers. November 17-20, 1980.

                    Local Coastal Programs
                    Department of Development Services, City of Huntington Beach. Coastal Energy Impact Program. February
                    1980.
                                    . City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element/Land Use Plan. August 1980.
                    Humboldt County Planning Department Industrial Siting Study. Coastal Energy Impact Program. January
                    1981.
                    Santa Barbara County Planning Department Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan. January 1980.
                    San Luis Obispo County Planning Department Son Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Plan Hearing Draft
                    January 1981.

                                                                       83

                                                                                      Appendix A

                                                                       MASTER CHART OF ISSUES AND MITIGATION
                                                                                ADDRESSED IN CASE STUDIES

                                  ISSUES                          MITIGATION                                                         RELATED CASE STUDIES

                                  PROLIFERATION                I .New development located at or near existing sites                  1,3,5,7,8
                                  OF                           2. Consolidation of facilities                                        1,3,7,8,13
                                  FACILITIES                   3. Multicompany use of tanker facilities                              3
                                                               4. Use of excess capacity at existing facilities                      13

                                  OIL                          I .Effective, up-to-date oil spill contingency plan                   1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13
                                  SPILLAGE                     2. Specific oil spill containment and cleanup equipment               9,10,11,12,13
                                                                  required onsite
                                                               3. Unscheduled onsite oil spill equipment deployment                  9
                                                                  exercise
                                                               4. Use of pipeline as preferred transportation method                 1,2,5
                                                               5. Limitation on oil throughput                                       5
                                                               6. Automatic shutoff valves on liquid-carrying pipelines              2
                                                               .7. Construction or facility design criteria (e.g., berms)            5,8
                                                               8. Route pipelines away from heavily used anchorage                   I
                                                                  areas for shipping

                                  VESSEL TRAFFIC               I -No structures allowed within or 500 ft. of VTSS lanes              11,12
                                  SAFETY                       2. Relocation of facility                                             3

                                  SAFETY                       I .Terminal operations manual                                         3,4
                                  HAZARDS                      2. Inspector access                                                   3,4
                                                               3. Risk management plan                                               1,3,4
                                                               4, Use of inert gas tanks                                             3,4
                                                               5, Fire prevention plan                                               6

                                  VISUAL                       I ,Site restoration to original state (e.g., natural                  2,6,7,8
                                  AND                             revegetation, original contours)
                                  SCENIC                       2. Siting facilities off ridgetops                                    8
                                  QUALITY                      3. Depressed grading of facilities                                    5
                                                               4. Positioning of facilities on asymmetrical axis from                8
                                                                  public roads and viewsheds
                                                               5. Landscaping or screening (e.g., fencing, planting                  5,7,8
                                                                  vegetation)

                                  ARCHAEOLOGICAL               I .Onsite monitoring by a professional archaeologist                  2,6,8
                                  AND                             and a Native American representative
                                  PALEONTOLOGICAL 2.              Rerouting pipelines around site                                    2,6
                                  RESOURCES                    3. Relocation of materials                                            2,6,8

                                                                                                 85

                              ISSUES                          MITIGATION                                                         RELATED CASE STUDIES

                              BIOLOGICAL                   I .Confinement of constuction activities                              6,8
                              RESOURCES                    2. Relocation of facilities outside sensitive area                    8
                              (including                   3. Establishment of protective buffer zones                           11,12
                              environmentally              4. Directional drilling from outside sensitive area                   8,11
                              sensitive                    5. limitation of activities during periods of high                    8,11
                              habitats)                       biological activity (e.g., flowering, breeding)
                                                           6. Consolidation of facilities                                        6,8,13

                              SEISMIC                      I .Structural design criteria                                         2,6
                              HAZARDS                      2. Relocate facilities

                              GEOLOGIC                     I .Prohibit construction during rainy season                          6
                              HAZARDS                      2. Grading plans                                                      2,6

                              NOISE                        I .Landscaping or screening                                           7
                                                           2. Limit operation hours                                              7
                                                           3. Insulation of noise generating equipment                           6

                              PUBLIC ACCESS                I .Bicycle trails, pedestrian walkways                                2

                                                                                             86

                                                              Appendix B

                                                        COASTAL ACT OF 1976

                                                                 CHAPTER 3

                                                    COASTAL RESOURCES PLANNING
                                                                   AND
                                                         MANAGEMENT POLICIES

                                                                 ARTICLE I

                                                                 GENERAL
                                   Section

                                   30200    Policies as standards.

                                                                 ARTICLE 2

                                                              PUBLIC ACCESS

                                   30210    Access; recreational opportunities; posting.
                                   30211    Development not to interfere with access.
                                   30212    New development projects; provision for access; exceptions.
                                   30212.5  Public facilities; distribution.
                                   30213    Development of facilities; low cost housing; preferences.
                                   30214    Public access policies; implementation.

                                                                 ARTICLE 3

                                                               RECREATION

                                   30220    Protection of certain water-oriented activities.
                                   30221    Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development.
                                   30222    Private lands; priority of development purposes.
                                   30223    Upland areas.
                                   30224    Recreational boating use; encouragement; facilities.

                                                                 ARTICLE 4

                                                          MARINE ENVIRONMENT

                                   30230    Marine resources; maintenance.
                                   30231    Biological productivity; waste water.
                                   30232    Oil and hazardous substance spills.
                                   30233    Diking, filling or dredging.
                                   30234    Commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities.
                                   30235    Revetments, breakwaters, etc.
                                   30236    Water supply and flood control.

                                                                    87

                                                              ARTICLE 5

                                                          LAND RESOURCES
                                 Section
                                 30240    Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments.
                                 30241    Prime agricultural land; maintenance in agricultural production.
                                 30242    Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion.
                                 30243    Productivity of soils and timberlands; conversions.
                                 30244    Archaeological or paleontological resources.

                                                              ARTICLE 6

                                                           DEVELOPMENT

                                 30250    Location, generally.
                                 30251    Scenic and visual qualities.
                                 30252    Maintenance and enhancement of public areas.
                                 30253    Safety, stability, pollution, energy conservation, visitors.
                                 30254    Public works facilities.
                                 30255    Priority of coastal- dependent developments.

                                                              ARTICLE 7

                                                     INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

                                 30260    Location or expansion.
                                 30261    Use of tanker facilities; liquefied natural gas terminals.
                                 30262    Oil and gas development.
                                 30263    Refineries or petrochemical facilities.
                                 30264    Thermal electric generating plants.

                                                                 88

                                                                         ARTICLE I

                                                                         GENERAL

                                       Section 30200.

                                          Consistent with the basic goals set forth in Section 30001.5, and except as
                                       may be otherwise specifically provided in this division, the policies of this
                                       chapter shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal
                                       programs, as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500), and, the
                                       permissibility of proposed developments subject to the provisions of this division
                                       are determined. All public agencies carrying out or supporting activities outside
                                       the coastal zone that could have a direct impact on resources within the coastal
                                       zone shall consider the effect of such actions on coastal zone resources in order
                                       to assure that these policies are achieved.

                                                                         ARTICLE 2

                                                                       PUBLIC ACCESS
                                       Section 302 10.

                                          In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California
                                       Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recre-
                                       ational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public
                                       safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property
                                       owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

                                       (Amended by Ch. 1075, Stats. 1978.)

                                       Section 30211.

                                          Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea
                                       where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not
                                       limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of
                                       terrestrial vegetation.

                                       Section 30212.

                                          (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along
                                       the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where (1) it is
                                       inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of
                                       fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture
                                       would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be
                                       opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to
                                       accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway.

                                          (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include:

                                          (1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision
                                       (g) of Section 30610.

                                                                              89

                                             (2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided,
                                          that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or
                                          bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the recon-
                                          structed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property
                                          as the former structure.

                                             (3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of
                                          its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the struc-
                                          ture by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and
                                          which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure.

                                             (4) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has deter-
                                          mined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit 'Will be
                                          required unless the regional commission or the commission deten-nines that such
                                          activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach.

                                             As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as
                                          measured from the exterior surface of the structure.

                                             (c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the
                                          performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required
                                          by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by
                                          Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

                                          (Amended by Ch. 1075, Stats. 1978.)
                                          (Amended by Ch. 919, Stats. 1979.)

                                          Section 30212.5.

                                             Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or
                                          facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the
                                          impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any
                                          single area.

                                          Section 30213.

                                             Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for
                                          persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined by Section 50093 of
                                          the Health and Safety Code, shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible,
                                          provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
                                          preferred. New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in confon-nity
                                          with the standards, policies, and goals of local housing elements adopted in
                                          accordance with the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the
                                          Government Code.

                                             Neither the commission nor any regional commission shall either: (1) require
                                          that overnight room rentals be fLxed at an amount certain for any privately
                                          owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located
                                          on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the
                                          identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining
                                          eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.

                                          (Amended by Ch. 1191, Stats, 1979.)
                                          (Amended by Ch. 1087, Stats. 1980.)

                                                                                  90

                                       Section 30214.

                                          (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a
                                       manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and
                                       manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case
                                       including, but not limited to, the following:

                                          (1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.

                                          (2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity.

                                          (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and
                                       repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the
                                       area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.

                                          (4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect
                                       the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of
                                       the area by providing for the collection of litter.

                                          (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this
                                       article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that
                                       balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitu-
                                       tional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Con-
                                       stitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as
                                       a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X
                                       of the California Constitution.

                                          (c) In carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commis-
                                       sion, regional commissions, and any other responsible public agency shall con-
                                       sider and encourage the utilization of innovative access management techniques,
                                       including, but not limited to, agreements with private organizations which
                                       would minimize management costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs.

                                       (Added by Ch. 919, Stats. 1979.)

                                                                          ARTICLE 3

                                                                        RECREATION

                                       Section 30220.

                                          Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot
                                       readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.

                                       Section 30221.

                                          Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recrea-
                                       tional use and development unless present and forseeable future demand for
                                       public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the
                                       property is already adequately provided for in the area.

                                       (Amended by Ch. 380, Stats. 1978.)

                           7-@W39                                             91

                                        Section 30222.

                                           The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational
                                        facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall
                                        have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
                                        development, but not over agriculture or coastal-de pendent industry.

                                        Section 30223.

                                           Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved
                                        for'such uses, where feasible.

                                        Section 30224.

                                           Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in
                                        accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public
                                        launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors,
                                        limiting non-water-dependent land uses that congest access corridors and pre-
                                        clude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing
                                        for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in
                                        areas dredged from dry land.

                                                                          ARTICLE 4

                                                                   MARINE ENVIRONMENT

                                        Section 30230.

                                           Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored.
                                        Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or
                                        economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a
                                        manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that
                                        will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for
                                        long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

                                        Section 30231.

                                           The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wet-
                                        jands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of
                                        marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained
                                        and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, mimimizing adverse
                                        effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing
                                        depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface
                                        water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation
                                        buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural
                                        streams.

                                                                               92

                                       Section 30232.

                                          Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or
                                       hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or trans-
                                       portation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and
                                       procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur.

                                       Section 30233.

                                          (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estu-
                                       aries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions
                                       of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alter-
                                       native, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize
                                       adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:

                                          (1) Now or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities,
                                       including commercial fishing facilities.

                                          (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing
                                       navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and
                                       boat launching ramps.

                                          (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating
                                       facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and
                                       Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in
                                       conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded
                                       wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland; pro-
                                       vided, however, that in no event shall the size of the wetland area used for such
                                       boating facility, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation
                                       channels, and any necessary support service facilities, be greater than 25 percent
                                       of the total wetland area to be restored.

                                          (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries,
                                       and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities.

                                          (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying
                                       cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and
                                       outfall lines.

                                          (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in
                                       environmentally sensitive areas.

                                          (7) Restoration purposes.

                                          (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-dependent activities.

                                          (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid
                                       significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation.
                                       Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such
                                       purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems.

                                                                               93

                                             (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or
                                          dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the func-
                                          tional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands
                                          identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to,
                                          the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities
                                          for the Coastal Wetlands of California," shall be limited to very minor incidental
                                          public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities
                                          in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego
                                          Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division.

                                             For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishing facilities in Bodega
                                          Bay" means that no less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be
                                          developed or improved, where such improvement would create additional berths
                                          in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities.

                                          (Amended by Ch. 673, Stats. 1978.)

                                          Section 30234.

                                             Facilities serving the commercial fishing and recreational boating industries
                                          shall be protected and, where feasible, upgraded. Existing commercial fishing
                                          and recreational boating harbor space shall not be reduced unless the demand for
                                          those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been provided.
                                          Proposed recreational boating facilities shall, where feasible, be designed and
                                          located in such a fashion as not to interfere with the needs of the commercial
                                          fishing industry.

                                          Section 30235.

                                             Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining
                                          walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be
                                          permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing
                                          structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to elimi-
                                          nate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine
                                          structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and
                                          fishkills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.

                                          Section 30236.

                                             Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams
                                          shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (1)
                                          necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other
                                          method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and
                                          where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing
                                          development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improve-
                                          ment of fish and wildlife habitat.

                                                                                 94

                                                                           ARTICLE 5

                                                                      LAND RESOURCES

                                       Section 30240.

                                          (a) Environmentall Y* sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any
                                       significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such re-
                                       sources shall be allowed within such areas.

                                          (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat
                                       areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent
                                       impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible
                                       with the continuance of such habitat areas.

                                       Section 30241.

                                          The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in
                                       agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural econ-
                                       omy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses
                                       through all of the following:

                                          (a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, in-
                                       cluding, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to rninirnize conflicts
                                       between agricultural and urban land uses.

                                          (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of
                                       urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already
                                       severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the
                                       lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the
                                       establishment of a stable limit to urban development.

                                          (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the con-
                                       version of agricultural lands.

                                          (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricul-
                                       tural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased
                                       assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.

                                          (e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those
                                       conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, and all dev-
                                       elopment adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the produc-
                                       tivity of such prime agricultural lands.

                                       Section 30242.

                                          All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-
                                       agricultural uses unless (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasi-
                                       ble, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate
                                       development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion
                                       shall be compatible with continued agricuttural use on surrounding lands.

                                                                                95

                                          Section 30243.

                                              The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and
                                          conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to
                                          other uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to
                                          providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.

                                          Section 30244.

                                              Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological
                                          resources as identified by the State ffistoric Preservation Officer, reasonable
                                          mitigation measures shall be required.

                                                                              ARTICLE 6

                                                                           DEVELOPMENT

                                          Section 30250.

                                              (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as other-
                                          wise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in
                                          close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where
                                          such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public
                                          services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually
                                          or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than
                                          leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted
                                          only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed
                                          and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding
                                          parcels.

                                              (b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located
                                          away from existing developed areas.

                                              (c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing
                                          developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected
                                          points of attraction for visitors.

                                          (Amended by Ch. 1090, Stats. 1979.)

                                          Section 30251.

                                              The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and pro-
                                          tected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited
                                          and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas,
                                          to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with
                                          the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance
                                          visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic
                                          areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and
                                          Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by
                                          local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

                                                                                  96

                                         Section 30252.

                                            The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance
                                         public access to the coast by (1 ) facilitating the provision or extension of transit
                                         service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential devel-
                                         opment or in other a   'reas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads,
                                         (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing
                                         adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the develop-
                                         ment with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit
                                         for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that
                                         the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recrea-
                                         tion areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition
                                         and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to
                                         serve the new development.

                                         Section 30253.

                                            New development shall:

                                            (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and
                                         fire hazard.

                                            (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contri-
                                         bute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or
                                         surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices
                                         that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

                                            (3) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control dis-
                                         trict or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development,

                                            (4) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled.

                                            (5) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods
                                         which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination
                                         points for recreational uses.

                                         Section 30254

                                            New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to
                                         accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent
                                         with the provisions of this division; provided, however, that it is the intent of
                                         the Legislature that State Highway Route I in rural areas of the coastal zone
                                         remain a scenic two4ane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded
                                         except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce
                                         new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned
                                         public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new develop-
                                         ment, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic
                                         industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public
                                         recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be
                                         precluded by other development.

                                                                                  97

                                          Section 30255.

                                             Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments
                                          on or near the shoreline. Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-
                                          dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate,
                                          coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable prox-
                                          imity to the coastal-dependent uses they support.

                                          (Amended by Ch. 1090, Stats. 1979.)

                                                                             ARTICLE 7

                                                                  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

                                          Section 30260.

                                            Coastal-de pendent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand
                                          within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where
                                          consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-
                                          dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with
                                          other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance
                                          with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are
                                          infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would ad-
                                          versely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects are
                                          mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

                                          Section 30261.

                                            (a) Multicompany use of existing and new tanker facilities shall be encour-
                                          aged to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, except where to do
                                          so would result in increased tanker operations and associated onshore develop-
                                          ment incompatible with the land use and environmental goals for the area. New
                                          tanker terminals outside of existing terminal areas shall be situated as to avoid
                                          risk to environmentally' sensitive areas and shall use a monobuoy system, unless
                                          an alternative type of system can be shown to be environmentally preferable for
                                          a specific site. Tanker facilities shall be designed to (1) minimize the total vol-
                                          ume of oil spilled, (2) minimize the risk of collision from movement of other
                                          vessels, (3) have ready access to the most effective feasible containment and
                                          recovery equipmentfor oilspills, and (4) have onshore deballasting facilities to
                                          receive any fouled ballast water from tankers where operationally or legally
                                          required.

                                            (b) Because of the unique problems involved in the importation, transpor-
                                          tation, and handling of liquefied natural gas, the location of terminal facilities
                                          therefore shall be determined solely and exclusively as provided in Chapter 10
                                          (commencing with Section 5550) of Division 2 of the Public Utilities Code and
                                          the provisions of this division shall not apply unless expressly provided in such
                                          Chapter 10.

                                          (Amended by Ch. 855, Stats. 1977.)

                                                                                 98

                                          Section 30262.

                                              Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260,
                                          if the following conditions are met:

                                              (a) The development is performed safely and consistent with the geologic
                                          conditions of the well site.

                                              (b) New or expanded facilities related to such development are consolidated,
                                          to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, unless consolidation will
                                          have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce the
                                          number of producing wells, support facilities, or sites required to produce the
                                          reservoir economically and with minimal environmental impacts.

                                              (c) Environmentally safe and feasible subsea completions are used when
                                          drilling platforms or islands would substantially degrade coastal visual qualities
                                          unless  use of such structures will result in substantially less environmental
                                          risks.

                                              (d) Platforms or islands will not be sited where a substantial hazard to
                                          vessel  traffic might result from the facility or related operations, determined
                                          in, consultation with the United States Coast Guard and the Army Corps of
                                          Engineers.

                                              (e) Such development will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazards
                                          unless it is determined that adequate measures will be undertaken to prevent
                                          damage from such subsidence.

                                              (f) With respect to new facilities, all oilfield brines are reinjected into oil-
                                          producing zones unless the Division of Oil and Gas of the Department of Con-
                                          servation determines to do so would adversely affect production of the reser-
                                          voirs and unless injection into other subsurface zones will reduce environmental
                                          risks. Exceptions to reinjections will be granted consistent with the Ocean
                                          Waters Discharge Plan of the State Water Resources Control Board and where
                                          adequate provision is made for the elimination of petroleum odors and water
                                          quality problems.

                                              Where appropriate, monitoring programs to record land surface and near-
                                          shore ocean floor movements shall be initiated in locations of new large-scale
                                          fluid extraction on land or near shore before operations begin and shall continue
                                          until surface conditions have stabilized. Costs of monitoring and mitigation
                                          programs shall be borne by liquid and gas extraction operators.

                                                                                     99

                                          Section 30263.

                                             (a) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities not otherwise
                                          consistent with the provisions of this division shall be permitted if (1) alternative
                                          locations are not feasible or are more environmentally damaging; (2) adverse
                                          environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; (3) it is
                                          found that not permitting such development would adversely affect the public
                                          welfare; (4) the facility is not located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous
                                          area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally
                                          sensitive areas; and (5) the facility is sited so as to provide a sufficient buffer
                                          area to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property.

                                            (b) In addition to meeting all applicable air quality standards, new or ex-
                                          panded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall be permitted in areas desig-
                                          nated as air quality maintenance areas by the State Air Resources Board and in
                                          areas where coastal resources would be adversely affected only if the negative
                                          impacts of the project upon air quality are offset by reductions in gaseous emis-
                                          sions in the area by the users of the fuels, or, in the case of an expansion of an
                                          existing site, total site emission levels, and site levels for each emission type for
                                          which national or state ambient air quality standards have been established do
                                          not increase.

                                            (c) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall minimize the
                                          need for once-through cooling by usin2 air cooling to the maximum extent fea-
                                          sible and bv using treated waste waters from im)lant processes where feasible.

                                          Section 30264.

                                            Notwithstanding any other provisions of this division, exceDt subdivisions (h)
                                          and (c) of Section 30413, new or eXDanded thermal electric Reneratinp, plants
                                          mav be constructed in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has been
                                          determined bv the State Energy Resources Conservation and Develonment
                                          Commission to have ereater relative merit pursuant to the Drovisions of Section
                                          25516.1 than available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant's
                                          service area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the
                                          provisions of Section 25516.

                                                                                  100

                                                                         Appendix C

                                                 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
                                                         PERMIT REVIEW AND TIMETABLE

                                                                     THE CEQA PROCESS

                                           The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all local and state
                                        public agencies to vrenare and certify environmental impact reports (EIRs) on
                                        any projects possibly resulting in substantial adverse environmental changes.
                                        The State Legislature further refined the CEQA process in 1977 when it passed
                                        the Permit Streamlining Act. This Act establishes a timetable for project review
                                        and approval, including Elk preparation and certification or negative declaration
                                        (see timetable), as well as coordinatiOD procedures for affected local and state
                                        public agencies to follow.

                                           Specifically, the agency with principal responsibility for carrying out or
                                        approving a development project is designated lead agency (LA). This agency
                                        must both complete and certify an EIR on the project or a negative declaration
                                        and approve or deny that project within one year. Otherwise, the project is
                                        aut@matically approved. A 90-day extension can be granted with the consent of
                                        the applicant.

                                           Any other public agency from which a lease, permit or other entitlement of
                                        use is required for such project is designated a responsible agency (RA), While
                                        the lead agency must consider the individual and collective effects of all project
                                        activities, the responsible agency considers only the effects of those activities
                                        which it is required by law to carry out or approve. It has 180 days after the
                                        lead agency takes action to approve or deny the application.

                                           The following timetable represents maximum time deadlines. Agencies are
                                        encouraged to review and to act on project applications at the earliest
                                        opportunity.

                                                                               101

                                                                             APPENDIX C CONTINUED

                                                            STATE PERMIT REVIEW TIMETABLE UNDER CEQA

                                              0                  Application received by Lead Agency (LA)

                                       0 - - 30 days             LA determines application complete or incomplete

                                              45 days            EIR or Negative Declaration decision (whether required)

                                              90 days            Responsible Agency (RA) specifies information required for EIR (45 days aftar
                                                                 receipt of notice bv LA)

                                              105 days           Negative Declaration due

                                                                                              COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TIMETABLE
                                                                                                             (California Coastal Act)

                                       0-- 1 year      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                               0
                                                                 1) LA approves or                           0- - 5 days                  Application deter-
                                                                 denies project;                                                          mined complete or
                                                                 2) RA receives                                                           incomplete
                                                                 application

                                                                                                                       49 days            First public hearing
                                                                                                                                          set (Staff summary)

                                                                                                             0         no limit           Project approval or
                                                                                                                                          denial
                               90 days                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                         t-
                              extension                                                                                10 days            Appeal    must be
                                                                                                                                          filed; if no appeal,
                                                                                                                                          then permit issued.
                                                                                                                                          Appeal not subject
                                                                                                                                          to CEQA timetable.

                                              180 days           RA approves or denies
                                                                 project, measured by
                                                                 either 1) or 2) above,
                                                                 whichever is longer.

                                                                                           102

                                                                   Appendix D

                                           CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REGULATIONS
                                                      FOR REGULAR PERMITS

                                260.22                        NATURAL RESOURCES                          TffLE 14
                                                                                           (Register 7& No. 32-4M-78)

                                                    SUBCHAPTER 1. REGUILAR PERMITS
                                       Article 1. When Local Applications Must be Made First
                                   13052. When Required. When development for which a permit
                                is required pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 30600 or 30601
                                also re(juires a permit from one or more cities or counties or other state
                                or local goverm-nental agencies, a permit application shall not be ac-
                                cepted for filing by the Executive Director unless all such governmen-
                                tal agencies have granted at a minimum their preliminary approvals for
                                said development. An applicant shall have been deemed to have com-
                                plied with the requirements of this Section when the proposed develop-
                                ment has received approvals of any or all of the following aspects of the
                                proposal, as applicable:
                                   (a) Tentative map approval;
                                   (b) Planned residential development approval;
                                   (c@ Special or conditional use permit approval;
                                   ( ) Zoning change approval;
                                   (e) All required variances, except minor variances for which a per-
                                mit requirement could be established only upon a review of the de-
                                tailed working drawings;
                                   (f) Approval of a general site plan including such matters as delinea-
                                tion of roads and public easement (s) for shoreline access;
                                   (g) A final Environmental Impact Report or a negative declaration,
                                as required, including (1) the explicit consideration of any proposed
                                grading; and (2) explicit consideration of alternatives to the proposed
                                development; and (3) all comments and supporting documentation
                                submitted to the lead agency;
                                   (h) Approval of dredging and filling of any water areas;
                                   (i) Approval of general uses and intensity of use proposed for each
                                Elart of the area covered by the application as permitted by the applica-
                                   e local general plan, zoning requirements, height, setback or other
                                land use ordinances;
                                   0) In geographic areas specified by the Executive Director of the
                                Commission or Regional Commission, evidence of a commitment by
                                local government or other appro nate- entity to serve the proposed
                                development at the time of         __ -_  fetion of the development, with any
                                necessary municipal or utility se'rvices designated by the Executive
                                Director of the Regional Commission or Commission;
                                   (k) A local government coastal development permit issued pursuant
                                to the requirements of Chapter 7 of these regulations.
                                   NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30M, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections
                                30334 and 30620, Public Resources Code.
                                   History.- 1. Amendment of subsection (g) and refiling of subsection 0) filed 6-10-77;
                                              effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                            2. Amendment filed 10-20-77 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register
                                              77, No. 43).
                                           3. Amendment filed 1-19-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78,
                                              No. 3).

                                                                          103

                                 TITLE 14              CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                         � 13053.4
                                 (Regirster 79, No. 22-4@2-79)                                            (p. 260.22.1)
                                 13053. Where Preliminary Approvals are Not Required.
                                   (a) The executive director may waive the requirement for preliminary ap-
                                 Proval by other federal, state or local governmental agencies for good cause,
                                 including but not limited to:
                                   (1) The project is for a public purpose;
                                   (2) The impact upon coastal zone resources could be a major factor in the
                                 decision of that state or local agency to approve, disapprove, or modify the
                                 development;
                                   (3) Further action would be required by other state or local agencies if the
                                 coastal commission (s) requires any substantial changes in the location or design
                                 of the development;
                                   (4) The state or local agency has specifically requested the coastal commis-
                                 sion to consider the application before it makes a decision or, in a manner
                                 consistent with the applicable law, refuses to consider the development for
                                 approval until the coastal commission acts, or
                                   (5) A draft Environmental Impact Report upon the development has been
                                 completed by another state or local governmental agency and the time for any
                                 comments thereon has passed, and it, along with any comments received, has
                                 been submitted to the regional commission and the commission at the time of
                                 the application.
                                   (b) Where a joint development permit application and public hearing pro-
                                 cedure system has been adopted by the commission and another agency pursu-
                                 ant to Public Resources Code Section 30337, the requirements of Section 13052
                                 shall be modified accordingly by the commission at the time of its approval of
                                 the joint application and hearing system.
                                   (c) The executive director may waive the requirements of Section 13052 for
                                 developments governed by Public Resources Code, Section 30606.
                                   (d) The executive director of the commission may waive the requirement
                                 for preliminary approval based on the c     'riteria of Section 13053 (a) for those
                                 developments involving uses of more than local importance as defined in Sub-
                                 chapter I of Chapter 8.
                                 HISTORY:
                                   I. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                        Article 2. Application for Permit
                                 13053.4. Single Permit Application.
                                   (a) To the maximum extent feasible, functionally related developments to
                                 be performed by the same applicant shall be the subject of a single permit
                                 application. The executive director shall not accept for filing a second applica-
                                 tion for development which is the subject of a permit application already
                                 pending before the regional commission or the commission. This section shall
                                 not limit the right of an applicant to amend a pending application for a permit
                                 in accordance with the provisions of Section 13072.
                                   (b) The executive director shall not accept for filing an application for an
                                 amendment to a permit until such permit becomes final.

                                                                           104

                                � 13053.5               CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                          TITLE 14
                                (p. 260.22.2)                                                    lRegister 79, No. 22---&2-79)
                                   (c) The executive director shall not accept for filing an application for devel-
                                opment on a lot or parcel or portion thereof which is the subject of a pending
                                proposal for an adjustment to the boundary of the coastal zone pursuant to
                                Public Resources Code Section 30103 (b).
                                NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                30620(a) (1), Public Resources Code.
                                HISTORY:
                                   1. Repealer of Article 2 (Sections 13053.5 and 13053.6) and new Article,2 (Sections
                                13053.4-13053.6) filed 5-29-79; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 79, No. 22). For
                                history of former article, see Registers 79, No.10; 79, No. 9; and 77, No. 24.
                                13053.5. Application Form and Information Requirements.
                                   The permit application form shall require at least the following items:
                                   (a) An adequate description including maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the
                                proposed development, project site and vicinity sufficient to determine
                                whether the project complies with all relevant policies of the California Coastal
                                Act of 1976, including sufficient information concerning land and water areas
                                in the vicinity of the site of the pro osed project, (whether or not owned or
                                controlled by the applicant) so that Te Regional Commission will be adequate-
                                ly informed as to present uses and plans, both public and private, insofar as they
                                can reasonably be ascertained for the vicinity surrounding the project site. The
                                description of the development shall also include any feasible alternatives or
                                any feasible mitigation measures available which would substantiallK lessen any
                                significant adverse impact which the development may have on t e environ-
                                ment. For purposes of this section the term "significant adverse impact on the
                                environment" shall be defined as in, the California Environmental Quality Act
                                and the Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
                                   (b) A, description a d documentation of the applicant's legal interest in all
                                the property upon which work would be performed, if the application were
                                approved, e.g., ownership, leasehold, enforceable option, authority to acquire
                                t e specific property by eminent domain. If the erson proposing the develop-
                                ment is the lessee of the property, all superior lessors including the owner of
                                the fee interest in the property shall join the lessee as co-applicants.
                                   (c) A dated signature by or on behalf of each of the applicants, attesting to
                                the truth, completeness ancl accuracy of the contents of the application and, if
                                the signer of the application is not the applicant, written evidence that the
                                signer is authorized to act as the applicant's representative and to bind the
                                applicant in all matters concerning the application.
                                   (d) The applicant shall furnish to the Regional Commission, at the time of
                                submission of the application, either one (1) copy of each drawing, map, photo-
                                graph, or other exhibit approximately 81/2 in. by, I I in., or if the applicant desires
                                to submit exhibits of a larger size, enough copies reasonably required for distri-
                                bution to those persons on the Regional Commissions mailing lists and for
                                inspection by the public in the Regional Commission office. A reasonable num-
                                ber of additional copies may, at the discretion of the Executive Director, be
                                required.

                                                                              105

                                 TrrLE 14              CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                          � 13054
                                 (Register 79, No. 72--4-2-79)                                            (p. 260.23)
                                   (e) Any additional information deemed to be required by the commission or
                                 the regional commission's executive director for specific categories of develop-
                                 ment or for development proposed for specific geographic areas.
                                   (f) The form shall also provide notice to applicants that failure to provide
                                 truthful and accurate information necessary to review the permit application
                                 or to provide public notice as required by these regulations may result in delay
                                 in processing the application or may constitute grounds for revocation of the
                                 permit.
                                 NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                 30620(a) (1), Public Resources Code.
                                 13053.6. Amendment of Application Form.
                                   The executive director of the commission may, from time to time, as he or
                                 she deems necessary, amend the format of the application form, provided,
                                 however, that any significant change in the type of information requested must
                                 be approved by the commission. The regional commissions may add supple-
                                 mentary sheets to the application form requesting information pertinent to the
                                 specific region and subject to the approval of the executive director of the
                                 commission or of the commission consistent with the requirements of this
                                 section.
                                 NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                 30620(a) (1), Public Resources Code.

                                                                 Article 3. Notice
                                 13054. Notification Requirements.
                                   (a) For applications filed after the effective date of this subsection, the a Ii  -
                                                                                                               'p
                                 cant shall provide notice to adjacent landowners and residents as provideTin'
                                 this section. The applicant shall provide the regional commission with a list of
                                 the addresses of all residences, including apartments, and all parcels of real
                                 property of record located within one hundred feet of the perimeter of the
                                 parcel on which the development is proposed and the name and address of the
                                 owner of record, on the date on which the application is submitted, of any such
                                 parcel which does not have an address or is uninhabited. This list shall be part
                                 of the public record maintained by the regional commission for the application.
                                 The applicant shall also provide the regional commission with stamped en-
                                 velopes for all parcels described above. Separate stamped envelopes shall be
                                 addressed to "owner" and to "occupant" except that for parcels which do not
                                 have addresses or are not occupied, the envelopes shall include the name and
                                 address of the owner of record of the parcel. The applicant shall also place a
                                 legend on the front of each envelope including words to the effect of "Impor-
                                 tant. Public Hearing Notice." The executive director shall provide an appropri-
                                 ate stamp for the use of applicants in the regional commission office. The legend
                                 shall be legible and of sufficient size to be reasonably noted by the recipient of
                                 the envelope. The executive director may waive this requirement and may
                                 require that some other suitable form of notice be provided by the applicant
                                 to those interested persons, upon a showing that this requirement would be
                                 unduly burdensome; a statement of the reasons for the waiver shall be placed
                                 in the project file.

                                                                         106

                                   TITLE 14           CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                    260.25
                                   (Register 77, No. 40--10-1-77)
                                      (b) At the time the application is submitted for filing, the applicant
                                   must post, at a conspicuous place, easily read by the public and as close
                                   as possible to the site of the proposed development, notice that an
                                   application for a permit for the proposed development has been sub-
                                   mitted to the regional commission. Such notice shall contain a general
                                   description of the nature of the proposed development. The regional
                                   commission shall furnish the applicant with a standardized form to be
                                   used for such posting. If the applicant fails to so post the completed
                                   notice form and sign the declaration of posting, the executive director
                                   of the regional commission shall refuse to file the application, or shall
                                   withdraw the application from filing if it has already been filed when
                                   he or she learns of such failure.
                                      (c) Pursuant to Sections 13104-13108.5, the regional commission or
                                   the commission shall revoke a permit if it determines that the permit
                                   was granted without proper notice having been given.
                                      History: 1. Amendment to subsections (a) and (c) filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day
                                               thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                             2. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 8-22-77 as an emergency; effective
                                               upon filing (Register 77, No. 35).
                                             3. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 9-30-77, effective thirtieth day thereaf-
                                               ter (Register 77, No. 40).
                                                 Article 4. Schedule of Fees for Filing and
                                                       Processing Permit Applications
                                      13055. Fees. (a) Permit filing and processing fees, to be paid by
                                   check or money order at the time of the filing of the permit application,
                                   shall be as follows:
                                         (1) Twenty-five dollars ($25) for any development qualifying for
                                      an administrative or emergency permit.
                                         (2) Fifty dollars ($50) for single-fan-dly homes or for any develop-
                                      ment ot a type or in a location such that it would ordinarily be
                                      scheduled for the consent calendar.
                                         (3) Seven five dollars ($75) for divisions of land where there are
                                      single -familytt-omes already built and only one new lot is created by
                                      the division and for multi-family units up to 4 units, or for any other
                                      development not otherwise covered herein with a development cost
                                      of less than $100,000.
                                         (4) Two-hundred and fifty dollars ($250) or fifteen dollars ($15)
                                      per unit whichever is greater, but not to exceed two-thousand five-
                                      hundrea dollars ($2,500) for multi-unit residential development
                                      greater than 4 units, or for any other development not otherwise
                                      covered herein with a development cost of more than $100,000 but
                                      less than $500,000. Two-hundred and fifty dollars ($250) for office,
                                      commercial, convention or industrial development of less than 10,000
                                      gross square feet.
                                         (5) Five hundred dollars (M) for office, commercial, conven-
                                      tion or industrial development of more than 10,000 but less than
                                      25,000 gross square feet, or for any other development not otherwise
                                      covered herein with a development cost of more than $500,000 but
                                      less than $1,9M,000.
                                         (6) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for office, commercial, conven-
                                      tion or industrial development of more than 25,000 but less than
                                      50,000 gr9ss square feet or for any other development not otherwise
                                      covered herein with a development cost of more than $1,2W,000 but
                                      less than $2,500,000.

                                                                        107

                                        2M.26                      NATURAL RESOURCES                    TITLE 14
                                                                                            (Register'n, No. 40-10.1-1n)
                                             (7) One thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for office, com-
                                           mercial, convention or industrial development of more than 50,000
                                           but less than 100,000 gross square feet or for any other development
                                           not covered otherwise herein with a development cost of more than
                                           $2,500,000 but less than $5,000,000.
                                             (8) Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for office, com-
                                           mercial, convention or industrial development of more than 100,000
                                           gross square feet or for any other development cost of more than
                                           $5,000,000 and for any major energy production and fuel processing
                                           facilities, including but not limited to, the construction or major mod-
                                           ification of offshore petroleum production facilities, tanker terminals
                                           and mooring facilities, generating plants, petroleum refineries, LNG
                                           gassification facilities and the like.
                                           (b) Where a development consists of land* division, each lot shall be
                                       considered as one residential unit for the purpose of calculating the
                                       application fee. Such residential unit shall include a single family house,
                                       if proposed together with the land division. Conversion to condomini-
                                       ums shall be considered a division of the land.
                                           (c) The application fee shall be determined from the type and size
                                       of the proposed development, except that where there is conflict over
                                       the applicable fee, the executive director may use the project cost to
                                       determine the fee.
                                           (d) In addition to the above fees, the re0onal commission or the
                                       commission may require the applicant to reimburse it for any additional
                                       reasonable expenses incurred in its consideration of the permit applica-
                                       tion, including the costs of providing public notice.
                                           (e) The executive director may waive the application fee in full or
                                                                                                        a projec
                                       in art where the application concerns the same site and                     t
                                       suj
                                           stantially the same as an application previously processed by the
                                       @egional commission and no substantial staff work is required.
                                           (f) The executive director shall waive the application fee where
                                       requested by resolution of the commission.
                                           History. 1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77,
                                                   No. 24).
                                                    Article 5. Determination Concerning Filing
                                           1305q. Filing. A pern-dt application submitted on the form or
                                       format issued pursuant to Sections 13053.5 and 13053.6, together with all
                                       necessary attachments and exhibits, and a filing fee pursuant to Section
                                       13055, shall be deemed 'filed' after having been received and found in
                                       pTpper order by the executive director of the regional commission. Said
                                       review shall be completed within a. reasonable time, but unless there
                                       ,are unusual circumstances, no later than five (5) working days after the
                                       date it is received in the offices of the regional commission during the
                                       normal working hours of said office. A determination by the executive
                                       director that an application form is incomplete may be appealed to the
                                       regional commission for its determination as to whether the permi't
                                       application may be filed. The executive director shall cause a date of
                                       receipt stamp to be affixed to all applications for permits on the date
                                       they are so received and a stamp of the date of filing on the date they
                                       are so filed.
                                         History: 1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77,
                                                  No. 24).

                                                                          108

                             TITLE 14              CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                             13058
                             (Register 80, No.                                                         (p. 260.27)
                                                    Article 6. Application Summaries
                             13057. Contents.
                               (a) The executive director shall prepare and reproduce a summary of each
                             application officially filed except as provided for administrative permits in
                             Section 13153. The summary shall be brief and understandable, and shall fairly
                             present a description of the si&nificant features. of the pro osed development,
                             using the applicant's words wherever a propriate. The           plication summary
                             shall be illustrated with the maps or Trawings and shal contain either the
                             Environmental Impact Report or the Environmental Impact Statement pre-
                             M
                              ared for the development, if such a report was repared, or a summary of the
                                 ironmental Impact Report or Environmentv-.Impact Statement as it relates
                             to the issues of concern to the commission. Staff comments shall also be includ-
                             ed in the summary concerning (1) questions of fact, (2) the applicable policies
                             of the California Coastal Act of 1976, (3) related previous applications, (4) any
                             issues of the legal adequacy of the application to comply with the requirements
                             of the California Coastal Act of 1976, (5) public comment on the application,
                             .@6) written res )Onse to significant environmental points raised by members of
                                - public or other public agencies, (7) prior decisions of the commission that,
                             Ene
                             pursuant to the provisions   of Public Resources Code Section 30625 (c) may be
                             a precedent (s) for the issues raised by the application and (8) other relevant
                             matters, The staff comments shall be clearlylabeled to distinguish them from
                             the comments 'of the an')Iicant and interested persons. The summary may
                             include a tentative siaifrecommendation as to whether a permit should be
                             granted or denied. If a tentative staff recommendation is included in the ap-
                             plication summary, it shall conform to the requirements of Sections 13(Y73-
                             13077.
                             HISTORY:
                               1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                             13058. Consolidation.
                               The executive director may consolidate two or more applications which are
                             legally or factually related for purposes of preparation of staff documents and/
                             or public hearing unless a party thereto makes a sufficient showing to the
                             regional commission that the consolidation would restrict or otherwise inhibit
                             thi rejp'onal commuson's abili          review the developments for consistency
                             with the requirements of the C     . o i Coastal Act of 19176. Any such consofida-
                             tion of perpuit applications shall conform to the requirements of Public Re-
                             solirces Gode Section 30621. A separate vote shall be taken for each application
                             if requested by the applicant.
                             HISTORY:
                               1. New section filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                                                            p
                                                                                           a

                                                                      109

                                                 � 13059               CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                          TITLE 14
                                                 (p. 260.28)                                                   (Register 80, No. 15--&IO-W)

                                                 13059. Distribution.
                                                 The application summary, shall be distributed by mail to all members of the
                                                 regional commission, to the applicant (s), to all affected cities and counties, all
                                                 public agencies which have jurisdiction, by law, with respect to the proposed
                                                 development, and to all other persons known or thought by the executive
                                                 director to have a particular interest in the application, within a reasonable
                                                 time to assure adequate notification to all interested parties prior to the sched-
                                                 uled public hearing. The application summary may either accompany the
                                                 meeting notice required by Section 13015 or may be distributed separately.
                                                 Each regional commission may require any person who desires copies of ap-
                                                 lication summaries to provide a self-addressed stamped envelope for each
                                                 Nesired mailing; where extensive duplicating or mailin costs are involved, the
                                                 regional commission may also require that interesteypersons provide reim-
                                                 bursement for such costs.
                                                 HISTORY:
                                                 1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                                 Article 7. Public Comments on Applications
                                                 13060. Distribution of Comments.
                                                 The executive director shall reproduce and distribute to all regional commis-
                                                 sion members, the text or summary of all relevant communications concerning
                                                 applications that are received in the regional commission offices prior to the
                                                 regional commission's public hearing and thereafter at an@ time prior to the
                                                 vote. Such communications shall be available at the region commission office
                                                 for review by any person during normal working hours.
                                                 HISTORY:
                                                 1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                 13061. Treatment of Similar Communications.
                                                 When a sizable number of similar communications is received, the texts need
                                                 not be reproduced but the regional commission shall be informed of the sub-
                                                 stance of the communications; such communications shall be made available at
                                                 the regional commission office for inspection by any person during normal
                                                 working hours.
                                                                            Article 8. Hearing Dates
                                                 13062. Schedulm*g.
                                                 The executive director of the commission or re             onal commission shall set
                                                                                                         t
                                                 each application filed for public hearing no later tri the 49th day foUowing
                                                 the date on which the application is filed. All dates for public hearing shall be
                                                 set with a view toward allowing adequate public dissemination of the informa-
                                                 tion contained in the applicationprior to the time of the hearing, and toward
                                                 allowing public participation and attendance at the hearing while affording
                                                 applicants expeditious consideration of their permit applications.
                                                 NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code, Reference: Section 30621,
                                                 Public Resources Code.
                                                 HISTORY:
                                                 I. Amendment filed 5-29-79; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 79, No. 22).
                                                 2. Amendment filed 1-3-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 1)
                                                 A Certificate of Compliance must be filed within 120 days or emergency language will
                                                 be repealed on 5-3-80.
                                                 3. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4-29-80 and filed 54WM (Register 80,
                                                 No. 19).

                                                                                          110

                                        TITLE 14             CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                             13066
                                        JR991ster 79, No. 22--&2-79)                                             (p. 260.29)

                                        13063. Notice.
                                          (a) The executive director shall provide to each applicant and to all persons
                                        known or thought by the executive director to have a particular interest in the
                                        aglication, including those specified in Section 13054 (a), notice of. (1) the
                                        fi ing of the application pursuant to Section 13056; (2) the number assigned to
                                        the a plication; (3) a description of the development and its proposed location;
                                        (4) Te date, time and place at which the application will be heard by the
                                        commission or regional commission; (5) the general procedure of the regional
                                        commission concerning hearings and action on applications and (6) the direc-
                                        tion to persons wishing to participate in the public hearing that testimony
                                        should be related to the regional and statewide issues addressed by the Califor-
                                        nia Coastal Act of 19176 and that testimony relating solely to neighborhood and
                                        local concerns is not relevant and will not be permitted by the chairperson.
                                        HISTORY:
                                          1. Amendment filed 8-22-77 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 77, No.
                                        35). For prior history, see Register 77, No. 24.
                                          2. Certificate of Compliance filed 12-22-77 (Register 77, No. 52).
                                                             Article 9. Oral Hearing Procedures
                                        13064. Conduct of Hearing.
                                          The regional commission's public hearing onja permit matter shall be con-
                                        ducted in a manner deemed most suitable to ensure fundamental fairness to all
                                        parties concerned, and with a view toward securing all relevant information
                                        and material necessary to render a decision without unnecessary delay.
                                        13065. Evidence Rules.
                                          The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to
                                        evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be considered if it is the
                                        sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the
                                        conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or
                                        statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over
                                        objection in civil actions. Unduly repetitious or irrelevant evidence shall be
                                        excluded upon order by the chairperson of the regional commission.
                                        13066. Order of Proceedings.
                                        A
                                            ) The regional commission's public hearing on a permit application shall
                                            n
                                             arily proceed in the following order:
                                          (1) Identification of the application; a summary of the application, its accom-
                                        panying documents and other documents and materials submitted at the re-
                                        quest of the applicant, interested persons or the staff, and staff comments
                                        thereon, and a summary of the correspondence received by the executive
                                        director, relating to the application;
                                          (2) Presentation by or on behalf of the applicant, if the applicant wishes to
                                        expand upon material contained in the application summary;
                                          (3) Other speakers for the application;
                                          (4) S      ers a ainst the application;
                                          (5) Ot er s       ers concerning the application;
                                          (6) Rebutt by applicant subject to the discretion of the regional commis-
                                        sion or if the vote is not to be scheduled for a subsequent meeting permitting
                                        time for rebuttal in writing;

                                                13WT                 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                        TME 14
                                                (p. 260.30)                                                  (Register 79, No. 22--4-2-79)
                                                (7) Motion to close the public hearing (or to continue it to a subsequent
                                                meeting).
                                                (b) Questions by commissioners will be in order at any time following any
                                                party's presentation-, subject to time limitations.
                                                (c) All proceedings with regard to permits shall be recorded as provided in
                                                Sections 13M and 13M.
                                                HISTORY:
                                                1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                13WT. Speaker's Presentations.
                                                Speakers' presentations shall be to the point and shall be as brief as possible;
                                                visual and other materials may be used as appropriate. The regional commission
                                                may establish reasonable time limits for presentation (s); such time limits shall
                                                be made known to all affected parties prior to any hearing. Where speakers use
                                                or submit to the regional commission visual or other materials, such materials
                                                shall become part of the application file and identified and maintained as such.
                                                Speakers may substitute reproductions of models or other large materials but
                                                sna- agree to make the originals available upon request of the executive direc-
                                                tor.
                                                HISTORY:
                                                1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                130G& Other Speakers.
                                                (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, and to the chairperson's right
                                                to accept a motion to conclude the taking of oral testimony or to close the public
                                                hearing when a reasonable opportunity to present all questions and points of
                                                view has been allowed, any person wishing to speak on an application shall be
                                                heard.
                                                (b) Remarks shall be brief and to the point, and shall not duplicate those of
                                                previous speakers.
                                                HLSTORY:
                                                1. Repealer of subsection (c) filed 6-1077; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register
                                                77, No. 24).
                                                                           Article 10. Field Trips
                                                13069. Field Trips-Procedures.
                                                Whenever the regional commission is to take a field trip to the site of any
                                                proposed project, the chairperson shall decide, and the executive director all
                                                provide public notice of the time, location and intended scope of the field trip.
                                                Article 11. Additional Hearings, Withdrawal and Off-Calendar Items,
                                                                            Amended Applications
                                                13070. Continued HearingL
                                                A public hearing on an application may becompleted in one regional com-
                                                mission meeting- However, the regional commission may vote to continue the
                                                hearing to a subsequent meeting.
                                                HISTORY:
                                                1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).

                                                                                       112

                                                  TITLE 14          CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                                  13073
                                                  (Register 80, No. 19--s-10-80)                                            (p. 260.31)
                                                  13071. Withdrawal of Application.
                                                  (a) At any time before the regional commission commences calling the roll
                                                  for a vote on an a Ii   ion, an applicant may withdraw the arplication.
                                                     Wit         _pp i0at
                                                  (b)    hdrawal must be in writing or stated on the recor and does not
                                                  require regional commission concurrence. Withdrawal shall be permanent ex-
                                                  cept that the applicant may file a new application for the same development
                                                  subject to the requirements of Sections 13056 and 13109.
                                                  NOtE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30621,
                                                  30333, Public Resources Code.
                                                  HISTORY:
                                                  1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                  2. Amendment of subsection (c) riled 6-14-78 as an emergency; effective upon filing
                                                  (Register 78, No. 24).
                                                  3. Certificate of Compliance filed 8-10-78 (Register 78, No. 32).
                                                  4. Amendment filed 5-29-79; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 79, No. 22).
                                                  5. Amendment filed 1-3-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 1).
                                                  A Certificate of Compliance must be filed within 120 days or emergency language will
                                                  be repealed on 5-3-80.
                                                  6. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4-29-80 and filed 5-&80 (Register 80,
                                                  No. 19).
                                                  13072. Procedures for Amended Application.
                                                  (a) If an application for a permit for a proposed project is amended in any
                                                  material manner, a public hearing must be held on the amended application,
                                                  unless the executive director determines that the subject matter of the
                                                                                                                   public hearing.
                                                                                                                   is scheduled to be
                                                                                                                   n a manner which
                                                                                                                   shall agree in writ-
                                                                                                                     42 days from the
                                                                                                                   such an extension,
                                                  the regional commission shall vo on the applicatio as originally filed.
                                                  (c) Conditions recommended by the executive director or imposed by the
                                                  regional commission shall not be considered an amendment to the application.
                                                  HISTORY:
                                                  I. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                            Article 12. Preparation of Staff Recommendation
                                                  13073. Staff Analysis.
                                                  (a) If the vote on an application is scheduled for a later meeting than the oral
                                                  hearing on the application, the executive director shall promptly perform what-
                                                  ever inquiries, investigations, research, conferences, and discussions are re-
                                                  quired to resolve issues presented by the aulication and to enable preparation
                                                  of a staff recommendation for the vote. If rther evidence is taken or received
                                                  by the executive director, such evidence shall be made available in the adminis-
                                                  trative record of the application at the commission's office and all affected
                                                  arties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond prior to the deadline
                                                  reparation and mailing of the staff recommendation.
                                                  ) The executive director may request of the applicant any additional infor-
                                                  mation necessary to perform the responsibilities set forth in subsection (a), and
                                                  ma eport to the regional commission any failure to comply with s6ch request,
                                                  inc rurding the relationship of the requested information to the findings required
                                                     ed     end     nt aeeedade ate a                     a n
                                                                                                                or p
                                                                 in       s vi                               p
                                                                                 in        hi an            ca  'on
                                                  os If           e       w   r   w           u       Iyp t  tjon  in
                                                                          bh  hea             h       a
                                                                                               M          lic
                                                                 a  pu                 atw   c            p
                                                  ar) an p or  to         hc  tor  g    it p
                                                  pro'
                                                  h d    a h an           se   a en          e        a      a
                                                                    wl          in   Is  s            tpp ppli
                                                                               in  s    in            h a       ant
                                                         tl                       e       aten        te     c     S]
                                                             c
                                                  te cu  Pp         or    dt  rm
                                                  he exe ve    irect      e e
                                                  Z
                                                  mg to extend the final date for  publi  hearing     not more  than
                                                  eof such amendment. If      the applicant    does   not agree to s

                                                  by the California Coastal Act of 1976.

                                                                                          113

                                       13074            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                TITLE 14
                                     (p. 260.32)                                        (Register 80. No. 11"10-110)
                                     13074. Submission of Additional Written Evidence.
                                       At any point before or after the oral hearing on a permit application, up until
                                     the time the public hearing is closed by the regional commission, any interested
                                     party may submit written evidence including rebuttal arguments, to the re-
                                     gional commission. Rebuttal information shall ordinarily be submitted to the
                                     executive director prior to the deadline for preparing staff recommendations.
                                     HISTORY:
                                       1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                     13075. Final Staff Recommendation.
                                       The executive director's final recommendation shall include specific written
                                     findings, including a statement of facts and legal conclusions, as to whether the
                                     proposed development conforms to the requirements of the California Coastal
                                     Act of 1976, including, but not limited to, the requirements of Public Resources
                                     Code, Section 30604. -
                                       The staff recommendation shall include any questions that have not been
                                     answered by the applicant or by interested parties and may include a recom-
                                     mendation that the regional commission take a field trip to the site of any
                                     proposed project when the executive director judges that this would materially
                                     assist in understanding and voting on the application. The staff recommenda-
                                     tion shall be written except as provided in Section 13082.
                                       The staff recommendation shall contain recommended written responses to
                                     significant environmental points raised during the evaluation in a manner con-
                                     sistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The
                                     staff recommendation shall also relate the proposed findings to prior decisions
                                     of the commission in order to assure consistency of the recommendation with
                                     decisions of the commission that, pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources
                                     Code Section 30625(c) are precedents for the issues raised by the application.
                                     HISTORY:
                                       I. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                     13076. Distribution of Final Staff Recommendation.
                                       The staff recommendation shall be distributed to the persons and in the
                                     manner provided in Section 13059 for application summaries.
                                     HISTORY:
                                       1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                     13077. Written Response to Staff Recommendation.
                                       Any person may respond in writing to the staff recommendation subject to
                                     the requirements of Sections 13074 and 13084.
                                        Article 13. Regional Commission Review of Staff Recommendation
                                     13080. Alternatives for Review of Staff Recommendation.
                                       Any vote on an application may be taken oni at a properly noticed public
                                                                                 Lee alternatives set forth in
                                     hearing and shall proceed under one of the t
                                     Sections 13081-13083.

                                                                        114

                                         TITLE 14             CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                             13084
                                         (Register 80, No.                                                       (p. 260.33)
                                         13081. Staff Recommendation Included in Application Summary.
                                           If the staff report and tentative recommendation described in Section 13057
                                         is complete and has been distributed prior to the public hearing, and if ade-
                                         quate public notice has been given the regional commission may vote upon an
                                         a                          ieeting auriny, which the public hearing on the ap-
                                         pyplication at the same rr.
                                           ication is held. The parties shidl be    orded the opportunity for rebuttal to
                                         any information _presented at the public hearing in the manner set forth in
                                         Section 13084 before the regional commission proceeds to vote on the applica-
                                         tion.
                                         HISTORY:
                                           1. Amendment filed 6-10-77i effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                         13082. Verbal Staff Recommendation Upon Conclusion of Public Hearing.
                                           (a) If the application summary does not include a staff recommendation, but
                                         the regional commission is prepared to vote immediately upon conclusion of
                                         the public hearing, the executive director shall provide a verbal recommenda-
                                         tion and summary of proposed findings and the applicant and interested parties
                                         shall be afforded an opportunity to respond to the recommendation in the
                                         manner set forth in Section 13084 before the regional commission proceeds to
                                         vote on the application,
                                         HISTORY:
                                           1. Repealer of subsection (b) filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register
                                         77, No. 24).
                                         13083. Consideration of Staff Recommendation at a Meeting Subsequent to
                                         the Oral Hearing-
                                           Upon  conclusion of the oral hearing, the regional commission may eut the
                                         vote on the application over to a subsequent meeting, but no later than 21 days
                                         following the conclusion of the     blic nearing unless the applicant in writin
                                         waives any right to a decision witl@in that time limit. Notice of such hearing shm
                                         be given in the manner and to the persons provided in Section 13062 except
                                         that those persons notified pursuant to Section 13054 (a) need not be notified
                                         under this section unless they specifically request such notice.
                                         HISTORY:
                                           1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                         13084. Procedures for Presentation of Staff Recommendation and Responses
                                         of Interested Parties.
                                           (a) The executive director shall summarize orally the staff recommendation,
                                         including the proposed findings and any proposed conditions, in the same
                                         manner provided for aTplication summanes in Section 13066.                    's
                                                                 0
                                           (b) Immediately fol owing the presentation of the executive director rec-
                                         ommendation, the parties who testified at the hearing conducted pursuant to
                                         Section 13066 or their representative (s) shall have an op ortunity to state their
                                         views on the recommendation briefly and specifically. The order ofpresenta-
                                         tion shall be the opponents and other concerned parties speaking first to be
                                         followed b the applicant.
                                           (c) At L discretion of the chairperson, the applicant or other parties may
                                         present rebuttal materials prior to the vote if the chairperson determines that
                                         the materials are primarily visual in nature or, if the materials are in written
                                         form, that the written materials are merely iebuttal arguments and do not
                                         constitute new evidence.

                                                                                 115

                                            � 13085                CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                         TITLE 14
                                            (p. 260.34)                                                   (Register 80, No. 16-44W)
                                              (d) Where the regional commission moves to vote on an application with
                                            conditions different firom those proposed by the applicant in the application or
                                            by the staff in the staff recommendation pursuant to subsection (a) above, the
                                            parties who responded to the staff recommendation under subsection (b)
                                            above, shall have an opportunity to state their views on the conditions briefly
                                            and specifically, The order of presentation shall be as provided in subsection
                                            (b).
                                            HISTORY:
                                              1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                            13085. Applicant's Postponement.
                                              In addition to the procedures set forth in Section 13071 the applicant may
                                            request the regional commission to postpone consideration of the application
                                            pursuant   to this section. Where the applicant determines that he or she is not
                                            prepared   to resppnd to the staff recommendation at the meeting for which the
                                            vote on the application is scheduled, the applicant shall have one right, pursu-
                                            ant to this section, to posLpone the vote to a subsequent meeting, Such a request
                                            shall be in writing or stated on the record in a regional commission meeting and
                                            shall include a waiver of any applicable time limits for regional commission
                                            action on the application.
                                              (a) Where the staff recommendation is distributed seven (7) or more days
                                            prior to the date ofthe scheduled regional commission meeting, the applicant
                                            must submit a request for postponement under this section to the executive
                                            director in writing at least two (2) workin_g days before the meeting. The
                                            executive director shall establish procedures for notification, to the extent feasi-
                                            ble, to all persons interested in the application, of the postponement. -
                                              (b) Where the staff recommendation is not distributed within the time
                                            specified in subsection (2) above, the applicant may request postponement
                                            eitherin,@riffin or.in person at the commission meeting prior to the presenta-
                                            tions provided for in Section 13084 (b).
                                            NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30333,
                                            Public Resources Code.
                                            HISTORY:
                                              1. New section filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                              2. Amendment filed 1-3-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No, 1).
                                            A Certificate of Compliance must be riled within 120 days or emergency language will
                                            be repealed on 5-3-80.
                                              3. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4-29-80 and filed 5-8-80 (Register 80,
                                            No. 19).
                                            13087. Rescheduling,
                                              Where consideration of an application is postponed at the request of the
                                            applicant, the executive director shall, to the extent feasible, schedule further
                                            consideration of the application by the regional commission at a time and
                                            location convenient to all persons interested in the application.
                                            HISTORY:
                                              1, New section filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                                       Article 14. Voting Procedure
                                            13090. VotinrAfter. Recommendation.
                                                              c
                                              The region commission shall not vote upon an application until it has re-
                                            ceived a staff recommendation under one of the three alternative procedures
                                            set forth in Sections 13081-13083.

                                                                                       116

                                             TITLE 14                CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                               � 13096
                                             (Register 80, No. 19-6-10-80)                                                  (p. 260.35)
                                             13091. Voting Time and Manner.
                                                  he e @ na c        @* n h          n     a        e on a pe       a@   'icat'onil he
                                                              gj                                vo'  w g       rmit    p  h         co _
                                                                     al                           Ho   in   the     b  ic  earin        n
                                                  Tt Tgglor '   ?mm   "'o    '  ou"    oTm   "' fo                p@    I  cts to   ollow
                                             ne      e a e on                      ion ee   n
                                             c    xirgu   p rrmit     Comm     iss u Iins ti g    . al com
                                             oern n   the e          ap licatlon   fn es the region           misslo   e e
                                             ne   of the two proce     ures   set  orth in Sectlons 13081_13082
                                             13092. Effect of Vote Under Various Conditions.
                                                  (a) Votes by a regional commission shall only be on the affirmative question
                                             of whether the permit should be granted; i.e., a "yes" vote shall be to grant a
                                             permit (with or without conditions) and a "no" vote to deny.
                                                  (b) Any condition to a permit proposed by a commissioner shall be voted
                                             upon only by affirmative vote,
                                                  (c) A majority of members present is sufficient to carry a motion to require
                                             or delete proposed terms,'conditions or findings,
                                                  (d) Unless otherwise specified at the time of the vote, the action taken shall
                                             be deemed to have been taken on the basis of the reasons set forth in the staff
                                                  , r m in - ridation . In other words, if consistent with the staff recommendation
                                             and not otherwise modified, the vote of the regional commission shall be
                                             deemed to adopt the findings and conclusions recommended by the staff,
                                             13093. Straw Votes.
                                             NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code, Reference; Section 30333,
                                             Public Resources Code.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                  1, Repealer filed 1.3-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 1). A
                                             Certificate of Compliance must be filed within 120 days or emergency language will be
                                             repealed on 5-3-80.
                                                  2. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4.29-80 and filed 5-8-80 (Register 80,
                                             No. 18).
                                             13094. Voting Procedure,
                                                     , tin,@upon permit applications shall be by roll call, with the chairper-
                                                  N e Vinog
                                             son         po led last,
                                             abs(b) Members may vote "yes" or "no" or may abstain from voting, but an
                                                  tention shall not be deemed a "yes" vote,
                                                  (c) Any member may change his or her vote prior to the tally having been
                                             announced by the chairperson, but not thereafter.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                  1. Amendment filed 6.10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                             13095. Voting by Members Absent from Hearing.
                                                  A member may vote on any application, provided he or she has familiarized
                                             himself or herself with the presentation at the hearing where the application
                                             was considered, and with pertinent materials relating to the application submit-
                                             ted to the commission and has so declared prior to the vote. in the absence of
                                             a challenge raised by an interested party, inadvertent failure to make such a
                                             declaration prior to the vote shall not invalidate the vote of a member.
                                             13096. Re ional Commission Findings.
                                                  (a) All Tecisions of the regional commission relating to permit applications
                                             shall be accompanied by written conclusions about the consistency of the ap-
                                             plication with Public Resources Code, Section 30604, and this section, and find-
                                             ings of fact and reasoning supTortin th d cision.
                                                                                   0
                                                                                   on &
                                                                                        ,j, e e
                                                  (b) Approval of an applica         sh be accompanied by specific findings of
                                             fact supporting the following legal conclusions:

                                                                                         117

                                            13100               CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                        TITLE 14
                                          (p. 260,36)                                                 (Register 80, No. 19 9 10-110)
                                            (1) that the development is in conformity with Chapter 3 of the California
                                          Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Public Resources Code, Section 30200);
                                            (2) that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of any
                                          affected local government to prepare a local coastal program that is in con rm-
                                          ity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976,
                                            (3) if the development is located between the nearest public road and the
                                          sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone, that the
                                          development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation
                                          policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976; and
                                            (4) that either the development will have no significant adverse environ-
                                          mental impacts or there are no feasible alternatives, or feasible mitigation
                                          measures, as provided in the California Environmental Quality Act, available
                                          which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the devel-
                                          opment as finally proposed may have on the environment.
                                            (c) Denial of an application for a coastal development permit to demolish
                                          a structure shall be supported by a specific finding of fact, based on a prepon-
                                          derance of the evidence, that retention of such structure is feasible.
                                            (d) Where written findings are not adopted at the time of the vote on the
                                          application, the executive director shall at the next subsequent meeting of the
                                          regi
                                            t1onal commission recommend findings in conformity with the requirements
                                          of  is section. Where findings are not adopted together with the vote on the
                                          application, a majority of the members of the regional commission who pre-
                                          vailed shall be sufficient to adopt findings.
                                          NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code, Reference: Section 30333,
                                          Public Resources Code.
                                          HISTORY:
                                            1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                            2. Amendment filed 1-3-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 1)
                                          A Certificate of Compliance must be filed within 120 days or emergency language will
                                          be repealed on 5.3-80.
                                            3. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4-29-80 and filed 54;-80 (Register 80,
                                          No. 19).

                                                             Article 15, Consent Calendar Procedures
                                          13100. Consent Calendar.
                                            New permit applications which, in the opinion of the executive director of
                                          a regional commission, are de minimis with respect to the purposes and objec'
                                          tives of the California Coastal Act of 1976, may be scheduled for one pu lic
                                          hean*n$ during which all such items will be taken up as a single matter. This
                                          procedure shall be known as the Consent Calendar.
                                          13101. Procedures for Consent Calendar.
                                            The procedures prescribed in these regulations pertaining to permit applica-
                                          tions, includint application summaries, stiff recommendations, resolutions, vot-
                                          ing, etc., s , annIt to the Consent Calendar procedure, except that all
                                          included items &ak e considered by the regional commission as if they con-
                                          stituted a single permit application. The public shall have the right to present
                                          testimony and evidence concerning any item on the Consent Calendar. Ap-
                                          plication summaries and tentative staff recommendations for applications
                                          placed on the consent calendar may be comprised of a brief but fair and
                                          accurate description of the proposed development and its location and a de-
                                          scription of any roposed conditions. A factual finding may be made for similar
                                          projects locatelin the same geographic area and may be incorporated by
                                          reference in each application summary governed by the findings.

                                                                                    118

                                          TITLE 14               CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                             � 13106
                                          (Register 80, No. 19--6-1040)                                                (p. 260.37)

                                          13102. Conditions to Consent Calendar Items.
                                             The executive director may include recommended conditions in agenda
                                          descriptions of consent calendar items which shall then be deemed approved
                                          by the regional commission if the item is not removed by the regional commis-
                                          sion from the consent calendar.
                                          13103. Public Hearings on Consent Calendar.
                                             At the public hearing on the Consent Calendar items, any person may ask for
                                          the removal of any item from the Consent Calendar and shall briefly state the
                                          reasons for so requesting. If any three commissioners object to any item on the
                                          Consent Calendar and request that such item be processed individually as a
                                          separate application, such item shall be removed from the Consent Calendar
                                          and shall thenceforth be processed as a single permit application. If any item
                                          is removed from the Consent Calendar, the public hearing on said item shall
                                          ordinarily be deemed continued until it can be scheduled for an individual
                                          public hearing,
                                                                   Article 16, Revocation of Permits
                                          13104. Scope of Article.
                                             The provisions of this article shall govern proceedings for revocation of a
                                          coastal aevelopment permit. reviously ranted by a regional commission or the
                                          commission. References to A regionaf commission shall be deemed to apply
                                          to the commission if the permit at issue was granted by the commission or if
                                          there is no regional commission with jurisdiction over the project site at the
                                          time of the request for revocation.
                                          NOTE: Authority cited for Article 16 (Sections 13104-13108): Sections 30331 and 30333,
                                          Public Resources Code. Reference: Chapters 1, 2,4 and 7 of Division 20, Public Resources
                                          Code.
                                          HISTORY:
                                             1. Now Article 16 (Sections 13104-13108) filed 2-11-77 as an emergency; effective upon
                                          filing (Register 77, No. 7).
                                             2. Certificate of Compliance filed 4-29-77 (Register 77, No. 18).
                                          13105. Grounds for Revocation,
                                             Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be (a) willful inclusion of inaccurate,
                                          erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development
                                          permit application, where the regional commission finds that accurate and
                                          complete information would have caused the regional commission to require
                                          additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application;
                                             (b) failure to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054, where the
                                          views of the person(s) not notified were not otherwise made known to the
                                          regional commission and could have caused the regional commission to require
                                          additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application.
                                          HISTORY:
                                             1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                          13106, Initiation of Proceedings.
                                             .(a) Any person who did not have an opportunity to fully participate in the
                                          or prial permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's failure to pro-
                                          Me inf6rmation as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a
                                          permit b         lication to the executive director of the regional commission
                                          which issueYtTe permit specifyin with particularity, the grounds for revoca-
                                          tion. The executive director shall Ismiss requests which are patently frivolous
                                          and without merit, The executive director may initiate revocation proceedings
                                          on his or her own motion on the basis of the grounds for revocation set forth
                                          in Section 13105,

                                                                                     119

                                                13107                CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                           TITLE 14
                                             (p. 260.38)                                                      (Register 80, No. 19--&10-80)
                                                (b) The executive director of the commission may initiate proceedings by
                                             the commission to revoke a permit issued by a regional commission where he
                                             or she determines that there is good cause to do so and the regional commission
                                             has not reviewed any requests to revoke the permit.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                             13107. Suspension of Permit.
                                                Where the executive director determines in accord with Section 13106, that
                                             grounds exist for revocation of a permit, the operation of the permit shall be
                                             automatically suspended until the regional commission votes to deny the re-
                                             quest for revocation. The executive director shall notify the permittee by mail-
                                             ing a copy of the request for revocation and a summary of the procedures set
                                             forth in this article, to the address shown in the permit application. The execu-
                                             tive director shall also advise the applicant in writing that any development
                                             undertaken during suspension of the permit may be in violation of the Califor-
                                             nia Coastal Act of 1976 and subject to the penalties set forth in Public Resources
                                             Code, Sections 30820 through 30823.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                1. Repealer and new section filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register
                                             77, No. 24).
                                             13108. Hearing on Revocation.
                                                (a) At the next regularly scheduled meeting, and after notice to the permit-
                                             tee and any persons the executive director has reason to know would be inter-
                                             ested in the permit or revocation, the executive director shall report the
                                             request for revocation to the regional commission with a preliminary recom-
                                             mendation on the merits of the request.
                                                (b) The person requesting the revocation shall be afforded a reasonable time
                                             to present the request and the permittee shall be afforded a like time for
                                             rebuttal,
                                                (c) The regional commission shall ordinarily vote on the request at the same
                                             meeting, but the vote may be postponed to a subsequent meeting if the regional
                                             commission wishes the executive director or the Attorney General to perform
                                             further investigation.
                                                (d) A permit may be revoked by a majority vote of the members of the
                                             regional commission present if it finds that any of the grounds specified in
                                             Section 13105 exist. If the reg'  grial commission finds that the request for revoca-
                                             tion was not filed with due diligence, it shall deny the request.
                                             NOTE Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30333,
                                             Public Resources Code.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
                                                2. Amendment filed 1.3,80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 1).
                                             A Certificate of Compliance must be filed within 120 days or emergency language will
                                             be repeated on 5-3-80,
                                                3. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4-29-80 and filed 5-8-W (Register 80,
                                             No. 19).
                                             13108.5. Finality of Regional Commission Decision.
                                                The determination of a regional commission on a request for revocation shall
                                             be final and not subject to appeal to the commission.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                1. New section filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).

                                                                                         120

                                             TITLE 14                CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                               13109.2
                                             (Register 80, No. 19--6.10-80)                                                 (p. 260.39)
                                                                           Article 17. Reapplication
                                             13109. Reapplication.
                                                Following a final decision upon an application for a coastal development
                                             permit, no applicant or the applicant's successor in interest may reapply to a
                                             regional commission for a development permit for substantially the same devel-
                                             opment for a period of six months from the date of the prior final decision.
                                             Whether an application is "substantiall the same           11 as that upon which a final
                                             determination has been rendered shall U decided by the executive director of
                                             the regional commission within (5) working days from receipt of such applica-
                                             tion. Where the executive director is unable to make such decision, the execu-
                                             tive director may refer the re-application to the regional commission for its
                                             decision as to whether the.application is substantially the same. Elimination of
                                             conditions required for a permit shall not be considered a substantial change.
                                             Until such a determination is made, the reapplication shall not be deemed
                                             "filed" within the meaning of Public Resources Code, Section 30621. Any
                                             project which has been denied by a regional commission or the commission and
                                             which may be submitted as a new permit application under the guidelines set
                                             forth above, may be considered by the regional commission without requiring
                                             that the revised project has received preliminary approval under Section 13052
                                             from the local government entity or entities which originally approved the
                                             project. The regional commission may require that the revised project be sub-
                                             jected to informal review by appropriate local government entities rior to
                                             regional commission review. The six-month waiting period providexin this
                                             section may be waived by the commission for good cause.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                1. New Article 17 (Section 13109) filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Reg-
                                             ister 77, No. 24).

                                                                          Article 18. Reconsideration
                                             13109.1. Scope of Article.
                                                The provisions of this article shall govern proceedings for reconsideration of
                                             terms or conditions of a coastal development permit granted or of a denial of
                                             a coastal development permit by a regional commission or the commission.
                                             References to the regional commission shall be deemed to apply to the commis-
                                             sion if the permit was granted or denied by the commission or if there is no
                                             regional commission with jurisdiction over the project site at the time the
                                             request for reconsideration is made.
                                             NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30643,
                                             Public Resources Code.
                                             HISTORY:
                                                1. New Article 18 (Sections 13109.1-13109.6) filed 1-3-80 as an emergency; effective
                                             upon filing (Register 80, No. 1). A Certificate of Compliance must be filed within 120 days
                                             or emergenc@ language will be repealed on 5-3-80.
                                                2. Certificate of Compliance transmitted to OAH 4-29-80 and filed 5-8-80 (Register 80,
                                             No. 19).
                                             13109.2. Initiation of Proceedings.
                                                Any time within 30 days following a final vote upon an application for a
                                             coastal development permit, the applicant of record may request the regional
                                             commission to grant reconsideration of the denial of an application for a coastal
                                             development permit or of any term or condition of a coastal development
                                             permit which has been granted. This request shall be in writing and shall be
                                             received bj the Executive Director of the Regional Commission within 30 days
                                             of the fin vote.
                                             NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30643,
                                             Public Resources Code.

                                                                                          121

                                             13109.3            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                       TITLE 14
                                          (p. 260.40)                                                 (Register 80, No. 19-4-110-1110)
                                          13109.3. Suspension of Appeal.
                                             A request for reconsideration by the regional commission shall stay action on
                                          any appeal taken on the permit action and all application time limitations. The
                                          executive director of the commission shall notify the arpellant of the reconsid-
                                          eration request and the effect on the pending appea..
                                             If the reconsideration request is denied, the appeal shall be re-activated and
                                          set for hearing in accordance with the procedures in these regulations, If the
                                          reconsideration request is granted, the appeal shall be invalidated. Aggrieved
                                                                     ither the original hearing or the reconsideration hear-
                                          parties participating in e
                                          ing may appeal from the decision on the reconsidered permit apflication. Such
                                          appeal shall be filed in accordance with Sections 13110-13129 o these regula-
                                          tions.
                                          NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30643,
                                          Public Resources Code.
                                          13109.4. Grounds for Reconsideration.
                                             Grounds for reconsideration of a permit action shall be either:
                                             (1) that there is. relevant new evicience which, in the exercise of reasonable
                                          diligence, could not have been presented at the hearing on the matter, or
                                                that an error of fact or law has occurred which-has the potential for
                                          alt(e'r'ing the commission's or regional commission's initial decision,
                                             The regional commission shall have the discretion to grant or to deny re-
                                          quests for reconsideration.
                                          NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code, Reference: Section 30643,
                                          Public Resources Code.
                                          13109.5. Hearing on Reconsideration.
                                             (a) At the next regularly scheduled meeting or as soon as practicable after
                                          notice to the applicant and all persons the executive director has reason to know
                                          would be interested in the permit reconsideration, the executive director shall
                                          report the request for reconsideration to the regional commission with a pre-
                                          liminary recommendation on the grounds for reconsideration.
                                             (b) The applicant and all aggrieved parties to the original regional commis-
                                          sion decision shall be afforded a reasonable time to address the merits of the
                                          r  u t.
                                             c) The regional commission shall vote on the request at the same meeting.
                                             d) Reconsideration shall be granted by a majority vote of the commissioners
                                          present. If reconsideration is granted, it shall be considered a new permit
                                          a plication and shall be processed in accordance with sections 13050-13129 of
                                          t ese regulations.
                                          NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30643,
                                          Public Resources Code,
                                          13109.6. Finality of Regional Commission Decision.
                                             The determination of a regional commission on a request for reconsideration
                                          shall be final and not subject to appeal to the commission,
                                          NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30643,
                                          Public Resources Code.

                                                                                   122

                                                                                   Appendix E

                                                   CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REGULATIONS ON
                                                         OCS FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS

                                              TffLE 14                 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                                   � 13660
                                              (Roolater 79, No. 13--&31-79)                                                     (p. 260.84.1)

                                                     CHAPTER 10. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

                                                     SUBCHAPTER 1. COMMISSION PROCEDURES FOR CONSISTENCY
                                                        DETERMINATIONS FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS)
                                                    EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT OR PRODUCTION PLANS FOR OCS
                                                                           RELATED FEDERAL PERMITS

                                                                                 DETAILED ANALYSIS
                                                       Section
                                                       13660.      Definition
                                                       13660.1.    Preliminary Submissions
                                                       13660.3.    Submission of Consistency Certification
                                                       13660.4.    Staff Summary and Hearing Notice
                                                       13660.5.    Contents of Summary
                                                       13660.6.    Conduct of Hearings on Staff Recommendations on a Consistency
                                                                       Determination
                                                       13660.7.    Regional Commission Role
                                                       13660.8.    Final Commission Decision
                                                       13660.9.    Appeals Procedure
                                                       13660.10.   Required Amendments
                                                       13660.11.   Multiple Permit Review
                                                       13660.12.   Associated Coastal Development Permits
                                                       136W.13.    Monitoring of Federal Permits

                                                SUBCHAPTER 1. COMMISSION PROCEDURES FOR CONSISTENCY
                                                   DETERMINATIONS FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS)
                                              EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OR PRODUCTION PLANS FOR
                                                                     OCS RELATED FEDERAL PERMITS
                                              13660. Definitions.
                                                (a) The term "applicant" means any individual, corporation, partnership,
                                              association, or other entity organized or existing under the laws of any State,
                                              the Federal government, any State, regional or local government, or any entity
                                              of such Federal, State, regional or local government, who submits to the USGS
                                              Area Supervisor (or other designee of the Secretary of Interior) after August
                                              31, 1978, an OCS plan which describes in detail activities requiring a Federal
                                              license or permit.
                                                (b) The term "OCS plan" means any plan for the exploration or develop-
                                              ment of, or production from, any area which has been leased under the Outer
                                              Continental Shelf Lands Act, as Amended, (43 U.S.C. � 1331 et. seq.), and the
                                              regulations under that Act, which describes in detail activities requiring a
                                              Federal license or permit.
                                                (c) The term "USGS Area Supervisor" means the Pacific Area Oil and Gas
                                              Supervisor, United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
                                                (d) The term "Assistant Administrator" means the Assistant Administrator
                                              for Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
                                              tion, Degartment of Commerce.
                                                (e)     e term "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the
                                              California Coastal Commission.
                                              NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                              30008(c), Oublic Resources Code.
                                              HISTORY:
                                                1. New Chapter 10 (Subehapter 1, Sections 13660-13660.11) filed 11-28-78 as an emer-
                                              gency; effective upon filing (Register 78, No. 48).
                                                2. Certificate of Compliance filed 3-28-79 as to emergency filing of 11-28-79 (Register
                                              79, No. 13).
                                                3. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                              13). Certificate of Compliance included.

                               9-82739                                                      123

                                           13660.1            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                   TITLE 14
                                         (p. 2M.84.2)                                            (Register 79, No. 13-"1-79)
                                         13660.1. Preliminary Consultation.
                                           (a) As soon as possible, but at least 10 days prior to submission to the USGS
                                         Area Supervisor, of any plan required to be submitted under the Outer Conti-
                                         nental Shelf Lands Act as amended, (43 USC 1331 et seq.) for the exploration
                                         of areas leased under that Act, and at least 30 da s prior to submission of plans
                                         for the development or production of areas leaseRrider that Act, any applicant
                                         wishing to undertake such activities in areas adjacent to California waters shall
                                         consult with the Executive Director concerning all the activities required to be
                                         described in detail in the OCS plan which affect land and water uses.
                                           This shall include, at minimum, activities requiring the following federal
                                         approvals:
                                           USGS-Department of the Interior
                                           Approval of offshore drilling operations
                                           Approval of design plans for the installation of platforms
                                           M
                                           A proval of gathering and flow lines
                                                following OCS related Federal license or permit activities are en-
                                         couraged to be included, if they will be required in connection with the OCS
                                         activity.
                                           Department of Defense-U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                           Permits and licenses required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers Harbors
                                         Act of 1899
                                           Permits and licenses required under Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
                                         Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
                                           Permits and licenses required under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollu-
                                         tion Control Act of 1972 and amendments
                                           Permits for artificial islands and fixed structures located on the Outer Conti-
                                         nental Shelf (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 as extended by 43 U.S.C. 1333 (f)
                                           Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management-USGS
                                           Permits and licenses required for drilling and mining on public lands (BLM)
                                           Permits for pipeline rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf
                                           Permits and licenses for rights-of-way on public lands
                                           Environmental Protection Agency
                                           Permits and licenses required under Sections 402 and 405 of the Federal
                                         Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and amendments
                                           Permits and applications for reclassification of land areas under regulations
                                         for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality
                                           Department of Transportation-U.S. Coast Guard
                                           Permits for construction of bridges under 33 USC 401, 491-507 and 525-534
                                           Permits for deepwater ports under the Deepwater Port Act
                                         (P.L.93-627)
                                           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
                                           Certifications required for interstate gas pipelines
                                           Permits or licenses for construction and operation of facilities needed to
                                         import, export or transship natural gas or electrical energy
                                           Any other OCS related Federal license o         rm1t activities which are not
                                                                                      r Tel
                                         listed above are also encouraged to be inclu ed, if they will be required in
                                         connection with the OCS activity.

                                                                              124

                            TITLE 14       CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION            13660.3
                            (Register 79, No. 113-3-31-79)                     (p. 260.84.3)
                              b The Executive Director shall provide the applicant with a copy of the
                            Caiif)ornia Coastal Zone Management Plan ("CCMP") upon request.
                            NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                            30008(c), Public Resources Code,
                            HISTORY:
                              1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                            13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                            13660.2. Review of Environmental Report for Sufficiency of Information.
                            NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                            30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                            HISTORY:
                              1. Repealer filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No. 13).
                            Certificate of Compliance included. For former history, see Register 78, No. 48.
                            13660.3. Submission of Consistency Certification,
                              (a) The applicant shall submit to the USGS Area Supervisor who in turn shall
                            submit to the Executive Director: the OCS plan, with accompanying consisten-
                            cy certification and supporting information for all activities required to be
                            described in detail in the plan and identified in Section 13360.1 (a) of these
                            regulations, and the environmental report as soon as it is approved by the USGS
                            Area Supervisor pursuant to 30 CFR 250.34-1 (b) (1) for exploration plans or 30
                            CFR 250.34-2 for development and production plans.
                              (b) The consistency certification for all activities described in detail in the
                            OCS plan as required by Section 13660.3 (a) above shall be in the following form:
                              The proposed activities described in detail in this plan comply with Califor-
                            nia's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a man-
                            ner consistent with such program.
                              (c) The applicant shall also include the following supportig information:
                              (1) a brief assessment relating the probable coastal zone effects of each of
                            the enumerated activities and their associated facilities to the relevant ele-
                            ments of the program policies of the CCMP; and
                              (2) a brief set of findings derived from the assessment indicating that each
                            of the enumerated activities (e.g, drilling, platform placement) and its associat-
                            ed facilities (e,g. onshore support structures, offshore pipelines) and its pri-
                            mary effects (e.g. air, water, waste discharges, erosion, wetlands, beach access
                            impacts) are consistent with the mandatory provisions of the CCMP.
                              (d) Upon request of the applicant, the California Coastal Commission staff
                            will provide assistance in preparing the assessment and findings required in
                            Section 13660.3(c) (1) and (2) of these regulations.
                              (e) The Executive Director may request' 'tint dditional data and infor,
                                                             in
                            mation from the applicant if he deems it nece2arly bar a complete and proper
                            review. Such a request shall not extend the date for commencement of Coastal
                            Commission review; however, failure to submit the requested information
                            could result in an objection to the applicant's consistency determination [See
                            113660.8 (b) (4) ]. The applicant shall comply with such request within 10 days
                            Of its receipt or shall indicate within 10 days reasons why the request cannot
                            be complied with.

                                                         125

                                               13660.4            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                      TITLE 14
                                            (p. 260.84.4)                                              (Register 79, No. 13--3-31-791
                                               (f) When the OCS Plan submitted to the Executive Director by the USGS
                                            Area Supervisor has deleted confidential and proprietary information, the
                                            places where such information has been deleted and the general subject matter
                                            of the information shall be identified. Where the Executive Director deter-
                                            mines that such confidential and proprietary information is necessary to ade-
                                            quately assess the coastal zone effects of the activities described in the OCS plan
                                            and therefore to make a reasoned decision on the consistency of such activities,
                                            such information shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the
                                            Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, and the Freedom of Informa-
                                            tion Act, and their implementing regulations. The procedures specified in
                                            � 13660.3(e)- apply to the Executive Director's request for confidential and
                                            proprietary in6mation.
                                            NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                            30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                                            HISTORY:
                                               1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                            13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                                            13660.4. Staff Summary and Hearing Notice.
                                               After receipt of the OCS plan, environmental report, consistency determina-
                                            tion and the accompanying findings and assessments and any other information
                                            which the Executive Director deems necessary, the Executive Director shall:
                                               (a) Prepare a staff summary of the applicants' findings and assessments and
                                            send the summary to the applicant, the Assistant Administrator, the USGS Area
                                            Supervisor, and other relevant Federal agencies, the affected Regional Com-
                                            missions, local governments, state agencies, and other interested parties.
                                               (b) Schedule a State Coastal Commission public hearing on the applicant's
                                            consistency determination, findings and assessments and the staff summary,
                                            giving appropriate notice to all interested parties, (as listed in Section
                                            13660.4 (a) above), with particular emphasis on informing citizens of the coastal
                                            area which will be affected. The Director shall endeavor, where ossible, to
                                            schedule the public hearing in the affected region. The notice shalFannounce
                                            the availability for inspection of the applicant's consistency certificate and
                                            findings. The state and regional agencies responsible for air and water quality
                                            compliance shall be notified and provided the opportunity to present their
                                            agencies' positions before the Commission hearing. Such hearing shall be set for
                                            a regular Coastal Commission meeting not later than the 42nd day after receipt
                                            of the documents required by Section 13660.3. The Executive Director may, at
                                            his discretion, extend for an additional 30 days the 42-day time period for a
                                            hearing. All public hearings shall be scheduled with a view toward allowing
                                            widespread public distribution of the information contained in the staffs sum-
                                            maTy and recommendation and toward allowing maximum public participation
                                            and attendance at the hearing particularly for the citizens of the affected area,
                                            while affording the applicant expeditious consideration of consistency determi-
                                            nations.
                                            NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                            30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                                            HISTORY:
                                               1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                            13). Certificate of Compliance included.

                                                                                    126

                                        TITLE 14            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                            13660.7
                                        (Reglator 79, No. 13--3-31-79)                                        (p, 260.84.5)
                                        13660.5. Contents of Summary.
                                          The summary shall: (1) list the major activities listed in the OCS plan, for
                                        which a consistency determination, assessments and findings have been re-
                                        q 'red, (2) discuss the effect of these activities and their associated facilities,
                                        w
                                        and their effects on land and water uses in the coastal zone, (3) discuss the
                                        consistency of such activities and related effects with the mandatory provisions
                                        of the CCMP.
                                          The summary shall also specifically list all other Federal permits for which
                                        consistency findings have not been enclosed and for which future consistency
                                        determinations will be required under Section 136W.11 of these regulations.
                                        NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                        30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                                        HISTORY:
                                          1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                        13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                                        13660.6. Conduct of Hearings on Staff Recommendations on a Consistency
                                        Determination.
                                          The Commission shall be the final decision maker on consistency determina-
                                        tions and shall conduct de novo hearings on consistency determinations sub-
                                        stantially in accordance with the applicable procedures for permit hearings set
                                        forth in Sections 13057 through 13096, excluding Sections 13(y7l, 13085, and
                                        13087 of these Regulations.
                                        NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                        30WB(c), Public Resources Code.
                                        HISTORY:
                                          1. Amendment of Section title filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing
                                        (Register 79, No. 13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                                        13660.7. Regional Commission Role.
                                          The affected Regional Commission (s) may wish to conduct hearings prior to
                                        the Commission hearing, and based on those hearings present testimony at the
                                        Commission hearing, The Regional Commission hearing _panel             may include
                                        State Comrrtissioners. Upon written request by a Regional Executive Director,
                                        the Executive Director may extend for an additional 30 days the 42-day time
                                        period for its hearing required by Section 13660.4 in order to allow a full hearing
                                        at the Regional Commission level. Any Regional Commission hearings shall also
                                        be conducted substantially in accordance with Sections 13064-13096 of these
                                        reaulations. The Regional Comniission and State Commission shall attempt to
                                        Oj a joint hearing where possible.
                                        NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                        30008(c), Public Resources Code,
                                        HISTORY:
                                          1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                        13). Certificate of Compliance included.

                                                                                127

                                               13660.8            CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                     TITLE 14
                                               (p. 260.84,6)                                           (Register 79. No. 13--3-31-79)

                                               13660.8. Final Commission Decision.
                                               (a) The Commission shall issue a decision on whether the applicant's consist-
                                               ency certification complies with the CCMP; i.e., whetherit "concurs" or "ob-
                                               jects" to the applicant's consistency certification, at the earliest practicable time
                                               and in no event more than 6 months from the date of receipt of such consistency
                                               certification and required information from the USGS Area Su ervisor (see
                                               Section 13660.3 of these regulations). If a Commission decision tas not been
                                               reached within 3 months of such receipt, the Executive Director shall notify in
                                               writing the Assistant Administrator, the applicant, the USGS Area Supervisor,
                                               and the relevant Federal agencies of the status of review and the basis for.
                                               further delay.
                                               (b) A Commission decision which objects to an applicant's consistency certi-
                                               fication for one or more of the activities described in detail in the OCS plan shall
                                               be accompanied by a statement indicating:
                                               (1) the effect which the activity will have on coastal land and water uses,
                                               (2) how the activity is inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the CCMP,
                                               (3) alternative measures (if they exist) which would make their proposed
                                               activity consistent with CCMP policies,
                                               (4) if a decision to object is based upon grounds that the applicant has not
                                               provided information required in Section 13660.3 above, which has been re-
                                               quested by the Executive Director, the nature of the information requested and
                                               the necessi of that information for a consistency determination must be de-
                                               scribed, any
                                               (5) the applicant's right of appeal to the Secretary of Commerce on the
                                               grounds that the activity is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the
                                               Coastal Zone Management Act or is necessary in the interest of national secu-
                                               rity.
                                               (c) The Commission shall noti.@ the applicant, the USGS Area Supervisor,
                                               the Assistant Administrator, and the relevant Federal agencies of its decision
                                               by sending a copy of its Final Decision to them.
                                               NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                               30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                                               HISTORY:
                                               1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                               13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                                               13660.9. Appeals Procedure.
                                               Any applicant who appeals to the Secretary of Commerce a Commission
                                               objection to a consistency determination shall send a copy of the appeal and
                                               accompanying documents to the Executive Director of the Commission. The
                                               Executive Director shall submit detailed comments to the Secretary of Com-
                                               merce within 30 days of receipt of the appeal and send copies of such comments
                                               to the applicant, the USGS Area Supervisor, and the relevant Federal agencies.
                                               This procedure shall also be followed if the Secretary of Commerce pursues an
                                               independent review of the consistency of an OCS activity.
                                               NOTE Authority cited: Section 30=, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                               30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                                               HISTORY:
                                               1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                               13). Certificate of Compliance included.

                                                                                   128

                                            TITLE 14          CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                           13660.11
                                            (Rogister 79, No. 13-"1-79)                                          (p. 260,84.7)
                                            13660.10. Required Amendments.
                                            Any amendment to- an OCS plan which must be submitted as a result of
                                            Commission objection to consistency of an OCS activity shall be processed as
                                            if such amendment were a new plan; i.e. Sections 13660.1-.13 of these regula-
                                            tions apply, except that the Commission must make its decision within 3 months
                                            of receipt.
                                            NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                            30ODS(c), Public Resources Code.
                                            HISTORY:
                                            1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                            13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                                            13660.11. Multiple Permit Review.
                                            (a) Applicants are strongly encouraged to include with OCS plans and with
                                            consistency certifications required to be submitted to the Commission in ac-
                                            cordance with Section 13660.3 of these regulations, detailed descriptions, con-
                                            sistenc determinations, findings and assessments and other supporting data for
                                            other 0-related activities, which require a federal license or permit but are
                                            not required to be described in detail in OCS plans by the Secretary of the
                                            Interior (e.g., Co s of Engineer permits for the placement of structures on the
                                            OCS an for dre-5ging and the transportation of dredged material, Environ-
                                            mental Protection Agency air and water quality permits for offshore operations
                                            and onshore support and processing facilities, or the other permits listed in
                                            Section 13660.1 of these regulations). Where consistency determinations and
                                            related findiqs and assessments are made for all required Federal permits
                                            connected with an OCS plan, the applicant shall so state and consolidated
                                            consistency review for these activities will take place at the same time and
                                            under the same procedures as review of activities required to be described in
                                            detail in OCS plans (Sections 13660.1-.13 of these Regulations).
                                            (b) If consistency determinations and related assessments and findings for
                                            all OCS related Federal permits are not included with an OCS plan and consist-
                                            ency determination, the applicant shall state which Federal permit activities
                                            have not been included. The Commission will review those permit activities
                                            which are not included separately. The final decision of the Cominission for
                                            consistency determinations of OCS plan activities shall state which Federal
                                            permit activities have not been included and which therefor must be reviewed
                                            separately.
                                            (c) The applicant and the Coastal Commission shall comply with Sections
                                            13660-136M.13 of these regulations in processing consistency determinations
                                            which have not been included with OCS plans, except that:
                                            (1) As soon as possible, but at least 10 days prior to submission of an applica-
                                            tion for a Federal permit, the applicant shall consult with the Executive Direc-
                                            tor concerning OCS-related Federal license or permit activities.
                                            2 An environmental report as described by 30 CFR 250.34-3 (a) and 3 (b)
                                            ne  not be submitted, if one which covered the subject permit activity was
                                            previously submitted under Section 13660.3 of these regulations, or if the Execu-
                                            tive Director is satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient information
                                            concerning the environmental effects of the permit activity to adequately Te-
                                            view the project as if it were a coastal permit under the CCMP.

                                                                                    129

                                               13M.12              CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION                        TITLE 14
                                               (p. 260.84-8)                                              (Register 79, No. 13--=-79)
                                               (3) Wherever there is a requirement to notify the USGS Area Supervisor,
                                               notification shall also be sent to the chief of the Federal permitting agency.
                                               NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                               30WO(c), Public Resources Code.
                                               HISTORY:
                                               1. Amendment filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 79, No.
                                               13). Certificate of Compliance included.
                                               13M.11 Associated Coastal Development Permits.
                                               Where a facility associated with an OCS plan requires a coastal development
                                                                                                                  .e terminal, on-
                                                                                                                  t shall notify the
                                                                                                                  plan at the time of
                                                                                                                  precedes submit-
                                                                                                                  otify the Executive
                                                                                                                  OCS plan. If the
                                               Executive Director de          es that a consolidatedd view of the applicant's
                                               consistency determination and application for a coastal development pernu*t is
                                               necessary For complete and proper consideration of the matter, he shall recom-
                                               mend direct consideration of such pern-At application by the State Coastal
                                               Commission pursuant to Section 30333.5 of the Coastal Act.
                                               NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                               30008(c), PubEc Resources Code.
                                               HISTORY:
                                               1. New section filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of
                                               Compliance included (Register 79, No. 13).
                                               LM.13. Monitoring of Federal Permits.
                                                  ies of Federal license and permit ap9hications for activities described in
                                                                                             ted activities, which have received
                                               Commission concurrence and which have been requested in the final Commis-
                                               sion decision, shall be sent by the applicant to the Executive Director to allow
                                               the Commission to monitor the activities.
                                               NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section
                                               30008(c), Public Resources Code.
                                               HLVMRY:
                                               1. New section filed 3-28-79 as an emergency; effective thirtieth day thereafter. Certifi-
                                               cate of Compliance included (Register 79, No. 13).
                                                       der     e                             e         line       n
                                                                                                           ph matn
                                                                                                       ap     can
                                                                                                  1h
                                                    un th @rm m                                   p
                                                       po            oc ssm
                                                                                        h         to     OC pl.
                                               Ex                    th        ty                    the      S   .0
                                                                              C         ct
                                                          rt ;             @ fa@       e'   t
                                               re               d      e
                                               ec                                 s  ela
                                                                                                  u a     :   hty pi
                                                                                                           1
                                                         ffi    an Wh               r   h    f      ch   f    I
                                                     p    jr   or  pr
                                                     e D           of  e fa
                                               t Inu   of      I                                      t  h        00
                                               lb           e           ere     a     ca  0   or
                                               a                                                  can   s     n
                                                                                         with     ort  co     .
                                                                          is @Wm M                          ung   04
                                                                                   p
                                               of   e 0     &     to e   Co        -on ,the app
                                               ec  or th  t      facili           iat          a      h

                                                                                     130

                                                        APPENDIX E CONTINUED

                               COASTAL COMMISION (CC) CONSISTENCY REVIEW TIMETABLE

                           -1-0

                              10 days                Before submittal of POE to USGS, consult with CC staff.

                              30 days                Before submittal of POD to USGS, consult with         CC
                                                     staff.

                              42 days                Initial public hearing on staff summary of OCS plan.
                                                     (Executive Director may extend the 42-day time period
                                                     for another 30 days.)

                              3 months               Notification to applicant and relevant federal agencies
                                                     of the status of CC review and basis for further delay.

                              6 months               Maximum time allotted for CC final public hearing on
                                                     consistency detennination.

                                  The consistency review timetable is a separate process from the state permit
                                  streamlining (AB 884) or the Commission's coastal development permit
                                  processes. It can be initiated at any point in the AB 884 timetable, but it
                                  generally precedes commission permit proceedings.

                                                                . 131

                                                                  APPENDIX E CONTINUED

                                                           OCS CONSISTENCY REVIEWS

                      CONSISTENCY                                                               RECEIVED            ACTION
                          NUMBER              COMPANY             LOCATION                        AT CCC            BY CCC
                          CC-1-78             Chevron, USA        Gulf of Catalina              Oct. 20,1978        Nov. 14,1978 -C
                                                                  OCS P-306, 309
                          CC-2-78             Chevron, USA        Santa Clara Unit              Nov.20,1978         Dec. 13, 1978 -C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-204, 208, 209
                          CC-1-79         Exxon Corporation       Santa Ynez Unit               Dec.18,1978         Feb. 21, 1979 -C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-1 82, 193, 194, 196
                          CC-2-79           Sohio Petroleum       Gulf of Catalina              Jan. 23, 1979       Feb. 20,1979 -C
                                                                  OCS P-0302
                          CC-3-79         Exxon Corporation       Santa Rosa Unit               Feb.23,1979         March 19, 1979-C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-222, 223, 230,
                                                                  231, 232, 238
                          CC-4-79           Sun Production*       Dos Quadras Unit              Apr. 9, 1979        May 16,1979 -C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-0240
                          CC-5-79             Chevron, USA        Santa Clara Unit              Aug. 9, 1979        Oct. 3, 1979 -C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-0215
                          CC-6-79          Union Oil POD          Hueneme Unit                  May 10, 1979        Nov.7,1979 -C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-202

                          CC-7-79              Mobil Oil          Santa Barbara Channel         Oct. 30, 1979       Dec.4,1979 -C
                                                                  OCS P-321
                          CC-8-79             Chevron, USA        Santa Barbara Channel         Dec. 6, 1979        Feb. 21, 1980 -C
                                                                  (South of Channel Islands)
                                                                  OCS P-245
                          CC-9-79             Marathon Oil        Tanner-Cortez Bank            Dec. 5, 1979        Jan. 24, 1980 -C
                                                                  OCS P-0276
                          CC-10-79            Chevron, USA        Santa Barbara Channel         Dec. 14, 1979       Jan. 24, 1980 -C
                                                                  OCS P-3 5 8
                          CC-1-80               Shell Oil         Santa Barbara Channel         Jan.18,1980         Feb.'21, 1980 -C
                                                                  OCS P-0361
                          CC-2-80          Diamond/General        Santa Barbara Channel         Feb.8,1980          Feb. 21, 1980 -C
                                            Drilling, Ltd,***     OCS P-0321
                          CC-3-80             Texaco,lnc.         Pitas Point                   Jan. 20, 1980       March 5, 1980 -C
                                                                  Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                  OCS P-0346, 0234
                          CC-4-80             Chevron, USA        Santa Barbara Channel         Feb.11,1980         Apr. 15, 1980 -C
                                                                  OCS P-0316
                          CC-5-80             Chevron, USA        Santa Barbara Channel         March 24,1980       May 21,1980 -C
                                                                  OCS P-0318

                             C = CONCURRENCE
                             0 = OBJECTION

                                                                            132

                        CONSISTENCY                                                                  RECEIVED           ACTION
                            NUMBER              COMPANY              LOCATION                         AT CCC            BY CCC

                            CC-6-80          Union Oil POD           Santa Clara Unit                Dec. 26, 1979      June 19, 1980 -C
                                                                     Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                     OCS P-0216
                            CC-7-80             Chevron, USA         Santa Clara Unit                Apr. 18, 1980      Aug. 19,1980 -0
                                                                     Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                     OCS P-0205
                            CC-8-80             Chevron, USA         Santa Clara Unit                June 4, 1980       Sep. 16,1980 -C
                                                                     Santa Barbara Channel
                                                                     OCS P-0215
                            CC-9-80             Chevron, USA         Santa Barbara Channel           June 4, 1980       Sep. 16, 1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0324
                            CC-10-80            Texaco,lnc.          Santa Barbara Channel           June 16, 1980      Sep. 16, 1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0315
                            CC-1 1-80       Challenger Minerals      Santa Barbara Channel           June 23, 1980      Sep. 16, 1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0248
                            CC-1 2-80           Conoco, Inc.         Santa Barbara Channel           June 23, 1980      Sep. 16,1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0325
                            CC-13-80        Champlin Petroleum       San Pedro Bay                   Sep. 8, 1980       Nov. 18,1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0295
                            CC-14-80            Conoco, Inc.         Santa Barbara Channel           Oct. 13, 1980      Nov. 18,1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0334
                            CC-1 5-80           Chevron, USA         Santa Barbara Channel           Oct. 27, 1980      Nov. 18,1980 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0317
                            CC-16-80            Chevron, USA         Point Conception                Nov. 6, 19 80      Jan. 20, 1981 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0348

                            CC-17-80            Chevron, USA         Santa Barbara Channel           Dec. 19, 1980      Jan. 20, 1981 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0349, 03 50, 03 51
                            CC-18-80            Conoco, Inc.         Point Conception                Dec. 12, 1980      Jan. 20, 1981 -C
                                                                     OCSP-0322
                            CC-1 9-80       Champlin Petroleum       Point Conception                Nov.20,1980        Jan. 20, 1981 -C
                                                                     OCS P-0333
                            CC-1-81          Challenger Minerals     Santa Barbara Channel           Apr. 13, 1981      June 16, 1981 -C
                                                                     (South of Santa Cruz
                                                                     Island) OCS P-0248,0251
                            CC-2-81             Chevron, USA         Santa Barbara Channel           May 26, 1981       June 16, 1981 -C
                                                                     (North of Santa Cruz
                                                                     Island) OCS P-0335,
                              C = CONCURRENCE                        0345,0355
                              0 = OBJECTION
                              Corps permit review only
                              Plan of Development
                              NPDES permit review only

                        82732--W 8-M 03P 1500 MA
                                                                                 133

                                            JIMMINNIIIII
                                             3 6668 14109 7206
                                            'I           r