:the California experience : a guide for coastal local governments. California Coastal Commission. Weaver, Celia L. [Sacramento] :California Coastal Commission,[1981] Offshore oil industry California. Offshore oil industry Environmental aspects California. Petroleum law and legislation California. Coastal zone management Law and legislation California. 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 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. 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? YES 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 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 Ventu Santa Cruz Island 0 Sa ta Rosa island Linlit ThtCe 1 A CONSISTENCY REVIEWS 1978 1979 1980 0 10 20 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 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 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 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 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 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 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