Occidental Denied Permit to Drill for Oil in Palisades

A Los Angeles city zoning administrator refused Thursday to issue Occidental Petroleum Corp. a permit to drill for oil in Pacific Palisades, ruling that the company’s proposed beachfront drilling project would have permanent adverse effects on the coastal environment.

“The sweeping, permanent and significant nature of the adverse environmental effects that will occur . . . dictate the need for another location,” said Associate Zoning Administrator Robert Janovici in ruling that the project is not consistent with the California Coastal Act.

Last January, Mayor Tom Bradley and the Los Angeles City Council approved the project, which has been the object of a political battle that has raged on and off for nearly 20 years. When he approved the project, Bradley said he was convinced that it would not have a detrimental effect on the coast.

Maria Hummer, a lawyer for Occidental, decried Thursday’s ruling as “seriously flawed” and said that the oil company, which has been seeking approval for the project since the late 1960s, will appeal it to the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals.

The immediate effect of the ruling--and the expected appeal--will be to place one of Southern California’s most divisive environmental issues open to debate during an election year. The Board of Zoning Appeals will have to hold public hearings before it votes on the matter. The board’s decision, in turn, can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. Four of the 12 members of the commission were appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian.

Bradley, a Democrat, and Deukmejian, a Republican, are expected to run against each other again next year for governor, in a race in which environmental issues are likely to play an important role.

Deputy Mayor Tom Houston said Thursday that Bradley had “no reaction” to the zoning administrator’s action.

“The mayor’s view is that it is an independent inquiry going forth and that we have no involvement in it,” Houston said.

Janovici’s ruling marks the first time that Occidental’s drilling application has been tested against the requirements of the Coastal Act. Under the act, the city has the right to deny building permits along the local coastline. Such denials, however, can be appealed.

Estimate Production

Occidental’s drilling operation would be located along the Pacific Coast Highway, opposite Will Rogers State Beach, on land that has been vulnerable to landslides. Occidental has estimated that an oil field about 10,000 feet beneath the site contains as many as 60 million barrels of oil and 50 billion to 120 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude, the council’s leading opponent of the project, hailed the ruling, calling it “a tremendous victory for the people of Los Angeles.”

Braude and other opponents of the project, while acknowledging that the ruling could be overruled, argued that the zoning administrator’s 22-page analysis will make a compelling contribution to the case against Occidental--a case that ultimately will be resolved by the Coastal Commission or by the courts.

“Such a strongly worded analysis by a City Hall expert who is independent of all the political pressures that have been brought--it has to be accorded great weight,” said John Murdock, a lawyer representing No Oil Inc., a group of Pacific Palisades residents that has been fighting the Occidental project.

Even though Bradley and the City Council approved Occidental’s oil drilling application in January, the matter could not leave the city’s jurisdiction until the city’s Office of Zoning Administration ruled on two matters: the appropriateness of Occidental’s proposed drilling methods and whether the drilling project is consistent with the California Coastal Act.

Prescribes Conditions

The drilling methods were approved Thursday by Associate Zoning Administrator Jack C. Sedwick, on the condition that additional precautions, besides those Occidental already has agreed to, be taken.

But Janovici found that the project would violate the coastal act by making the beach adjacent to the drilling site less desirable and by posing an increased risk of geologic instability in an area already prone to landslides and earthquakes.

In his report, Janovici said Occidental has not made a persuasive case that the oil and gas it is seeking cannot be tapped from a location that is less environmentally sensitive.

“The inescapable conclusion,” he said, “is that the area, including the drill site, is extremely fragile and that no increased risk of future slides brought about by unnatural and unnecessary presence of the applicant’s proposed activities be sanctioned when viewed in the light of the Coastal Act’s basic goal, which was to preserve and stabilize and not to take increased risk.”

Confidence Not Shared

Janovici’s report indicated that he does not share the City Council’s expressed confidence that a drainage system, which Occidental agreed to install in the slopes above the drill site, would stabilize the surrounding terrain.

Bradley and members of the City Council, who had voted against Occidental in years past, cited the drainage system as the key factor behind their decision to support the oil drilling project this year.

Janovici stated, however, that “while it is strongly suggested that installation of the council-mandated hydrauger (drainage) system would stabilize the city-owned property to the north, that is by no means certain and assured as required under the Coastal Act.”

Janovici’s ruling represents the second setback for the oil drilling project in three months.

Case Not Persuasive

In September, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge stated that Occidental had failed to make a persuasive case that a planned pipeline, which would link the oil drilling site with refineries, would not create a serious hazard to nearby schools and residential neighborhoods.

The statement came as part of a preliminary ruling in a lawsuit brought by No Oil Inc. against the oil company. No Oil has asked the judge to invalidate the city ordinances authorizing the project, arguing that the ordinances are flawed because they do not offer sufficient protection against the dangers posed by a pipeline.

The judge is expected to make a final ruling on the matter within the month.