Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

No Oil v. City of L.A.

No Oil v. City of L.A.

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One

November 17, 1987

No. B019246

Opinion

 [*229]  [**38]   This appeal presents several questions concerning the validity of three ordinances  [**39]  (sometimes hereafter referred to as drilling ordinances) which permit exploratory oil drilling and, should that prove successful, transportation of the oil by pipeline.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation (hereafter Occidental) and City of Los Angeles (hereafter City) appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandate commanding the setting aside of the drilling ordinances enacted by the Los Angeles City Council (hereafter City Council), enjoining any activity dependent upon these ordinances, and returning the matter to City Council for clarification of certain findings. No Oil, Inc. (hereafter No Oil), Pacific  [*230]  Palisades Residents Association, Inc. (hereafter Pacific), and Malibu Township Council, Inc. (hereafter Malibu), cross-appeal from the same judgment. 1

 [***3]  We conclude that the discussion of the environmental effects of the proposed pipeline contained in the environmental impact report (hereafter EIR) satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., 2 hereafter CEQA); that the findings adopted by City Council pursuant to section 21081 are not in need of clarification; that the drilling ordinances are consistent with City's general plan; and that the indemnity agreement provided as a condition of the drilling ordinances is valid. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Proposed Project

The project proposed by Occidental is described in the summary to the final EIR prepared in August 1982 as follows: "Occidental Petroleum is seeking supplemental use districts to permit the following uses and activities: [para. ] The drilling of two exploration wells on an approximate 1/2-acre portion of a 2-acre site at one of the [***4]  following locations: [para. ] 15147 Pacific Coast Highway or [para. ] 146 Entrada Drive; 3 [para. ] The establishment of three oil drilling districts comprising a total of 594 acres; [para. ] The development of a permanent drilling and production facility on approximately 2 acres at one of the above locations. [para. ] The permanent drilling and production site would contain a single 155-foot oil derrick and up to 60 oil and natural gas wells to tap pools estimated at 10,000 feet below the earth's surface. Occidental estimates that the pools contain between 25 and 60 million barrels of oil and between 50 and 120 billion cubic feet of natural gas. [para. ] The derrick will be mobile, mounted on a track to allow placement of the structure over each of the drilling locations (wells), located in a subsurface well cellar." (Italics omitted.)

Administrative and Legislative History of the Ordinances

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

196 Cal. App. 3d 223 *; 242 Cal. Rptr. 37 **; 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2324 ***; 97 Oil & Gas Rep. 504

NO OIL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, INC., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. RICHARD D. WEISMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, INC., Real Party in Interest and Appellant

Subsequent History:  [***1]  A petition for a rehearing was denied December 7, 1987, and the petitions of plaintiffs and appellants and plaintiffs and respondents for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 25, 1988. Mosk, J., did not participate therein.

Prior History: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. C533684 and 533729, Norman L. Epstein, Judge.

Disposition: The judgment is reversed. The parties to bear their own costs.

CORE TERMS

ordinances, pipeline, Cross-appellants, drilling, oil, oil drilling, open space, district plan, environmental, indemnity agreement, general plan, trial court, industrial, route, drillsite, stability, environmental effect, slope, proposed project, mitigated, deferred, managed, phase, designated, landslide, zoning, natural resources, drainage system, Consistency, dewatering

Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Environmental Law, Natural Resources & Public Lands, National Environmental Policy Act, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Environmental Law, Land Use & Zoning, Comprehensive & General Plans, Assessment & Information Access, Administrative Proceedings & Litigation, Judicial Review, Real Property Law, Zoning, Comprehensive Plans, Ordinances, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Real Property Law, Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Clearly Erroneous Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Contracts Law, Defenses, Illegal Bargains, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Construction Contracts, Torts, Multiple Defendants, Contribution