Goleta Against Drilling (GAD-NO):• A group of concerned citizens in Goleta working to

protect the environment from the adverse effects of the Southern California Gas Company La Goleta Storage Field Enhancement Project

• Has gathered over 900 signatures of concerned residents opposing drilling at the La Goleta site

Picture shows photo simulation of new drilling rig from Goleta Beach Pier (source: project EIR (10EIR-00000-00001))

Why we are asking you to deny the proposed IP amendment:

• Opening the site for exploration and drilling will compromise views to and along the coast in conflict with Santa Barbara County’s LCP

• Development allowed under the amendment does not protect the popular visitor destination points for recreational uses that surround the Project site, in conflict with the County’s LCP.

• The Staff Report lacks adequate site-specific information and analysis in the areas of: biological resources, agriculture, hazards.

• The adjacent recreational uses, sensitive bluff-top location, on-site agriculture and biological resources, makes this site inappropriate for expanded industrial uses.

• There is no overwhelming need for new natural gas or natural gas storage, and the project is expected to yield only a small amount of gas and additional storage, while threatening coastal resources.

La Goleta site

Image source: maps.google.com

• Goleta Beach Park is a 29 acre coastal County park located at the mouth of Goleta Slough.

• One of the most heavily used parks along the South Coast of Santa Barbara County and the most used County park, with approximately 1.5 million visitors annually.

• Goleta Slough is designated ESH, a State Marine Conservation Area, and federally designated habitat for the southern steelhead

• Atascadero Creek flows along the northern boundary of the Project site, and empties into the large tidal estuary at the mouth of Goleta Slough.

• Atascadero Creek Bike Path (aka the Obern Trail) is a Class I bike path that provides an important connection from UCSB to the More Mesa neighborhood.

• Runs through Goleta Beach Park and along the northern boundary of the La Goleta site.

Visual Resources• Santa Barbara County’s LCP incorporates Coastal Act

section 30251, which provides:– The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be

considered and protected 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.

Visual Resources• The proposed 172-foot drilling rig and smaller

workover rig will compromise views to and along the ocean from Goleta Beach Park and the Atascadero Creek Bike Path, as well as other public viewing locations including Highways 217 and 101.

• The EIR lacked photo simulations from key public viewing places including Highway 217 and the Atascadero Creek Bike Path.

• The rig depicted in the photo simulations is 12% (18 ft.) shorter than the rig that may be used.

EIR photo simulation of new drilling rig from Goleta Beach Pier (note actual rig may be 18 feet taller)

• The County’s EIR found a Class I significant and unmitigable impact to visual resources, due to the rig’s visibility from Goleta Beach and other public viewing locations.

• The Staff Report reasons that the impact does not result in a conflict with LCP policy because the impact is “temporary”.

• The IP amendment (and associated coastal permits) does not limit the duration the rigs can be onsite.

Agricultural Resources• Santa Barbara County’s LCP incorporates Coastal Act sections 30241 and

30242, which provide:– 30241: The maximum amount of prime agricultural land* shall be maintained

in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas’ agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses . . .

– 30242: All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural use unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, 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 agricultural use on surrounding lands. • 30250. (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise

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

*as defined by Coastal Act section 30113 and Gov. Code section 51201

Image source: maps.google.com

• Two-thirds of the La Goleta site is currently farmed

• The La Goleta site is adjacent to and functionally a part of the “Patterson Ag. Block” properties to the east and north, one of two remaining blocks of urban agriculture in the Goleta Valley

Image source: maps.google.com

Development allowed under the IP amendment would permanently convert 2.5 acres of “Farmland of Local Importance”, and result in removal of 2.4 acres of mature plantings

Image source: project EIR

Biological Resources• Santa Barbara County’s LCP includes numerous policies

protecting biological resources.• The La Goleta site is adjacent to the sensitive Goleta

Slough, and has sensitive resources onsite including mapped ESH, monarch butterfly sites, and wetlands.

• The Staff Report acknowledges: – The[] activities [allowed by the proposed amendment] are likely

to include surface disturbance, excavation, night-lighting, glare, noise, and dust that could result in direct or indirect impacts to biological resources (i.e., wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and ESHA). In addition, storm-water runoff or project-related activities could degrade the water quality of ground and/or surface waters in the project vicinity. (Staff Report, p. 7.)

• The Staff Report lacks any analysis of whether mitigation measures actually avoid impacts to biological resources and achieve consistency with the LCP.

Hazards

• Santa Barbara County’s LCP incorporates sections 30253 and 30250, which provide:– 30253. New development shall do all of the following: (a) Minimize

risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability . . . (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

– 30250. (b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.

• The Staff Report acknowledges that:– each phase of development “has the potential to

adversely impact the geologic stability of a site, contribute to flood or fire hazard, or significantly alter the existing landscape.” (Staff Report, p. 9.)

– “As for any type of hydrocarbon extraction, accidental release of a hazardous substance is a serious concern.” (Staff Report, p. 12.)

– And that despite required mitigation, “There is still a risk, however, of a release of natural gas or other hydrocarbon compounds during well drilling, well blowouts, pipe or valve failures, storage tank leaks and processing equipment failures associated with new development allowed by the proposed amendment.” (Staff Report, p. 12.)

2010 San Bruno natural gas pipeline explosion, that killed 8 and injured 58.image source: http://abclocal.go.com/

Conclusion

•Due to clear LCP conflicts in the areas of visual resources, agricultural resources, and development/hazards, we ask that you DENY the proposed IP amendment. •At the very least, more information is needed regarding whether the amendment complies with agricultural resource policy, and whether mitigation is capable of avoiding impacts to Goleta Slough and sensitive onsite biological resources.