Foes Sue to Get Drilling Measure Off City Ballot

Charging that key portions of an Occidental Petroleum Corp.-backed initiative are invalid and deliberately aimed at confusing voters, opponents of the oil company’s Pacific Palisades drilling project sued Wednesday to strip the measure from the Nov. 8 ballot.

Attorney Roger Jon Diamond, representing two Pacific Palisades couples, said the Occidental-backed measure fraudulently claims to protect the coast when actually it would preserve the city-granted approval for the oil company to drill there.

Representing pro-drilling forces, attorney Mickey Kantor immediately dismissed Diamond’s lawsuit as “the latest frivolous legal challenge by No Oil Inc.” and predicted that it would fail. No Oil Inc., which Diamond heads, has been battling Occidental’s plans for nearly two decades.

Deception Alleged

Kantor further charged that by seeking to remove the ballot measure, drilling foes are themselves practicing deception. He noted that drilling opponents recently said they would “let the people decide” between the Occidental-backed measure and a competing anti-drilling initiative sponsored by Councilmen Marvin Braude and Zev Yaroslavsky.

The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit represents the latest attempt by drilling foes to halt Occidental’s plans to sink exploratory wells at a 2.5-acre site on the landward side of Pacific Coast Highway near Will Rogers State Beach. Filing of the lawsuit appeared to support predictions by backers of the two competing initiatives that the political battle for the coastline will become increasingly bitter before Nov. 8.

Among other things, the lawsuit takes aim at provisions of the pro-drilling measure that would grant the city certain powers as well as set aside funds for specific purposes, like more police. Diamond charged that these provisions would clash with state or federal laws or with the City Charter.

A hearing on the legal challenge is set for July 22. Although no Los Angeles voter-qualified initiative has ever been deleted from the ballot, there is precedent for such a court-ordered move on the state level and in other cities.

‘Severability’ Clause

Diamond said the Occidental measure needs to be removed before the election because of a “severability” clause included in the pro-drilling measure’s language. This clause would allow a court after the election to permit the measure’s valid portions to be enacted even if other provisions are struck down. Prior to the election, a court could strike down the entire initiative, he added.

“The voters are going to be confused” if the pro-drilling measure is on the ballot, Diamond said. “There is no way that anybody can intelligently read this measure and know what it does and what it doesn’t do. It has to be the most blatant fraud that I’ve ever seen in my life.”

Diamond’s lawsuit specifically challenges initiative language that states: “No Offshore Drilling” and “Coastal Protection.” The Occidental-backed measure states, “All elected and appointed officials of the City of Los Angeles are hereby directed to use their best efforts as authorized by law to maintain and enforce the city’s opposition to oil drilling in Santa Monica Bay.” In large letters atop the petition, the measure is referred to as “Los Angeles Public Protection, Coastal Protection and Energy Resources Initiative.”

Diamond said that contrary to the wording, the proposed measure “would not and could not prohibit offshore drilling.” He charged that “most people when they signed this petition saw the words ‘Coastal Protection’ and then see the words ‘No Offshore Drilling’ and they blindly signed. . . .”

Pro-drilling forces, including Kantor, have contended that passage of the Occidental measure would require the city to actively oppose offshore drilling and even, in some cases, seek court orders to stop it. By contrast, Occidental supporters claim in ballot arguments that if the anti-drilling forces defeat the Palisades project it will “encourage offshore oil drilling in California waters” to make up the difference.

Diamond’s lawsuit also alleges that the initiative improperly permits the mayor, in the event of an energy crisis, to reserve for Los Angeles “all oil and gas produced in the (project site) . . . to the extent permitted by applicable law. . . .” Diamond said the provision is illusory because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause reserving such powers to the federal government.

Kantor denied that the provision violates the Commerce Clause, noting that in some cases state and local agencies have regulated energy use within their borders.