The California Coastal Commission objected Thursday to a proposal that would allow fracking at Platform Gilda in the Santa Barbara Channel.

In line with a staff report that recommended denying the plan because of California Coastal Management Program inconsistencies, commissioners unanimously voted no. They were concerned about with a possible oil spill, containment measures and aging infrastructure.

The proposal from DCOR LLC includes hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, at 16 offshore wells off the Ventura County coast.

Platform Gilda was installed in 1981, 9 miles off Ventura in federal waters. DCOR has operated it since 2005. Oil and natural gas are transported to the shore via pipelines that were installed in the early 1980s to DCOR’s Mandalay Onshore Facility in Oxnard.

The proposal from DCOR would, over five years, increase production from 1,100 barrels of oil per day to 4,000 barrels per day.

An environmental review of the proposal estimated that DCCOR would extract 4 million barrels of oil and 3 million cubic feet of natural gas in the area over the next 20 years, if the proposal on the table moved forward.

Without fracking, production at Platform Gilda would continue to decline and eventually cease, commission staff said. The platform has already been in use more than twice as long as initially expected — over 45 years, per commission staff.

Mark Chaconas, director of external affairs at DCOR, said DCOR owns and operates 20 of the 27 offshore platforms off the coast.

He said he believes that the proposal is consistent with the state’s California Coastal Management Program and urged the commission to approve it.

The commission, however, cited past spills off the California coast and was unconvinced that DCOR’s proposed spill-prevention measures would fully prevent or sufficiently clean up a spill.

Commissioners also expressed concern about the platform’s infrastructure because it is operating twice as long as its originally predicted lifespan.

Commissioner Mike Wilson said the operator of the platform is “irrelevant” in this context.

“This is about a risk that is created by an extraction technology and spill response capacity,” he said. “… I’m concerned that layering that stress and increasing the flows through 45-year-old infrastructure really creates a reasonable risk of failure.”

Chair Meagan Harmon — also a member of the Santa Barbara City Council — said the infrastructure’s age was a particular point of concern. She agreed with her fellow commissioners that operators have not demonstrated they can minimize the hazards.

The Environmental Defense Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and other environmental groups lobbied against the proposal, citing concerns about impacts to marine life in the area as well as a possible spill.

Environmental Defense Center Deputy Chief Counsel Maggie Hall said during the meeting that the project “should not even be on the table” and called it “inconsistent with numerous” Coastal Act policies.

“These spills and discharges threaten sensitive wildlife like sea otters, birds and whales, and would degrade coastal water quality,” she said.

Katie Thompson, executive director of Save Our Shores, called the no vote a “win for every community along” the California coast.

“We’re grateful to have a commission willing to hold the line on offshore fracking, especially as its authority is being challenged. This is exactly the kind of leadership California’s coast needs right now,” Thompson said in a press release.