Santa Barbara supervisors deadlock on Sable Offshore permit transfers after hours of testimony

After nearly nine hours of testimony and public comment, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors took no final action Wednesday on applications to transfer county permits for the San Ynez Unit, the Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company (POPco) gas plant and the Las Flores Pipeline system to Sable Offshore Corporation. The board deadlocked twice on motions related to the case, leaving the county’s permit status unchanged.

The hearing, a de novo review of Planning Commission approvals, drew more than 100 public speakers and lengthy presentations from county staff, the applicant and two appellant groups. The county’s Energy Division and Planning staff recommended the board deny appeals and approve the transfers under Chapter 25B of the county code; appellants asked the board to deny the transfers, arguing Sable lacks the financial and operational capacity to operate and abandon the aging pipeline and facilities safely.

County planner Jacqueline Ybarra told the board the transfer applications are “administrative” under county rules and do not authorize restart or new construction; she said the county’s role is limited to making the Chapter 25B findings for a change of owner/operator/guarantor. Ybarra said staff determined the required findings had been met for the permit name transfers and that key state financial certificates for the San Ynez Unit had been submitted.

Sable Offshore representatives said the company has technical experience and insurance and financial resources to operate safely. Steve Rush, vice president for environmental and regulatory affairs for Sable Offshore Corporation, said Sable “is an independent oil and gas company” with an experienced California management team and that the board’s action would only change the name on existing county permits, not authorize restart. Sable’s presenters emphasized state and federal agencies have primary oversight of pipeline restart and operating safety.

Appellants and their expert witnesses said that history and the record justify a different result. Linda Cropp, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, opened appellant arguments by urging the board not to ignore the risk the facilities pose. “We can’t talk about these facilities without talking about the catastrophic oil spill that they already caused,” Cropp said. Appellants also highlighted notices of violation that several state agencies have issued to Sable for onshore and coastal work and submitted expert reports asserting the pipeline’s cathodic-protection system cannot prevent pervasive corrosion.

Appellants and speakers also pressed the board on financial risk. Appellants noted Plains All American’s accounting that the 2015 Refugio spill had cost roughly $870 million to date and argued Sable’s publicly disclosed cash and debt profile risk insolvency if a major spill occurs. Staff acknowledged Sable provided a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the Office of Spill Prevention and Response that lists a liability figure used under state rules, and staff reported Sable told the county it will post a bond with Exxon for abandonment responsibilities under a private agreement.

The Board’s votes were procedural and inconclusive. Earlier in the hearing the board split 2–2 when asked to accept several documents submitted after the meeting’s posted deadline; County Counsel explained the county’s rules require four votes to accept multi‑page filings submitted after the deadline when only four board members are participating. Later, two separate substantive motions — first to adopt staff’s recommendation (deny the appeals and approve the transfers) and then a motion to uphold the appeals — each ended in a 2–2 tie, with no formal action taken by the board.

Supervisor Laura Capps, chair of the board, joined one of the minority ‘‘no’’ votes in the motion that would have adopted staff’s recommendation; other supervisors divided along differing views about the appropriate scope of the county’s review and the adequacy of Sable’s disclosures and compliance record. Supervisor [LastName] said the issue boiled down to the county’s limited authority under Chapter 25B and the responsibility to apply the ordinance as written. Another supervisor said the board should use its discretion to require more financial assurance and stricter review because of the public safety stakes.

The hearing mapped the limits of local authority. Staff repeatedly told the board the county’s Chapter 25B review is focused on the county permit findings and does not authorize restart; restart and extensive pipeline-safety requirements are regulated by state and federal agencies including the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) and, historically, PHMSA. Appellants urged the board to use the county’s discretionary authority under Chapter 25B to impose additional protections; staff and the applicant argued the ordinance does not grant the county that broader power.

The hearing record includes technical reports, state agency filings and dozens of public letters. Appellants submitted pipeline‑safety analyses arguing that waivers from cathodic‑protection rules will not substitute for a pipeline design that prevents corrosion; Sable and its consultants described a set of integrity measures and a waiver process the state fire marshal approved that they say will reduce spill risk and require more frequent inspections and digs along the pipeline.

What happens next: Because the board did not reach a majority decision, the Planning Commission’s October approvals remain on the record but without a final board determination. County Counsel advised the board and public that a tie vote leaves the matter without action by the board; that could allow appellants or other parties to pursue further legal or administrative options, and it leaves the county’s decision-making status on the permit transfers unsettled.

Clarifying details and key facts from the hearing: - The Las Flores Pipeline System stretches about 122 linear miles from Las Flores Canyon toward Kern County; the onshore POPco gas plant sits in Las Flores Canyon. (staff presentation) - OSPR issued Sable a certificate of financial responsibility for the San Ynez Unit listing a state-based figure of roughly $101,000,000. (staff presentation) - Sable has said it is currently valued at roughly $2.5 billion and has been reported to have substantial liabilities; appellants cited the company’s debt profile and argued it risks insolvency if a major spill occurs. (applicant and appellants) - Plains All American estimated the 2015 Refugio spill has cost about $870 million so far. (appellants citing Plains quarterly report) - Appellants’ engineers said the fire marshal’s waiver will require about 192 excavations over a decade to validate inline inspections and that some types of corrosion are not reliably detected by the inline tools cited by the operator. (appellants’ technical filings)

Why it matters: The county’s San Ynez Unit and the Las Flores pipeline run through sensitive coastal canyons and watersheds on the Gaviota Coast. Restart or continued operations carry potential economic, environmental and public‑safety risk; the board’s frozen vote leaves the county and community without a clear final local decision on the permit transfers. Appellants said the county should use its local review to require stronger financial guarantees and review; staff and the applicant said state and federal regulators have primary authority and the county’s review is limited to the administrative transfer finding.

Board action and next procedural steps: The board deadlocked on accepting late-filed materials (2–2) and tied on both a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation and a motion to uphold the appeals (each 2–2), so the board took no final action. Parties in the case and members of the public may consider administrative or legal options to press their positions; the county could also reopen issues if new evidence or filings are submitted under the board’s procedures.

Ending: The Sable hearing was one of the county’s most heavily attended and contentious recent items, with more than 100 individuals speaking during public comment. The board’s divided votes leave both the local permit record and community expectations unsettled; supervisors said they would consider next steps in the matter, including whether additional information or a future hearing is appropriate.