Santa Barbara supervisors deny Sable Offshoretransfer, citing repeated violations and financial concerns

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3—to—1 on Dec. 16 to deny a proposed transfer of county oil permits and a change of operator to Sable Offshore following a contested public hearing that stretched over several hours.

The appeal was filed after the county planning commission and staff recommended denial, and environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Center and the Sierra Club urged the board to uphold that decision. Terra Gifford, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, told the board the record showed repeated regulatory violations, evidence of pipeline corrosion and a lack of reliable financial assurances to cover potential cleanup and remediation costs.

"Sable has not demonstrated the financial capacity or the regulatory compliance record necessary to safely operate these facilities," Gifford told supervisors during oral argument.

Sable representatives disputed that characterization. Company environmental regulator Steve Brush said Sable has operated platforms and pipelines to modern standards and has engaged with regulators on required repairs. "We have the technical and operational capability to manage these sites safely," Brush said.

The hearing drew broad local interest: 24 public speakers offered one-and-a-half-minute remarks and dozens of written submissions were entered late into the record. Opponents stressed past incidents at the sites and warned of potential environmental harm; supporters urged the board to permit the transfer to preserve existing regional energy operations and local jobs.

Supervisors who voted to deny cited a growing body of evidence since the planning commission hearing that, in their view, showed a pattern of noncompliance and raised doubts about Sable's financial guarantees and responsiveness to regulatory directives. One supervisor who voted to deny said the county must hold operator candidates to the standards set in county code Chapter 25B.

The motion to deny (as read into the record) directed staff to prepare the final findings and return to the clerk. The vote was recorded in the meeting minutes as 3 in favor of denial and 1 opposed; names were read aloud during the roll call (transcript: Supervisor Lavanino/yes; Supervisor Nelson/no; Supervisor Lee/yes; Supervisor Chert Cup/yes). The board's decision will be memorialized in written findings that the county will publish.

The county attorney advised the board on the narrow legal standard that governs transfers and operator qualifications under local regulations; several supervisors said they wanted staff to draft findings that precisely cite the regulatory standards not met by the applicant.

Next steps: the denial will be memorialized in findings and placed in the administrative record. Parties may consider administrative or judicial review consistent with applicable timelines. The board did not act today on other standing permits for the sites; the vote concerned the transfer/change of operator request on this administrative record.

Sources: Board hearing, public submissions and staff reports presented Dec. 16.