County denies Sable Offshore's request to take over San Ynez unit permits; Board cites operator, financial and compliance concerns

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3–1 on Dec. 16 to deny Sable Offshore Corporation’s requests to transfer county permits for the San Ynez Unit, the POPCO gas plant and the Las Flores pipeline system. County staff recommended denial, saying Sable lacked the operator capabilities, permit compliance and financial guarantees required under county code chapter 25B.

Tara Renhifo, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Center, told the Board the administrative record shows repeated unauthorized excavation, vegetation removal, dewatering and other work without Coastal Commission authorization and a pattern of ignoring regulatory directives. “This record includes a pattern of failing to notify regulatory agencies prior to performing work, failing to comply with applicable laws, and ignoring regulatory agency directives,” Renhifo said, urging denial.

Sable’s vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs, Steve Rush, disputed that characterization and said Sable had discussed needed repairs with county staff and self‑reported minor incidents. “Sable meets and exceeds the operator capability requirements,” Rush said, adding the company is cooperating with state agencies and continuing to remedy outstanding technical issues.

County staff’s findings cite multiple agency interactions and enforcement notices: the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued notices for unauthorized discharges, the State Office of the Fire Marshal identified cathodic‑protection deficiencies, and the Coastal Commission recorded cease‑and‑desist directives related to unauthorized coastal work. Staff also flagged financial concerns, noting Sable’s public filings showing cash declines and significant debt, and the absence of county‑level decommissioning bonds or insurance sufficient to guarantee remediation if Sable defaulted.

Board deliberations focused on whether the statutory findings in chapter 25B — that a proposed new operator has the skills, training and resources to run the permitted facility in compliance with county requirements — could be made on the record. After public testimony that included more than a dozen speakers for and against the transfer, several supervisors said the accumulated evidence since the planning commission decision supported denial. The motion to adopt staff findings and deny the transfers carried with Supervisors Lee, LaVonino and Chair Capps voting yes and Supervisor Nelson voting no.

The denial applies only to the county permits at issue; state and federal regulatory processes remain separate. County staff said the Board’s decision rests on the county code findings and the administrative record through the completeness date of the applications. Staff will return any necessary final documentation to make the denial effective and explained the decision in a written findings packet provided to the Board.

What happens next: Sable may pursue administrative remedies or litigation challenging the county decision. The Board’s action does not itself change federal or state permits or pipeline ownership; it prevents recognition of the requested transfer under the county’s land‑use permit framework.