Nine months after the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors split on the decision to transfer a series of permits to Sable Offshore Corp., the board on Tuesday overwhelmingly decided against the company, denying the transfer in a 4-1 vote.

County supervisors met Tuesday in Santa Barbara, where they heard an appeal requested by Sable as part of its goal to restart oil production in the county.

The board room was largely split between supporters and opponents, with people on one side wearing hats with the company’s logo. The other side of the audience included a crowd of people with red shirts and signs opposing Sable.

The vote comes nine months after the board reached a stalemate of 2-2 on whether to transfer the permits. A Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge instructed the board to hold another vote on the matter after Sable sued the county to force the transfer.

Sable needs the permits as part of its goal to begin production at its Santa Ynez Unit. The unit includes offshore platforms, a Gaviota Coast processing facility and transportation pipelines.

One of the pipelines in the facility is the line that ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio oil spill, in which 142,000 gallons of crude oil spilled onto the Gaviota shoreline and into the ocean.

During comments from the board, Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said he could not support the transfer. Although he initially voted in favor of Sable, Lavagnino said “the landscape has changed dramatically since February.”

He cited the 21 criminal charges against Sable by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office as well as state charges, an $18 million fine from the California Coastal Commission and concerns raised by an article by HunterBrook alleging that Sable staff leaked key information to investors.

“I have many friends in the oil industry,” Lavagnino said, “and I will continue to support efforts to access our natural resources, but it has to be done responsibly by operators who put safety above profits.”

He continued by telling Sable workers in the audience that he will continue to support them and the industry but blamed “misguided management” for his decision.

Supervisor Joan Hartmann also sided against Sable, citing concerns about whether the company has the proper insurance and resources to handle any potential oil spills. She also suggested that the county hire consultants to review Sable’s insurance policies in the case of a spill.

“It’s very complicated, and we know that insurance companies don’t want to pay,” Hartmann said. “There are just many, many questions that aren’t answered by this.”

Hartmann had recused herself from the February vote because part of the pipeline in question runs under her property, but she was granted clearance from the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which found that she had no financial interest in the matter.

Second District Supervisor Laura Capps and First District Supervisor Roy Lee sided with their colleagues against Sable.

The lone vote supporting Sable came from Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson. He described the meeting as “political theater” and said that much of the discussion surrounding Sable was in bad faith.

He added that his constituents feel the environmental impact of oil and gas more than other districts in the county.

“The simple truth is that the only way to mitigate those impacts is by working with oil and gas companies in good faith, not against them,” Nelson said.

In the end, the board decided to continue the topic until Dec. 16 to give county staff time to draft a rejection of the permit transfer. The board approved the continuance in a 4-1 vote, with Nelson voting against it.

Public Comment

Before the supervisors made their decision, supporters and opponents made their cases regarding the transfer. A total of 68 speakers made comments to the board.

Supporters of the transfer argued that restarting oil production would allow the state to be more energy independent. They argued that voting against the transfer would require California to ship in more oil and be less environmentally efficient.

Adam Maingot, who spoke in favor of the transfer, said he was born in the Mesa and drives a Toyota Prius — to his coworker’s chagrin.

Maingot said he used that example to show that he’s a member of the community and cares for the environment just like others in the audience. He told the board that restarting oil production locally allows Sable to do so cleanly and safely.

“We are members of this community, and we as Sable employees can assure you that we do everything as safely as we can,” Maingot said. “I know that Sable employees, including myself, care for the environment as much as everybody in this room.”

Opponents argued that Sable cannot be trusted to operate the facilities safely and pointed to the company’s past actions as evidence, including the fine by the California Coastal Commission and charges from the District Attorney’s Office.

Speaking out against the transfer was Sneha Namboodiri, dressed in a white jumpsuit painted with black to resemble oil.

Namboodiri told the board that Sable is a danger to the community’s health and future. She encouraged the board to learn from history before bringing up Sable’s violation of the California Coastal Commission and other actions.

“This is a leaky pipeline paired with a leaky company,” she said. “Just a recipe for disaster.”

After the meeting, Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, praised the board’s decision.

“We think it’s the right decision,” Krop said. “The evidence was overwhelming that Sable cannot be trusted to operate these facilities safely and responsibly. They’re being charged with felonies. They’re subject to many enforcement orders. So, this was the right decision, and we’re very grateful.”

Sable declined to comment on the decision.