A confusing outcome before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday left both Sable Offshore Corp. and environmental groups claiming victory, while county officials try to figure out the decision’s meaning.
The Board of Supervisors had a split 2-2 vote on the matter of transferring oil facility-related permits to Sable, the current owner. County Counsel Rachel Van Mullem said at the time that action would take a majority vote of at least three members.
During Wednesday’s meeting of the county Planning Commission, Lisa Plowman, director of Planning & Development, expressed uncertainty about the future of the permits and said the split vote meant that the board took no action.
“We are in the process of (…) determining what that actually means in the long run for Sable and the opponents,” Plowman said.
The vote in front of the board was to approve the transfer of permits from ExxonMobil to Sable. The company took over ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit from ExxonMobil, which includes three offshore platforms, processing facilities and transportation pipelines.
Sable hopes to restart the Santa Ynez Unit, which has been shut down after a coastal pipeline ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio oil spill.
The Planning Commission approved the permit transfer last year, and environmental groups appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors.
In Tuesday’s 2-2 vote, Steve Lavagnino and Bob Nelson supported the permit transfer, and Laura Capps and Roy Lee opposed the permit transfer.
As of now, the name change for the permits has not happened, according to Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta, the county’s public information officer. County staff are now trying to determine how to proceed but say the result of the split vote is unclear.
“The parties are making conflicting statements about whether a tie vote results in reverting to the Planning Commission’s approval or acts as a denial because the board did not take action by a majority to approve the application. The effect of a tie vote is not specifically set out in Chapter 25B,” the county said in a statement.
“The county has not in recent memory had a tie vote under this section. The county is looking into what happens next.”
In the aftermath of the meeting, Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, took Tuesday’s vote as a victory. He said Sable is looking forward to finalizing the transfer.
“Sable is pleased the appeals failed and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Santa Ynez Unit permit transfer to Sable stands. We look forward to continuing to work with the county to finalize the permit transfer and to safely restarting production as soon as possible,” Rusch said.
On the other side of the issue, environmental groups see the board’s tie vote as a win in their favor. They believe the board’s inability to achieve a majority vote means that the transfer is not approved.
“We applaud the Board of Supervisors’ decision to NOT transfer permits to Sable to operate a defective pipeline and dangerous processing facilities on our shores,” said Linda Krop, the chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center.
“The board was right to effectively deny the transfer to Sable, which has been rushing to complete repairs despite multiple notices of violation and stop work orders from the Coastal Commission and other state agencies. An oil company with clear disregard for state law cannot be trusted to operate a high-risk project with potentially disastrous consequences if and when something goes wrong.”
The issue was voted on by four of the five-member board after Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself. Part of the pipeline runs through her personal property, which is considered a conflict of interest.
After the most recent vote, Capps released a statement questioning the risk that the transfer and potential restart poses to public safety and the environment.
“Today I voted ‘no’ against Sable and voted ‘yes’ to public safety, environmental protections and financial prudence,” Capps said. “It’s too big a gamble for the county to simply check the box of a permit transfer, disregard all the alarming red flags the community and environmental advocates have rightfully raised, and put the county and the public in jeopardy of holding the bag when there is another spill.”
The last time the Board of Supervisors reached a split decision on the subject of oil was in 2023, during a vote on Pacific Pipeline Co.’s request to add safety valves to the pipeline that caused the Refugio oil spill.
The county Planning Commission had denied the project and PPC, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, appealed it to the board. That vote also ended in a 2-2 tie, with Hartmann recusing herself.
Capps voted against the appeal and the project, along with former Supervisor Das Williams. Lavagnino and Nelson voted to uphold the appeal and allow the project to continue.
PPC sued the county since no action was taken. The county and company settled the case last year. The agreement said the county does not have jurisdiction over the pipeline in that instance and that the company can install the safety valves.