Board of Supervisors — 2026-01-05

Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call to order this meeting of this special meeting of the of January 5th, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

And Chair Capps, members of the board, before we proceed, I'd like to note that Supervisor Lavagnino is participating from Santa Maria, and Supervisor Hartmann is absent, and Supervisor Nelson is participating from Sacramento, as listed on our agenda today.

Ready to begin.

please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805. 568-2240. And that concludes my announcements for

today. Thank you. And now's the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on our agenda today. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general public comment?

Chair Capps and members of the board, we have two members of the public that would like to speak on general public comment as well as our closed session agenda. Additionally, we have two members of the public separately that would like to speak on our closed session agenda. Okay, let's proceed with general public comment. Stable Offshore Court et al. v. County of Santa Barbara et al. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2-25CV04165, as well as Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Deciding Whether to Initiate Civil Litigation, one case.

And we will be going to Karen Hauenstein here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Eric Reyes, and they will both receive six minutes to provide their comments. Okay.

Good morning, Chair Capps and all of our supervisors, even in alternate locations. I do have some handouts I want to give and enter into the record for my comments today, so I'll give those to you afterwards. Okay, we're gonna have a short history lesson. Mr. Lavagnino in Santa Maria, He is going to remember a lot of details just like I do. Details that are also remembered, I'm sure, by Doss Williams, but he's no longer here.

You see, Mr. Lavagnino and I witnessed the rise and fall of Doss Williams and why. My comments today are related to what Ended up getting rid of DOS on our board here. And the personal conduct of a county employee by the name of Dennis Bozanich has cost our county millions of dollars in lost tax revenue from a robust and healthy commercial cannabis industry that we were supposed to have here in this county.

And since we don't have that at all, not even a little bit, not even on Santa Rosa Road, which is highly suspect to me, the poor decisions made at this level of government have been astronomical since I've been attending these meetings. And I'm begging you to consider the rule of law and our moral obligations to make responsible, tenable decisions for our county.

When elected officials use this platform as their own personal toy box to push their own personal agendas without fully considering the very drastic consequences Especially financially when our county gets sued because our county is fully self-insured. When our county government makes these decisions and they end up getting us sued successfully, all of the settlement has to come out of our budgets.

So you have to contrast What has happened in the last three years with decisions that have impacted our budget with the decisions that you make today. And one example I want to put forth is a decision that was actually made back in 2019 when this board supported Joyce Dudley to sue me and my parents civilly in civil court, and to leave the cannabis producer who caused the concern off the complaint.

When that happened, it revealed something to me that was an untenable situation. County Council, the District Attorney's Office, needs to be also used in a way that's fiscally viable for our county. So when you make this decision today, you need to understand that even though qualified immunity applies to your decisions, you need to think about the overall impact of these decisions, especially fiscally and financially, because You will be held accountable for this just like we are all being held accountable for the decisions that you make.

And thank you for your service and Happy New Year.

We will now go to our next speaker on general public comment as well as the closed session agenda, Erika Reyes on behalf of Representative Salud Carbajal. Erika.

Good morning Chair Capps, Supervisors, CEO Miyasato. Happy New Year. I hope you all had an enjoyable and restful holiday season. I also want to first thank all of our emergency responders out in the storms during the holiday season trying to keep everybody safe and just appreciation and very saddened to hear of the loss that our community had but very thankful for all of the emergency responders out there.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Erika Reyes and I'm Representative Salud Carbajal's District Director and here to deliver the following statement on behalf of the Congressman. Sable's frantic push to restart the corroded pipeline that caused the 2015 Refugio oil spill is deeply troubling, not just for the environmental protection of our coastline, but for the basic public trust in the safety and integrity of the agencies pushing Sable's project forward. Let's begin with the facts we cannot ignore.

The pipeline Sable wants to restart spilled 123,000 gallons of crude oil into our ocean. The spill devastated 150 miles of the California coast destroyed thousands of acres of shoreline and subtitle habitat, killed untold numbers of animals, shut down fisheries, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. For more than a decade, the San Yanez unit has been dormant because the pipeline that caused the 2015 disaster has been determined to be unsafe.

Yet today, despite unresolved corrosion issues, despite the state fire marshal's October determination that Sable's repairs do not meet required specifications, and despite ongoing litigation over environmental law violations, We are being told that the pipeline may be allowed to restart under a emergency federal permit issued in the final days of December. Let's be clear. Nothing about this situation warrants an emergency restart. The real emergency facing our community is if this pipeline is allowed to operate again without proper due diligence and regulatory oversight.

A major concern is that the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration, or FSMA, reversed its longstanding position seemingly overnight. For years, FSMA agreed the pipeline was under the State Fire Marshal's authority. But suddenly, in December, FSMA seized control from the State Fire Marshal and issued Sable an emergency start-up permit. This is not normal regulatory behavior, nor transparent government.

This appears to be a federal agency working under a pro-Big Oil administration bending over backwards to rescue a private company from state law and oversight. This is not how environmental oversight is supposed to work, and this is certainly not how a community that has already suffered a catastrophic spill should be treated. Supporters of the project claim California and our nation as a whole faces an emergency security crisis or an energy security crisis if we do not restart offshore oil production. But these arguments ignore the reality that the United States is already producing oil at record levels. It also sidesteps the reality that investing in alternative energy offers more resilient energy, Security often at lower long-term costs.

And the project supporters ignore the enormous environmental and economic risks of another spill which would dwarf any temporary benefit to our state's fuel supply. We have a responsibility to defend Santa Barbara County's public health and safety from other potentially devastating oil spill. I will continue to work with you and other local partners to demand full transparency from FRSMA and any other federal agencies involved with the restart project to ensure this pipeline undergoes a fair and thorough review. Thank you.

And before we proceed with public comment on today's closed session agenda, I just wanted to confirm with Supervisor Nelson in Sacramento that there are no members of the public that would like to speak on general public comment today from Sacramento?

No, there's no public comment here.

Thank you. As well as Santa Maria, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on general public comment? Supervisor Lavagnino?

There are not.

Great, thank you. We will now proceed to public comment on today's closed session agenda. We'll begin on Zoom with Lee Danielson to be followed by Thomas Becker. Lee? Yes, my comments will just remain private this time. Thank you. We will now go to Thomas Becker, who is our final speaker on today's closed session agenda. Thomas?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you. How much

time do I have? You have three minutes, Thomas. Please proceed.

Everybody else gets six minutes, but I get three minutes?

Yes, Thomas. The two other members of the public signed up for two different items on today's agenda, general public comment as well as the closed session agenda.

All right. Well, I don't need three minutes anyway. There is no doubt that people who would have prepared statements if given proper notice of this meeting were unprepared because of the short notice and odd timing. Chair Capps appears to have called this meeting to engage in an activity that is intended to influence the Federal District Court. Hartmann recused herself today, and that's what she did. She recused herself today. She's not absent. She recused herself.

Hartmann recused herself today and December 16th indicates that she knew on November 4th she had a conflict of interest concerning sable oil that legally required recusal. And that's all I have to say to you people today. Thank you.

And that concludes all requests to speak on general public comment and today's closed session agenda.

Okay, thank you to the members of the public that have come here to speak. Happy New Year to you all. With that, County Council, will you please read the items for consideration today in closed session?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. The board is scheduled for closed session for one item of existing litigation, Sable Offshore Corp. v. County of Santa Barbara, which is in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and one item of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. And the time estimate is about 45 minutes.

Great. So we will return from closed session approximately, I'd say 10-15. 10 or 10-15. We'll see. Okay with that we'll convene to closed session. Thanks everybody. Okay we're back and reconvening the special meeting of January 5th. Will County Council please report out from closed session?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session on two items. Existing litigation, Sable Offshore Corp versus the County of Santa Barbara, and anticipated litigation, deciding whether to initiate civil litigation, one case, and the board took no reportable action.

Okay, we are adjourned until Tuesday, January 13th, here in Santa Barbara. Thanks.