Board of Supervisors — 2022-03-08

State of Emergency

• Two public speakers addressed the board regarding the suspension of rights and the termination of the emergency declaration.
• Supervisor Nelson objected to using the state of emergency as the basis for remote meetings, citing evolving technology and legislative changes.
• The board voted 3-2 to direct staff to hold remote hearings for one more month due to ongoing social distancing measures.

2021 Grand Jury Report on Idle Oil Wells

• Public commenters from environmental and industry groups debated the adequacy of the county's response to the Grand Jury's recommendations.
• Staff clarified that CalGEM is responsible for orphaned wells and that the county code does not assign this responsibility to local government.
• The board voted 3-2 to amend the response to state that further analysis is required and to return within six months to review the issue.

2021 Grand Jury Report on Suicide in Main Jail

• Two public speakers stated they had no comments on the item.
• The board approved the balance of the agenda unanimously.

Arbor Day Proclamation

• The Clerk read a resolution proclaiming March 8, 2022, as Arbor Day, highlighting the county's agricultural history and tree programs.
• Representatives from Public Works and Community Services were introduced to the board.

Tree City USA Recognition

• Staff reported the county’s 19th consecutive year of recognition by the Tree City Foundation.
• Staff noted a 70% reduction in risk management claims related to urban street trees and successful response rates across all districts.

Tibet Day Resolution

• The board adopted a resolution declaring March 10, 2022, as Tibet Day and authorizing the flying of the Tibetan flag.
• A representative from the Santa Barbara Summit for Tibet spoke in support of the resolution.

Employee of the Month Recognition

• The board adopted a resolution recognizing Leslie Stewart of the Probation Department as Employee of the Month for March 2022.
• Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitmann highlighted Stewart’s contributions to program management and compliance.

International Women’s Day Resolution

• The board adopted a resolution declaring March 8, 2022, as International Women’s Day with the theme "Break the Bias."
• Supervisor Nelson provided context on global gender gap indices and the stagnation of progress in the U.S.

Water Resources Update

• Staff presented data on current drought conditions, noting that 10-year average precipitation is at the lowest in recorded history.
• The Water Agency discussed exploring offshore desalination pilots and regional projects to diversify the water supply portfolio.
• The board voted unanimously to receive and file the presentation.

PR Investments LLC and Far Western Liquor Appeal

• The appellants requested a continuance because their appointed attorney was recently added to the Planning Commission, creating a conflict of interest.
• Staff recommended a continuance to allow the appellant to secure new representation.
• The board moved to continue the item to May 3, 2022.

ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit

• Staff recommended denial based on significant and unavoidable traffic safety risks, particularly on Highway 166.
• ExxonMobil counsel argued the company has a vested right to operate and that the denial lacked substantial evidence.
• Public comment was divided, with supporters citing economic benefits and opponents citing safety and environmental risks.
• The board voted to deny the temporary trucking permit, finding that safety impacts are significant and unmitigatable.

Modified Project Approval and Notice of Exemption

• The board approved the modified project and the filing of a notice of exemption.
• Staff read specific findings regarding traffic safety impacts and increased traffic fatalities to clarify the record.
• The motion passed with a 3-2 vote.

Closed Session

• The board discussed existing litigation involving AT&T and the State of California Department of Health Care Services.
• The board considered real property negotiations regarding 315 West Haley Street with PathPoint.
• Upon reconvening, the board reported that it took no reportable action on these items.

Meeting Start and Roll Call

• The March 8, 2022, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order in the Santa Maria hearing room. Roll call was taken, and all supervisors were present. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes (March 1, 2022)

• The board considered the approval of the minutes from the March 1, 2022, meeting. No discussion occurred. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

CEO Report

• The CEO provided no report.

Announcements

• The Clerk provided several announcements:
• A request to continue Departmental Item 2 (Planning and Development appeal regarding PR Investments LLC and Far Western Liquor Inc.) was received and is scheduled for consideration around 10:45 AM.
• Departmental Item 3 (Planning Commission recommendation regarding ExxonMobil interim trucking for the Santa Ana Unit Phase Restart Project) is estimated to be heard around 12:00 PM, immediately following the closed session.
• The list of public comments for Departmental Item 3 will be posted online and in the hearing rooms once public comment closes.
• Meetings are being interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish via Cox Cable (South County) and Comcast Cable (North County) using Secondary Audio Programming (SAP).
• Face coverings are no longer required indoors for attendees, though the Public Health Department encourages masking and social distancing in crowded areas.
• Procedures for virtual public comment via Zoom were reviewed, including registration requirements and time limits (up to three minutes per speaker, at the Chair’s discretion).
• The Chair noted that if there are more than 80 public speakers for Departmental Item 3, the time limit per speaker may be reduced to 90 seconds or 60 seconds.

Administrative Agenda Adjustments

• Supervisor Nelson requested to pull Administrative Item A3, and Supervisor Williams requested to pull Administrative Item A8. The Clerk noted public requests to speak on Administrative Items A8 and A9. The Chair directed that the public speak first on A3, followed by Supervisor Nelson.

Administrative Item A3: State of Emergency

• Description: Consider recommendations regarding the circumstances of the existing state of emergency.
• Public Comment: Two speakers addressed the board via Zoom. One speaker expressed concern about the suspension of rights during the emergency and the lack of debate, referencing state law and media narratives. The second speaker cited the California Emergency Services Act, arguing that the state of emergency should be terminated at the earliest possible date and criticizing government actions and media coverage.
• Board Discussion: Supervisor Nelson renewed an objection to using the state of emergency as the basis for remote meetings, noting that technology has evolved and citing Assembly Bills 1944 and 2449 which propose changing the Brown Act to allow Zoom meetings. Supervisor Nelson stated they would vote against the item. Supervisor Hart moved to direct staff to hold remote hearings, citing the need for continuity of government and the varying risk levels of advisory board members. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion. Supervisor Hart expressed support for the motion to allow remote hearings for one more month, noting the difficulty advisory boards face in meeting in person.
• Motion: Direct staff to hold remote hearings because the supervisors have considered the circumstances of the state of emergency and local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
• Vote: The motion passed 3-2.

Administrative Item A8: 2021 Grand Jury Report on Idle Oil Wells

• Description: Consider recommendations regarding a response to the 2021 Grand Jury Report titled "Idle Oil Wells in Santa Barbara County."
• Public Comment: Four speakers addressed the board via Zoom.
• One speaker from the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) supported the Grand Jury’s recommendations for annual staff reports, cost analysis, adequate staffing for monitoring, and enforcement of compliance with the Petroleum Code. They cited data on idle wells, potential health and environmental hazards, and financial costs to the county.
• An EDC attorney requested the board not submit the staff’s response letter, arguing the county does not adequately track or monitor idle wells and relies solely on CalGEM. They urged the board to follow the Grand Jury’s recommendations for an investigation and annual report.
• A speaker representing the Coastal Energy Alliance (CEA) supported the board’s response letter, noting that the industry is regulated by multiple agencies, including CalGEM and the APCD. They cited CalGEM’s 2019 regulatory revisions and state funds for remediation.
• A speaker representing CoLab supported the staff response, arguing the Grand Jury missed key issues such as APCD’s use of sniffer devices to detect leaks and the distinction between idle wells and improperly abandoned sumps/surface facilities.
• Board Discussion: Supervisor Williams expressed difficulty with the item, noting that while they do not wholly disagree with staff’s response, they questioned if more could be done. They asked staff if there are additional actions the county can take to ensure methane emissions are controlled and wells are not orphaned. Staff responded that CalGEM is receiving federal funding to abandon orphaned wells (e.g., Greco wells) and that the county’s current code does not assign responsibility for orphan wells to the county. Supervisor Hart agreed with Supervisor Williams that the response was not adequate and suggested responding to the Grand Jury that further analysis is required, with a completion date of no more than six months. Supervisor Lavagnino opposed taking on additional oversight responsibilities but supported a hearing to delineate responsibilities among agencies. Supervisor Nelson stated that the existing process is sufficient and opposed the motion to require further analysis, arguing that adding layers of regulation is unnecessary. The Chair supported the proposed web portal for transparency and suggested a response to the Grand Jury followed by additional conversation. Supervisor Williams moved to amend the response to state that the Grand Jury has identified an issue and the board will return within six months to see if there is a role for county oversight. Supervisor Hart seconded. Supervisor Nelson proposed returning in three months instead of six. Supervisor Hart suggested a blanket response to all four recommendations stating that further review is required and the board will return in six months. Supervisor Williams agreed. Supervisor Hart clarified that the response to the findings should be "wholly disagree" or "partially disagree," but the board decided to use the "requires further analysis" option for the recommendations to allow for a future hearing.
• Motion: Amend the response to the Grand Jury’s recommendations to state that further analysis is required and the board will return within six months to review the issue.
• Vote: The motion passed 3-2.

Administrative Item A9: 2021 Grand Jury Report on Suicide in Santa Barbara County Main Jail

• Description: Consider recommendations regarding a response to the 2021 Grand Jury Report titled "Suicide in Santa Barbara County Main Jail: The Challenge for Law Enforcement and Health Professionals."
• Public Comment: Two speakers addressed the board via Zoom. Both stated they had no comments on the item.
• Motion: Approve the balance of the agenda.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution A13: Arbor Day Proclamation

• Description: Adopt a resolution proclaiming March 8, 2022, as Arbor Day in Santa Barbara County.
• Discussion: The Clerk read the resolution, which highlighted the county’s agricultural history, the value of landscape trees, and the participation of local cities in the Tree City USA program. Representatives from Public Works and Community Services were introduced.
• Status: The transcript ends before a vote is recorded for this item.

Administrative Item 13: Tree City USA Recognition

• Discussion: Staff presented an update noting the county’s 19th consecutive year of recognition by the Tree City Foundation. Staff highlighted that the county is one of only two in California recognized at the county level. Staff reported approximately 400 annual work orders, successful response rates across all five districts, and a 70% reduction in risk management claims related to urban street trees.
• Action: No specific motion or vote is recorded in this segment for this item; the discussion appears to be part of the general administrative agenda review leading into Item 14.

Administrative Item 14: Resolution Proclaiming March 10, 2022, as Tibet Day

• Discussion: The Clerk read a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Williams declaring March 10, 2022, as Tibet Day in Santa Barbara County and authorizing the Department of General Services to fly the Tibetan flag at the County Administration Building. The resolution cited the 1959 uprising and ongoing human rights concerns. A representative from the Santa Barbara Summit for Tibet spoke in support, sharing personal history regarding exile. Supervisor Williams invited the public to attend the flag-raising ceremony.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Administrative Item 15: Resolution Recognizing Leslie Stewart as Employee of the Month

• Discussion: The Clerk read a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Hartman recognizing Leslie Stewart of the Probation Department as Employee of the Month for March 2022. The resolution detailed her role as a Senior Administrative Office Professional, her contributions to the Batterers Intervention Program, grant proposals, and Brown Act compliance, as well as her support during staff shortages. Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitmann spoke in support, highlighting Stewart’s professionalism and ability to manage complex meetings. Leslie Stewart spoke to thank the board and her colleagues.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Administrative Item 16: Resolution Recognizing International Women’s Day

• Discussion: The Clerk read a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Hartman declaring March 8, 2022, as International Women’s Day in Santa Barbara County. The resolution cited the history of the day, the 2022 theme "Break the Bias," and the economic and social contributions of women. Allison Wales of the Santa Barbara County Commission for Women spoke in support, noting the commission’s history and the ongoing need for equity. Supervisor Nelson provided context on global gender gap indices, noting the U.S. ranks 30th and that progress has stagnated.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

General Public Comment

• Discussion: Five speakers addressed the board on general topics:
• 1. Scott Wentz (Cars Are Basic): Opposed recent recreational planning items, arguing that high-density infill and certain organizations aim to reduce automobile use. He urged the board to re-examine these policies. 2. Erica Cully (IHSS Provider): Requested wage increases for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers, citing high costs of living, difficulty in recruiting workers, and the physical and mental demands of the job. 3. Yolanda Navarro (IHSS Provider): Spoke in Spanish, requesting a wage increase of $1.51 per hour over the next two years to cover living costs and lack of benefits such as pension and medical insurance. 4. Dr. Amy Smith: Criticized Supervisor Williams for fundraising for the Ukrainian military, arguing that the U.S. government has provoked conflict with Russia through NATO expansion. She called for the end of NATO and nuclear disarmament. 5. Maria Kessler: Criticized the U.S. military-industrial complex for pushing the U.S. into the Ukraine-Russia conflict, citing statements by Secretary of State Blinken and Vice President Harris regarding NATO membership for Ukraine. She urged the board to hold politicians accountable for foreign interventions.

Departmental Item 1: Water Resources Update

• Discussion: Public Works and the Water Agency presented an update on county water supply conditions. Staff introduced Walter Rubalcaba as the new Deputy Director of Water Resources. Matt Young, Water Agency Manager, presented data on rainfall, reservoir levels, and supply sources. Key points included:
• Recent dry conditions following a wet December; current 10-year average precipitation is at the lowest in recorded history.
• Groundwater comprises ~40% of county supplies; several basins (Cuyama, San Antonio, Santa Ynez) show significant depletion.
• State Water Project allocation is currently 15% of contracted amounts.
• Desalination and recycled water are growing parts of the portfolio.
• The Water Agency is exploring an offshore desalination pilot project with Vandenberg Space Force Base and a regional desalination project with San Luis Obispo County.
• The county’s Integrated Stormwater Resources Plan was approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, enabling grant funding for recharge projects.
• Most purveyors are at Stage 1 drought restrictions; Carpinteria and Solvang are at Stage 2.
• Q&A:
• Supervisor Nelson asked for clarification on "wet water" vs. "paper water" in state water allocations and the status of private water providers in the Orchid area. Staff confirmed the 14% figure represented delivered water in 2020 and identified Golden State Water Company and mutual water companies as private providers.
• Supervisor Hart asked about the Vandenberg desalination pilot. Staff explained the technology involves offshore processing and brine disposal, and the agency is seeking a local partner to prove viability.
• Supervisor Williams asked about recycled water potential. Staff noted Laguna Sanitation District is exploring direct and indirect potable reuse and has a funded project to use recycled water for irrigation at Waller Park.
• Supervisor Nelson asked about groundwater depletion and recharge basin protection. Staff noted significant depletion in several basins and highlighted the approved stormwater plan’s role in facilitating recharge projects.
• Supervisor Williams discussed the Cuyama Basin groundwater sustainability plan, noting that two large pumpers requested adjudication, which threatens the "glide path" for pumping reductions.
• Supervisor Nelson asked about the implications of the drought emergency declaration. Staff noted it qualifies purveyors for grant funding and enables certain actions.
• Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Nelson (Ryan McLeod) expressed support for the desalination pilot and the new Deputy Director.
• Motion: Supervisor McLeod moved to receive and file the presentation.
• Second: Motion was seconded.
• Vote: Passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2: PR Investments LLC and Far Western Liquor, Inc. Appeal

• Discussion: The Clerk noted that the appellants requested a continuance due to a conflict of interest. The appellant’s attorney, Vincent Martinez, was appointed to the Planning Commission on February 15, creating an automatic conflict of interest. Staff recommended a continuance to allow the appellant to secure new representation. The project proponent’s representative, Brian Tetley, requested the earliest possible date. Vincent Martinez explained the conflict and the need for time to find new counsel. Supervisor Lavagnino acknowledged the legitimacy of the conflict.
• Motion: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to continue the item to May 3, 2022.
• Second: Supervisor McLeod seconded the motion.
• Vote: The transcript ends before the vote outcome is recorded.

Agenda Item: Closed Session

• The Board entered closed session to discuss existing litigation and real property negotiations.
• Litigation: The Board considered two cases under Government Code Section 54956.9: New Singular Wireless doing business as AT&T v. County of Santa Barbara (U.S. District Court for the Central District) and County of Santa Barbara v. State of California Department of Health Care Services (Los Angeles Superior Court).
• Real Property: The Board considered negotiations regarding the property at 315 West Haley Street, Santa Barbara. The district agency negotiator was Jeanette Pell, Director of Generous Services, and the negotiating party was Harry Burrell, President/CEO of PathPoint.
• Outcome: Upon reconvening, the Board reported that it took no reportable action on these items.

Agenda Item: Departmental Item No. 3 – ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Phase Restart (Case No. 17 RVP 81)

• The Board heard a presentation regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny ExxonMobil’s application for a development plan revision to install an oil tanker truck loading rack at the Los Flores Canyon facility and transport crude oil via truck.
• Ex Parte Communications: Supervisors disclosed various communications, including site visits and meetings with ExxonMobil representatives, the Sierra Club, and the Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Staff noted public comment tallies: 129 in-county supporters, 1,154 in-county opponents, 49 out-of-county supporters, and 451 out-of-county opponents.
• Staff Presentation:
• Project Scope: The proposal involves constructing truck loading racks in previously disturbed areas and trucking oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Pump Station (SMPS) or the Plains Pentland Terminal. Trucking is proposed 24/7, with up to 78 daily round trips. Annual limits are capped at 25,550 trucks to SMPS or 24,820 to Pentland.
• Mitigation: Measures include restrictions on trucking during heavy rain events (50% chance of 0.5 inches of rain in 24 hours), a Truck Hazard Mitigation Plan, and spill response equipment (UAVs and trailers).
• Environmental Review: The Supplemental EIR (SEIR) identified one significant and unavoidable impact: hazardous materials risk of upset (oil spills). Five other impacts (air quality, greenhouse gases, traffic, etc.) were identified as significant but mitigable.
• Recommendation: Staff recommended denial based on the Planning Commission’s findings. Staff stated that findings for "overriding considerations," "adequate streets and highways," and "no detriment to neighborhood welfare/safety" could not be made due to traffic safety risks, particularly on Highway 166.
• Board Questions and Staff Responses:
• Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Staff explained that emissions would be offset at a 1:1 ratio, with a plan to be finalized prior to approval. The baseline for the SEIR was pre-pipeline-break conditions.
• Rainy Day Restrictions: Trips restricted during rain would be made up on subsequent days, staying within annual caps.
• Displacement of Trips: Staff indicated the project would likely displace trucks currently traveling from Kern County to the SMPS, meaning the net increase in new trips would be less than the total proposed trips.
• Spill Probability: Staff cited consultant data estimating one spill every 52 years on Highway 101 and one every 17 years on Highway 166.
• Emergency Permit Comparison: Staff noted the previous emergency de-inventorying of 400,000 barrels was completed without incident, but the current project includes additional safety measures and full CEQA review.
• Applicant Presentation:
• Legal Argument: ExxonMobil counsel argued the company has a vested right to operate under existing permits and that trucking is permitted by the Final Development Plan when pipelines are unavailable. They argued the Planning Commission’s denial recommendation was unsupported by substantial evidence and contradicted staff’s original recommendation for approval.
• Economic and Environmental Benefits: ExxonMobil representatives highlighted the displacement of imported oil, the creation of approximately 250 jobs, the return of tax revenues (previously ~$4.5 million annually), and the economic activity of ~$34 million annually. They emphasized the project’s safety regulations and the net traffic impact (estimated at +9 trucks/day on Highway 166).
• Greenhouse Gas Offsets: ExxonMobil proposed a $1 million injection into local GHG mitigation projects and the use of verified carbon registry credits to offset emissions, noting that local offsets alone were insufficient.
• Public Comment: 96 individuals requested to speak. Comments were divided:
• Supporters: Cited economic benefits, job creation, energy independence, local tax revenue, and the safety of regulated trucking. Speakers included representatives from local businesses, labor unions (Local 220), chambers of commerce, and former/current ExxonMobil employees.
• Opponents: Cited traffic safety risks on Highway 166, environmental concerns regarding oil spills, air quality degradation, and the lack of "bridge technology" for energy transition. Speakers included residents and representatives of environmental groups.
• Decision: The transcript ends before the Board takes a vote on this item. No motion, second, or vote outcome is recorded in this section.

Agenda Item: Public Comment on ExxonMobil’s Interim Trucking Permit Application (Item D3)

• This section of the transcript consists entirely of public comment regarding the proposed interim trucking permit for the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU). No motions were made, seconded, or voted upon by the Board of Supervisors during this segment. The Board Chair facilitated the proceedings, managed speaker order, and enforced time limits.

Public Comment Summary

• Speakers addressed the Board from both in-person and via Zoom, presenting arguments for and against the approval of the interim trucking permit.

Speakers in Support of Approval

• Thomas Gibbons: Argued that the Board lacks understanding of oil production fundamentals and stated that the revenue from oil reaching the shore would benefit the county.
• Clint Olivier (CEO, Central Valley Business Federation): Stated that a thriving economy helps solve local challenges and that disruptions to permitting result in economic loss. Urged approval to restart SYU to provide energy to California and the Central Valley, citing the organization’s support for California’s health and safety regulations.
• Tracy Leach (Director, Current Citizens for Energy): Urged approval to support local energy production, noting that California imports 70% of its oil from foreign countries. Cited Kern County’s support for all forms of energy and the need for independence from foreign oil.
• Phyllis Asher (ExxonMobil Employee): Supported approval based on the belief that local oil produced under strict permitting benefits the global environment and ExxonMobil’s commitment to safety.
• Ryan Dixon (Former SYU Facilities Engineer): Urged approval, stating that trucking operations can be done safely and that SYU production could offset 25% of California’s imports from Russia. Cited the social and economic impacts of the SYU shutdown on local workers.
• Dustin Hoyseth (Public Policy Manager, Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce): Supported the permit on behalf of 1,100 member businesses, arguing it would bring back high-paying jobs and millions in income. Stated the project has undergone extensive environmental review and received a staff recommendation for approval.
• Mark Winnike (Representing Aquius Corporation): Urged approval, citing over 20 years of experience with ExxonMobil and their high standards for safety.
• Glenn Morris (Representing Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce): Asked the Board to reverse the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the permit, prioritizing the economic needs of families and communities.
• Matt Guthrie (Representing Coastal Energy Alliance): Requested approval to promote local energy production and reduce dependence on foreign sources, arguing that locally produced oil handled with local infrastructure is safer and more responsible.
• Gabriel Marquez: Supported the project, citing the economic crunch felt by local infrastructure workers post-2015 and stating that Exxon has always operated responsibly.
• Roy Reed (President, Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association): Urged approval, noting that the 2015 pipeline rupture was caused by a third-party company, not Exxon. Argued that enhancing domestic production is the best path to avoid supporting foreign regimes and to recover lost jobs and tax revenue.

Speakers in Opposition to Approval

• Jonathan Allman (Director, Los Padres Chapter of Sierra Club): Urged the Board to give equal weight to phone callers and to "follow your planner." Criticized the tax revenue argument as insignificant.
• Jillian Hall (Food and Water Watch): Urged denial, stating that people are part of the environment. Cited statistics on trucking accidents in Santa Barbara County (59 injured, 28 killed, over 100,000 gallons spilled in 22 years) and the risks of restarting offshore production.
• Vittoria Cutbirth (El Gato Channel Foundation): Urged denial, asking the Board to consider the health and safety of children and the environment. Stated that no amount of money is worth the turmoil of climate change.
• Maggie Hall (Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Center): Urged denial, arguing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is inadequate because it fails to assess the impacts of the whole project (including offshore operations) and uses a misleading baseline.
• Brian Trautwein (Environmental Defense Center): Urged denial, stating the EIR is flawed for omitting rare species, habitats, and wildfire impacts. Cited specific omissions such as the arroyo chub and 12 rare plant species.
• Linda Kropp (Chief Counsel, Environmental Defense Center): Urged denial, supporting the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Argued that findings regarding inconsistency with the Local Urban Development Code (LUDC) and coastal zoning do not reflect the inevitable risk of accidents, citing eight accidents along the proposed route in the last 15 years.
• Nadia Abushanab & Ken Huff (SBCAN): Played a video showing a fatal crash on Highway 166 involving a tanker truck and highlighting the dangers of the proposed route.
• Katie Davis (Sierra Club): Urged denial, noting that Exxon’s original development plan is outdated (dated 1982) and that the EIR fails to consider the current shutdown baseline. Stated that SYU was a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Julie Teal Simmons (Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity): Urged denial, noting that state and county laws generally prohibit oil transport by tanker trucks. Argued the EIR is inadequate and ignores impacts associated with restart.
• Katherine Lane (Executive Chair, UCSB Environmental Affairs Board): Urged denial, citing Class 1 unmitigable impacts and Class 2 greenhouse gas emission impacts. Stated the project overshoots the county’s greenhouse gas emission threshold by a factor of nine.
• Grant Huebner (Community Affairs Chair, UCSB Environmental Affairs Board): Urged denial, citing Exxon’s financial instability ($53 billion in debt) and the risk to job stability.
• Soham Ray (UCSB Environmental Affairs Board): Urged denial, noting that Route 166 was deemed too dangerous by the 2020 Planning Commission staff. Cited significant and unavoidable impacts to biological, water, and cultural resources.
• Lily Ortiz (Chair, UCSB Environmental Affairs Board): Urged denial, citing Exxon’s status as a major greenhouse gas emitter and its violations of the Clean Air Act.
• Jesse Casey (Policy Chair, UCSB Environmental Affairs Board): Urged denial, reiterating that Route 166 was deemed unsafe and citing significant unavoidable impacts on wildlife and cultural resources, including endangered species like the Southern California coast steelhead.
• Marisa Sullivan (Tribal Representative, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation): Urged denial, stating the route runs through unceded ancestral lands of the Chumash people and poses risks to village sites and community members.
• Rebecca August (Director of Advocacy, Los Padres Forest Watch): Urged denial, highlighting risks to water and public lands, including the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument.
• Michael Lynch: Urged denial, supporting the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Stated that the route is poor and that the oil being trucked is heavier and more toxic than local delivery trucks.
• Brett Garrett (Goleta Resident): Urged rejection, citing the history of local oil spills and the threat of climate chaos. Stated that the staff report anticipates a 1 in 17 probability of oil spills.
• Paula Perotti (Mayor, City of Goleta): Stated the City of Goleta opposes the transport of crude oil via tanker truck, citing a 2019 city council resolution. Noted that the proposal replaces the defunct Plains Line 901 pipeline, which ruptured in 2015.
• Tevin Schmidt (Watershed Scientist, Wichita Foundation): Urged denial, stating the Final SEIR is lacking in analysis of cultural resources, cumulative biological impacts, and water quality. Cited a 2020 crash that spilled oil into the Kiama River.
• Michael Lyons (President, Get Oil Out): Urged denial, stating that the testimony and documentation presented at the Planning Commission hearing showed the dangers of trucking and faulty methodology in the environmental documents.
• Kalian Sheehy (UCSB Student): Urged denial, citing the history of accidents along Routes 166 and 101, including 59 injuries, 28 deaths, and over 100,000 gallons of oil spilled.
• Molly Troop (Science & Policy Associate, Santa Barbara Channel Keeper): Urged denial, supporting the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Cited the contribution of over 317,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year and the risk of oil spills.
• Larry Bickford: Urged denial, citing the high number of tanker trips (178,000 over seven years) and the risk of crashes and spills. Stated that the pipeline is permitted while tanker trucks are not.
• Emily Luster (Law Clerk, Environmental Defense Center): Urged denial, stating that the project would produce only 0.06% of the nation’s daily oil consumption and that the situation in Russia and Ukraine does not support the project.
• Catherine Mullen (Santa Barbara Resident): Urged denial, stating that using carbon-based fuel to move carbon-based fuel is ridiculous and that greenhouse gas mitigation measures are often greenwashing.
• Kayla McGordon (Intern, EDC; UCSB Senior): Urged denial, citing research on at least 87 tanker truck accidents in California in the last 22 years, 14 of which occurred in Santa Barbara County.
• Rachel Eiler-Kenniston (Los Padres Forest Watch; UCSB Student): Urged denial, citing 258 trucking accidents along the route in the last six years, including a 2020 spill into the Cuyama River.
• Scout Vernon (Santa Barbara Resident): Urged denial, stating that oil is unhealthy for air, water, and soil, and that the permit exposes the risk of another ocean oil spill.
• Lynn Carlisle (Executive Director, Cuyama Valley Family Resource Center): Urged denial, stating that Route 166 is already a dangerous road and that the Cuyama Valley School Board issued a resolution asking for the proposal to be denied for student safety.
• Meg Brown (Cuyama Resident): Urged denial, stating that Route 166 is highly dangerous with few passing zones and no speed limits in town sites.
• Pamela Baxic (Cuyama Resident): Urged denial, citing the danger of loaded trucks holding up traffic on a two-lane highway with no passing lanes.
• Ben Schwartz (Policy Manager, Clean Coalition): Urged denial, stating the project takes the county in the wrong direction from its climate emergency goals. Criticized ExxonMobil’s mitigation efforts and carbon offsets.
• Sage Gerson (Sierra Club): Urged denial, stating that restarting oil production on aging platforms is dangerous and could result in an offshore spill.
• Luz Reyes-Martin (Chair, Santa Barbara Sierra Club; Goleta Union School District Board Member): Urged denial, citing the Goleta Union School District Board’s resolution opposing the project and the danger to the environment and public safety.
• Larry Bishop (Buelton City Green Team Member): Urged denial, citing traffic safety, groundwater protection, and the county’s commitment to decrease fossil fuel production.
• Sean Thompson (Local Resident; Former Surfrider Foundation Ambassador): Urged denial, stating that trucking is the most dangerous form of transporting crude oil and that the community has lived without this oil for seven years.
• Julia Bickford (Environmental Scientist; Sunrise Movement Member): Urged denial, citing the risk of an oil spill as inevitable and unmitigatable and the risks to local communities and vulnerable ecosystems.

Agenda Item: Temporary Trucking Permit for Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) / ExxonMobil

Public Comment

• Public comment continued with speakers Curtis Atterbury, Jose Carrasco, and Ryan McLeod. Atterbury, a contractor for ExxonMobil, stated he had no financial incentive for the restart and argued that hydrocarbon-based power currently has no alternative, providing an opportunity for future research. Carrasco, representing the SB Slow Alliance, expressed solidarity with tribal elders and opposed further oil and gas production, citing the 2015 Refugio State Beach oil spill and the economic interests of industry and politicians. McLeod provided final comments for the item.

Motion to Accept Documents into the Record

• The Clerk identified several documents received on Friday afternoon that required a vote to be officially included in the record. These included public comments from the City of Santa Barbara, OST Trucks and Cranes, the project applicant, SLO Climate Coalition, Los Padres Forest Watch, the Sierra Club, Central Valley Business Federation, Clean Coalition, and the Climate Reality Project. Additionally, various emails and letters received between March 4 and March 7, 2022, from individuals including Griselda Olvera, Javier Barandian, Kelly and Cheehy, Nadia Lee Abushanab, Megan Gamble, Rosemary Verheyen, Tristan Partridge, Vida Miller, Roberta Wiseglass, Iver John, and Mary Ellen Brooks (Citizens Planning Association) were listed. The Clerk noted these documents had previously been posted online and distributed to the board.
• Motion: Supervisor McLeod moved to accept these documents into the record.
• Second: Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Applicant Response and Staff Q&A

• Brian Anderson, representing the applicant, thanked supporters and reiterated that the request was for a temporary seven-year trucking permit to restart operations, as ExxonMobil holds a vested right to operate the asset. He stated that the facilities require no additional permits to restart and that a pipeline is currently unavailable. Anderson highlighted the company’s safety record, noting nearly 600 million barrels produced over 40 years without incident and 14 federal safety awards. He argued that the staff’s assessment in the SEIR (Supplemental Environmental Impact Report) was appropriate, that the trucking operation is consistent with zoning ordinances, and that mitigations make it one of the safest and most regulated operations. Anderson cited the economic benefits, including 250 high-paying jobs and tens of millions in economic activity, and argued that local crude production displaces foreign crude with higher carbon emissions. He urged the board to adopt the staff recommendation, certify the SEIR, and approve the project.
• Supervisor McLeod asked staff questions regarding the baseline used in the EIR, biological resources, existing trucking prohibitions, and traffic safety on Highway 166.
• Baseline: Staff explained they used a three-year operational baseline (2012–2014) prior to the pipeline spill, as is typical for operational oil and gas projects. Legal counsel noted the board has discretion over the baseline as long as it is supported by substantial evidence.
• Biological Resources: Staff stated that public comments regarding biological resources were addressed in the revised proposed final document.
• Trucking Prohibitions: Staff clarified there is no ordinance prohibiting oil trucking in the county; most producers truck oil to market.
• Traffic Safety: Staff confirmed a consultant prepared the traffic study. The EIR found the level of service acceptable except at the southbound interchange between 166 and 101. Mitigation measures include reducing trucking during peak hours. Staff noted Highway 166 has a slightly above-average incident rate and identified mitigation measures to reduce safety impacts.
• Offsets: Staff explained that offsets are typically purchased from verified exchanges and that APCD (Air Pollution Control District) would verify them.

Board Deliberations

• Supervisor Williams stated she would support denial, citing significant and unmitigatable safety impacts on Highway 166 and significant GHG impacts. She noted that the previous project configuration, which terminated at the Santa Maria Pump Station, had different benefits, but the closure of that station shifts truck trips to Kern County, increasing distance and environmental impacts. She argued the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
• Supervisor Lavagnino stated he would support approval. He acknowledged the project is not net-zero but noted it fully offsets air and GHG emissions to zero. He cited the staff report’s low probability of spills (once in 17 years on 166, once in 52 years on 101) and the economic benefits of 250 jobs and $4.5 million in annual tax revenue. He emphasized energy security and the need to continue fossil fuel production during the transition to renewable energy, arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks.
• Supervisor Hart stated she would vote to deny. She cited the significant and unavoidable impact on sensitive resources due to potential oil spills, referencing local history of spills and accidents. She questioned the security and quality of the promised jobs, citing ExxonMobil’s recent layoffs, union lockouts, and financial leverage. She argued that the economic benefits pale in comparison to the coastal hospitality industry, which is threatened by spill risks. She emphasized the need for a just transition to renewable energy and urged the board to pass a community workforce agreement ordinance.
• Supervisor McLeod asked if there is any project that can mitigate the significant unavoidable impact of oil trucking, suggesting the board should be honest about the process if no such mitigation is possible. He stated he supports the project based on the legal process and the fact that the applicant followed all requirements, while acknowledging the impacts on his district. He suggested the board might need to consider an ordinance regarding hazardous materials in the future.
• Supervisor Hart clarified that the board’s duty is to evaluate the specific project based on the facts presented today.
• Chair Hartman summarized the deliberations, noting the board must weigh risk versus benefit. She cited the history of trucking accidents in the county and the riskiness of Highway 166. She questioned the certainty of the economic benefits and the long-term financial stability of the applicant. She stated that the project is detrimental to the health and safety of neighborhoods and not compatible with the surrounding areas, particularly given the climate crisis and the facility’s status as a major GHG emitter.

Motion to Deny

• Supervisor Williams moved to deny the project, finding that safety impacts are significant and unmitigatable, and adding the 2020 staff recommendations to the record as evidence. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion.

Break and Findings Revision

• The board took a 15-minute break to review and update the findings to reflect the board’s deliberations. Upon reconvening, staff presented the revised findings for denial, which included additions reflecting the comments from Supervisors Williams, Hart, and Hartman. Changes included statements that jobs may not be as secure or high-quality as indicated, that the Santa Maria Pump Station closure in 2023 affects the project, that earlier versions mitigated GHG impacts more extensively, and that economic benefits are substantially less than those of the coastal hospitality industry. Additional changes noted existing driver behavior and increased traffic fatalities, and incorporated public comments detailing accident data.

Applicant Response to Findings

• Sherry Scott, representing the applicant, stated that ExxonMobil respectfully disagrees with the findings, asserting they are not based on the substantial evidence presented in the SEIR.

Final Vote

• The board proceeded to take a final vote on the motion to deny the project.
• Motion: Deny the temporary trucking permit.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed. The project was denied.

Agenda Item: Modified Project Approval and Notice of Exemption

• Discussion: A motion was made to approve the modified project and approve the filing of a notice of exemption. Supervisor Nelson requested that staff read the minor changes made to the current version of the findings to clarify the record for the board. Staff read the first two sentences of Finding E on page A3, which noted that the project would create traffic safety impacts along Calle Real, Highway 101, and State Route 166 due to the addition of tanker truck trips, and cited recent data showing an increase in traffic fatalities. Staff confirmed this language was also repeated in Finding 2.2 point E. The motion was clarified to incorporate these specific changes.
• Motion: To approve the modified project and approve the filing of a notice of exemption.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Decision: The motion passed.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (3 to 2).

Adjournment

• Decision: The meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, March 15, 2022, in the Santa Barbara hearing room.