UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:0411 turns
Good morning, thanks for joining us. It's my honor to call to order this meeting of October 21st of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
At this time
Okay
the next item of business is approval of our minutes from the last meeting which was October 14th, 2025. May I get a motion please? Move
approval.
Supervisor Hartman. Is there a second? Thank you Supervisor Lee. All those in favor please say
aye. Aye.
Motion carries. Madam CEO,
is there a report
today?
Good morning Chair and Board Members. Yes I have three quick reports and then another edition of our 175th anniversary video series. The first one is just that the Santa Barbara County Elections Office reminds voters of several options to return their ballots for the November 4th 2025 statewide special election This is a special election and there's only one proposition on the ballot. All registered voters received a vote by mail ballot in early October and may return it by mail at any official drop box or in person on Election Day. For those who prefer to vote in person, they may do so at their assigned polling place on Election Day For those who prefer to vote, for those who do prefer to vote in person polling places will be open on election day at more than 50 locations across the county.
Voters can find their assigned polling place and additional election information at sbcvote.com Next announcement is that the Santa Barbara County Probation Department has been selected to receive the Workforce Community Champion Award from the Santa Barbara County Workforce Development Board. This award recognizes the department's longstanding partnership and impactful work supporting justice-involved individuals in local workforce programs. Through these efforts, probation has helped advance equity, opportunity and shared success making a measurable difference in the lives of community members. The award will be presented at the Workforce Development Board on this Friday.
Last announcement is that Santa Barbara County will host the California Behavioral Health Directors Association 2025 Policy Forum this week, October 22nd to 24th. The sold-out forum will bring together state and local behavioral health leaders to discuss emerging state and federal policy issues, housing and homelessness, MediCal policy changes, and the implementation of key legislation. Our County Behavioral Wellness Director Tony Navarro is the current president of the organization. The policy forum underscores Santa Barbara County's active role in shaping the future of behavioral health care, connecting local efforts to broader state and national initiatives.
And finally this morning I'm pleased to share with you another video from the county's 175th anniversary series. It features videos that highlight the history of Santa Barbara County, the videos in this series are played on channel 20 throughout the week are highlighted in our monthly county newsletter and on CSB TV's YouTube page and our social media channels in both English and Spanish. This morning's video highlights the county's clerk recorders archives so if we could please dim the lights we could play the video
0:04 – 0:074 turns
Welcome to Santa Barbara County, a place with immense natural beauty and rich history. Founded in 1850 as one of California's original counties, join us as we acknowledge the 175th anniversary of the county of Santa Barbara. In this video, we unlock the doors and give you rare access to the county's oldest written records. The county's historical clerk recorder archive.
We have the historic records for vital records which are birth death and marriage and the official records which are the real estate records all the way back to 1850 We have the original land patents for Santa Barbara County. That's when the United States of America is granting the property to individuals, and they're all here restored. They're handwritten by recorders. So this is a marriage book from 1873-1882 You can see our marriage licenses that are issued with both parties listed.
Cattle industry has always been a very big part of Santa Barbara County and the recorder played a special role in that they would keep the brands of the various cattle ranches so that the public could view and know what brand related to which cattle ranch. It's very important to preserve original records. We have a climate controlled, humidity controlled environment. This environment is protected from light, it's protected from weather. We do have a fire suppression system that uses gases to exterminate the fire instead of using water because water would just completely damage the books.
Everything is very different today because we have electronic recording. Any field can be queried, so the world of a recorder has changed quite a bit with the advent of a database. It's incredibly important to Keep good records for a county. Records establish who was born here, who have rights through marriage, who has died here. In addition chain of title of property is incredibly important. Without us it's war that's how I feel like at the root of it if you look at every war what are they fighting for? They're fighting over their home and what we do here is a dignified organized way to manage responsibly who owns what and we protect that right
Once again, if you could thank Kelsey Griggins-Boutida for putting that together. And that concludes my report here.
That's excellent. Thank you so much. Wonderful history. OK, Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
0:07 – 0:093 turns
Chair Caps and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. An addendum was posted on Friday October 17th 2025 adding administrative item number 22 to today's agenda. Administrative item number 22 is from the Public Defender's Office. It is regarding a resolution authorizing the public defender to apply for grant funding from the California Office of the State Public Defender's OSPD Expanded Public Defense Grant for the Holistic Defense Program and there is a fourth this vote required on this item. The addition included in the addendum has been posted and made available online to both the board and the public. Currently, there are no requests to speak on this item so the board may add it to the balance of the administrative agenda.
Additionally, we received a withdrawal request from the Information Technology Department to withdraw Administrative Item No. 6 from today's agenda. Administrative Item No. 6 is to receive and file the ITAM 0551 Artificial Intelligence Policy approved by the Executive Information Technology Council EITC on September 24th 2025. And currently there are no requests to speak on this matter so the Board may add this to the balance of the administrative agenda.
Additionally, we received a withdrawal request from the Public Works Department to withdraw administrative item number 14 from today's agenda. Administrative item number 14 is regarding initiation of an annexation to Laguna County Sanitation District of parcels owned by Santa Maria Public Airport District, County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Maria, and this is in the 4th district. And currently there are no requests to speak on this item as well so this can be added to that balance of the administrative agenda. And lastly, for information on the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment please refer to page two of the agenda.
Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240 again that number is 5 6 8 2 2 4 0. That concludes my announcements for today.
OK thank you Madam Clerk.
Next item of business is the administrative agenda.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Any board members like to pull items from the administrative agenda? I already have noted A7 by Supervisor Nelson, A10 by Supervisor Nelson and A13 by Supervisor Nelson and A19 by myself. Any others? A4 by Supervisor Hartman Any others? Okay. And by the public? Chair Caps
and members of the board, we have requests from the public on items A4 that was pulled and A19.
Okay. So with those items pulled I will entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda
except for those items. Right. And chair caps members of the board in that would include A22 addendum and the withdrawal of A6 and A14.
I'll go ahead and make that motion as the clerk noted, as well as without 4, 7, 10, 13 or 19.
All those in favor please say aye.
Aye.
Motion carries. Okay
next item of business are the resolutions to be presented. Madam Clerk when you're ready please read administrative item number one into the record.
Chair Kaps and members of the Board, Administrative Item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the 25th anniversary of Adelante Charter School and joining us in person today we have Javier Bolivar, Brianna Aguilar, and Tierra Wardo. If you can please make your way to the podium and anyone else you'd like to join with you?
Whereas in 2000, the Santa Barbara Unified School District then the Santa Barbara Elementary School District approved the charter for Cesar Chavez Charter School which opened in 2000 as Santa Barbara's first Spanish-English dual language immersion school establishing a legacy of bilingual bicultural education that would later continue through Adelante Charter School.
And whereas Adelante Charter School ACS carries forward the pionary vision of dual language learning in Santa Barbara serving as a K-6 Title I Spanish English dual language immersion program that empowers students to become biliterate, multicultural and community minded leaders. And whereas Adelante Charter School home of the Cheetahs has been selected for the prestigious 2025 California Distinguished Schools Program honoring schools across the state that demonstrate exceptional student performance and success in closing the achievement gap reflecting its deep commitment to academic excellence and equity And whereas the mission of Adelante Charter School is to develop biliterate and multicultural students whose strong academic and cultural foundations prepare them to meaningfully participate and provide leadership in their families, community, and the world.
Guided by a vision of being a model dual immersion program recognized for exceptional teaching, strong family partnerships and community engagement. And whereas rooted in the values of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, the Adelante Charter School embraces service, sacrifice, nonviolence, determination, and acceptance of all people, principles that have shaped 25 years of educational excellence, cultural understanding, and leadership in Santa Barbara County.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge and congratulate Adelante Charter School on its 25th anniversary, commending its students families faculty staff and leadership for their outstanding contributions to education equity and cultural enrichment in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Good morning. Thank you so much for having us here today, thank you all of you board members. I'm the proud principal of Adelante Charter School. We recently have been recognized as one of the top 5% schools in the state of California and we are definitely one of the top bilingual schools in the state of California too. Thank you so much. We are so proud to provide the Santa Barbara kids with a top class education and we will continue the growth, and thank you so much again for having us here. Thank you.
Supervisor Lee.
I just want to acknowledge your accomplishment also to note that on November 1st, on a Saturday at 5 p.m., this charter school will have the 25-year anniversary at The Hub on 1219 State Street so just wanted to let the community know come out and celebrate with the school thank you
Thank you. And I also wanted to chime in, I used to serve as an honorary board member when I was on the Santa Barbara Unified School District Board and that school is phenomenal. It's so hard to start a new school, a charter school it's so hard to start a dual immersion school and the school has just risen to the top of California schools And when you say test scores, it's these are students taking tests in languages not their own and just thriving. It's a beautiful school I'm so proud of this school so congratulations.
Okay we will move on to the that's it for resolutions this meeting and so we will move on to the items that have been pulled of our administrative agenda. I think that's A4
Chair Caps and members of the board administrative item number four is from the county health department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the animal services annual report for fiscal year 2024 through 2025, and we have one request to speak on this item from the public and we are going to zoom with Lee Heller Lee.
Good morning chair caps and members of the board. Thank you for taking a moment to consider animal services I know a lot is going on with the county, and this is just one of many programs that is struggling. The good news if you read the fiscal report, is that this program is being led in such a way as to maximize the limitations of the situation, the growth and adoptions The increase in the live release rate, the explosion of volunteer hours and foster placements are all an extraordinary way that Sarah Aguilar and her team have made it possible to manage a very difficult moment.
If you compare Santa Barbara County to Ventura County next door, they are at 248% of capacity. We are hovering at 100%, but that is without the overcrowding that is often the case. So I really wanna express my appreciation To Director Aguilar. I also wanted to let you know and have a feeling Supervisor Hartman is going to reference this and Supervisor Lee was there, and Supervisor Capps is that we hosted Tales of Hope last month and we netted just about $200,000 for our first large countywide fundraiser. To benefit the partner organization, the Animal Care Foundation that supports animal services. So we're planning to do it again next year. Please put September 20th on your schedules special thanks also to John Corbett and Bo Derek for being our host emcees and to the community for coming out on behalf of Animal Services.
Thank you.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman? Well, I just wanted to recognize Lee Heller for all the work she did on Tales of Hope to make it the first inaugural event such a grand success and note that in our report we have 6,475 animals going through our shelter. That's an extraordinary number, the highest we've ever had And we get about half of them adopted. So this is a plea, we're now not just holding animals in the shelter, we're trying to get them out into foster care. I had to be at near the shelter in Santa Maria this week and you can hear the dogs barking and it's a really stressful environment so if people can come and just take them for a walk and get them out that's really helpful I also recently adopted two new dogs and the first thing I did was get their licenses.
The licenses protect them if they get lost, and it also provides money for the shelters for other dogs so encourage people to get your dog license. Thank you.
Supervisor Labadino?
Thank You Madam Chair and I need to get my dog licensed. So I got an email that my license was expired And so I went to renew it, found out the renewal if you're late there's something we got to look at. If you're late, the renewal rate was a lot higher than there was penalty which is fine but we're trying to encourage people to get more dogs licensed and I think we really need to take a look at that because as an individual, I looked at that and I was like That's a hurdle for somebody to get over, to go license their animal. And so when I called and asked about it they said well guess who made that rule? That was you. So it was us.
I did not see the impact but I just think it's something we should look at next time we're looking at fees is to make sure that... We're trying to encourage people to get into this and by the way Big shout out to all the volunteers. I think we had 22,000 volunteer hours. The doggie, what is it called? Doggie walks, doggy do good or whatever. What a cool program. I see those people walking the animals out there and it does de-stress them and the walker also too so big shout out to animal services
0:19 – 0:2213 turns
huge turnaround in that department thank you
Yeah, since we're going there I'll chime in because I was just at the Lompoc shelter and this group of ladies show up every day and for their morning walk they pick up some dogs and go take a walk together. And I just thought that was the coolest thing. That's my plan someday so anyway when I have a little more time but anyway just thank you. Thank you for our director for being here and for all the volunteers.
Okay with that I'll entertain a motion
Okay,
all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay next is item A7 Madam Clerk.
Chair Kaps and members of the board administrative item number seven is from the Planning and Development Department it is to consider recommendations regarding a FAMCOM pipe and supply rezone 23RZN1
Supervisor Nielsen. Yes, thank you Chair Kapsch. I just had a couple questions for staff on this one. Somebody from planning? All right while they make their way up here. I know we approved this at the board, I believe back in August and I know it's already gone back to the Planning Commission and now coming to us. I was looking for explanation on what went wrong If you could help me with
that. Supervisor Nelson to the chair, I'm Steve Connor, the planner that was on the case and this is simply to rectify to correct the wording of the it was originally where it is a resolution but it should have been an ordinance for the rezone portion And so this is just simply to bring it back and properly adopt it as an ordinance.
Is that the PCS also did the Planning Commission as well? So this is the same issue?
That's correct, Supervisor Nielsen. Okay.
And this was no fault of the applicant? Correct, yes, and
they were not charged for
this. Okay, so there won't be any additional charges beyond the initial approval of August 26th on this? That's correct. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to understand that and confirm that. Thank you. So I'll go ahead and make a motion on A7 for approval.
Thank you. Second. Thank you, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay that brings us to A13 is that correct? A10.
0:22 – 0:2826 turns
Chair Capps and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 10 is from the Planning and Development Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Chevron USA Inc. County-initiated nonrenewal of Agricultural Preserve Contract No. 70AP062. This is in the Cozumelia area of the 4th District.
Okay, Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes, thank you, Chair Capps. Reading the board letter, it's my assumption that the reason why this is moving for a non-renewal is because the county didn't hear back on whether Chevron wanted to keep it in Ag Preserve or not. Am I accurately understanding?
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. That is accurate I don't think that the applicant or sorry the property owner had submitted a reporting of proof of agriculture on their property either but perhaps the Ag Commissioner's office could best
Good morning, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. My name is Stephanie Stark. I'm the Chair of the Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee and what had happened is we the committee submitted two notices to the landowner and we had not received a response for after the first letter and the second letter we send it a couple of different addresses so it's because of a lot split or change in ownership I'm sorry and so there was no response from the owner
So this happened pretty quick. I mean, it was about a year from when it was purchased to us taking action. Is that initially?
It started the process. I think it's in the board letter had started about February 2024 and so here we are today.
So
it's over a year.
We initiated this a year after the purchase.
Not sure when the purchase of property was purchased.
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, approximately a
year. Is that normal? I mean pretty much any property that gets changed ownership we start initiating within a year if we haven't heard from them or is this...
No that's not accurate. If the property is purchased they are expected to submit some paperwork to confirm that they've transferred ownership but not necessarily doesn't go into non-renewal because so we don't even initiate now renewal because just of a sale of a parcel.
So what's different here then?
In this case, it was property was sold and they once they are no longer under. It was multiple APNs and if they were no longer under common ownership then according to the uniform rules we have to issue a try and contact them and let them know there is a violation.
So is this the only circumstance that exists in the county that we know of?
No, not that I'm aware of.
So there's just other occasions this is happening throughout the county? And that's what I figured as well and I kind of saw that tight time frame. I think it's some properties we have that have been change of ownerships happened five or 10 years ago that are still in contracts and so it seemed like a quick turnaround on this one. You know, this is in my district. I spent about half an hour at the end of the day yesterday and I was able to contact the owner and they were unaware of this.
It is a big corporation. And so I can understand some of these things getting lost in those processes. They're very interested in keeping it in Ag Preserve. A couple of things. One, I think you guys should utilize board offices that might have relationships with some of their constituents when you guys are trying to contact when you're not getting response back from potentially a property owner. And I think that's something that we're a resource for you and for our constituents on these types of things. So I would recommend in the future as you guys reach out to us to try to help so we can not get to this point. But since we have reached out them now, I think they've would like to engage in keeping an act preserved. So, I guess what I'm going to do is My motion would be to send this back to Ag Preserve and reengage with the landowner here on potentially a replacement contract.
So that's gonna ultimately be my motion here today.
I know there's a motion on the floor, but Supervisor Nielsen wanted to add too that I did actually speak to a representative from Chevron, Tracy Talavera who was a legal representative That was back on May 2nd 2024 because if I don't reach anybody through the mailing process, I always try and reach out through phone. And so I did speak to Tracy and I have an email to that.
All right. Thank you. I didn't see that in the record, so thank you Stephanie for that additional information. You're welcome. So but I did reach out and I got some confirmation from the property owner that they were interested in staying in Ag Preserve, so again I would like to refer it back to them and give it one more chance with the Ag Preserve Advisory Committee if they're not responsive then I'll be the one to make the motion to non-renewal. But at this point, especially since there's a quick turnaround and that a lot of these exist throughout the county, I don't wanna single them out specifically here. So I would again make the recommendation to refer this back to Ag Preserve Committee for an additional hearing to see if they can show up for that one.
I think I've got it to the right person now, and I think you're gonna get some response there. And if you don't then I'm glad to make those findings necessary to go into non-renewal. So, I'll
second.
Thank you.
Okay we have a motion and a second all those in favor?
Aye.
Motion carries. Thank you. Okay Madam Clerk AA19. 13. A13 I keep skipping ahead for me
0:28 – 0:306 turns
a 13 chair caps and members of the board administrative item number 13 is from the planning and development department it is to consider recommendations regarding a first amendment to the agreement for services with environmental science associates ESA for utility scale solar amendments project and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item
Okay, Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes thank you so this seems to be an amendment on the EIR for utility scale solar project and it's part because I believe that The environmental consultant is going to study best the battery storage as part of these projects and the potential environmental impacts of that. I was just going to request that one of the things that should be looked at as part of this is potential groundwater pollution from a battery fire. I know it's been a concern that a lot of my agriculturalists have had with potentially battery projects, is what that might look like and what mitigation measures could be put in place to prevent that. So as you guys are scoping this and expanding The environmental review along battery storage. I think it said about wildfires and other hazards, so I just want to make sure that groundwater contamination is a part of that evaluation with battery storage.
I think that's one of the big concerns from many in my community on battery storage what that potentially looks like if there is an incident and what that means for Our water table and our water production. So I just wanted to make sure that that was something that was going to be looked at as well when you guys look at battery storage is part of this EIR.
We can certainly speak with our consultant about making sure that the full analysis of all hazards is included in
the document. I just wanted to call it out and make it public so at least it's reviewed. I think it's a really important part of that discussion for my constituents. Thank you, so with that out I'm happy to move 813.
Okay we have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Now we're on to A19. Madam Clerk?
0:30 – 0:366 turns
Chair Caps and members of the board. Administrative item number 19 is sponsored by Supervisor Caps, it is to consider recommendations regarding a loan of $300,000 from the Isla Vista In-Lieu parking fee program to fund startup costs for the Isla Vista Community Services District's Parking Compliance Program in Isla Vista and there was a four fist vote required on this item and we have three requests to speak from the public on this item.
Okay, I pulled this item first before the public and I just had a few points to say. First as noted times are tight financially so this is a loan also as noted it is not from the general fund it is from in lieu parking funds Not again, not from the parking from the general fund. And I really appreciate the fact that this board has taken such an interest in such of the extreme parking challenges in Isla Vista how they've been exacerbated especially now with UCSB's lack of housing with builders remedy coming along and not requiring any parking so it's just going to get worse and so we really do have a crisis on our hands That involves safety of young people using bikes, using skateboards.
Families as well in Isla Vista low income families so this is a solution that many people are excited about. In fact many people wanted to come and speak about this but in the interest of time we just have a few here some passionate advocates who've been working on This item represents a lot of work of trying to figure out who is going to be responsible for parking enforcement. It's not an easy nut to crack and I really appreciate that the Isla Vista community service district is taking up the mantle, they are stepping up to do this work.
I'm going to be talking a little bit about how we can provide these initial funds to get I just wanted to express my support. We have three requests to speak
from the public on this item. We are going to remain here in Santa Barbara to begin with Jonathan Abboud, to be followed by Spencer Brandt.
Chair Capps, Board of Supervisors, thank you for taking a moment to hear from us today. My name is Jonathan Abood, General Manager of the Isla Vista Community Services District I want to first start by thanking everybody who worked on this project so far County Council, County Public Works, County Planning and of course Eleanor who I was on the phone with constantly to get this over the finish line This is a major milestone for making real change for our community in Isla Vista. Issues like parking have existed for decades and have not been addressed and felt impossible to fix until now.
This time's different because we learned from the past, and we made real change in reform like creating the Isla Vista Community Services District which was created specifically to be able to address parking. We ran one of the most comprehensive parking studies ever jointly funded by the county, UCSB and CSD. And what really made it different and effective this time is that it was locally run. It had an inclusive community process, extensive empirical data. And the person who conducted it was Isla Vista's very first parking enforcement officer who's now a parking expert all over the country.
The number one recommendation of the study was to proactively enforce basic parking rules and receive delegation from, of authority from the county to do so. This is not a report that's going to sit on the shelf like many do. We're actually committed to implementing it. In past attempts we've seen the room packed with Isla Vistas disputing this study or being against the actual items. That's not the case today thanks to the process that got us here.
This MOU is going to allow us to proactively enforce the health and safety rules of parking, something that's really needed in I.V.. Our goal is clear in the program manage parking so that cars do not illegally park and potentially cause harm to people block access to people with disabilities or get in the way of alternative transportation options. Because there is very little proactive enforcement right now, limited supply of free street parking and much higher demand. There is an incentive to park illegally and this program is designed to change that in an equitable way.
I know we will be in good hands because the day-to-day operations will be overseen by our staff, most of whom are alumni and understand the community extremely well. Maya, our Community Engagement Program Director, will make sure that information about parking is easy to access and available to all, and we've already gotten started with that with our Move-In Magazine & Parking website And Jenna who's here, our Public Works and Sustainability Director will make sure that enforcement is going smoothly and fairly and effectively. And we've also developed new resources like a off-street parking exchange.
Finally like everything else in IV, enforcement is not just about parking it also plays a major role in housing and solving our housing challenges. So thank you again for the trust you've put in us with this MOU and loan and we're ready to get to work. Thank you
Thank you.
We will continue to remain here in Santa Barbara and go to Spencer Brant, then we will go to Zoom with Peter Neuschul. Spencer? Good
0:36 – 0:409 turns
morning Chair Caps and Supervisors. My name is Spencer Brant president of the Isla Vista Community Service District Board of Directors and I'm really just here to say a big thank you. This was not easy to get across the finish line and thanks to the work of Supervisor Caps your staff I want to say a big thank you to some of our past representatives, Supervisor Hartman. Your vision for car-free Isla Vista has been inspiring to us and although we're not there yet, And we know in Isla Vista that we need to do that if we are going to have any shot at a more sustainable future.
So I just want to say thank you again and I want to invite the public on Tuesday, October 28th our Board of Directors will have a hearing about the budget and program design of the initial enforcement program. So I wanna invite those that may have questions or are interested in providing feedback to make public comment at our board meeting 6 p.m next Tuesday, thank you so much.
And we will now go to Zoom with Peter Neuschil who's our final speaker on this item, Peter?
Okay, hang on a second. I am commenting on the proposed $300,000 loan from Santa Barbara County to the IVCSD for parking enforcement. First, I see no part in the Parking District Law of 1951 empowering the CSD to act as a parking enforcement agency. The district sent a questionnaire asking quote if you received a ticket for parking in a red zone how would you feel?
What would make it feel fair? The property tax bills we received last week pay for the sheriff that once paid a parking officer. We now propose lending money to a district that already collects a tax on our utility bills. We will then pay back alone from ourselves, to ourselves with interest. We are paying twice to a county and a district neither providing a service fundamental to pedestrian safety in Isla Vista.
This double taxation is why LAFCO said the CSD should never exist. At the moment, there is only one elected director on the CSD board that is not representative government. Isla Vista should not wait until the spring for a gaggle of appointed students, one of whom is living in Paris to enforce parking laws. According to news you collected over $400,000 for parking enforcement You did not use that money, and our parking enforcement officer was reassigned to the county jail. Is it really that hard to enforce parking in a square mile to ensure the safety of residents and conform with state-mandated traffic laws?
The answer to parking enforcement in Isla Vista is taking the $400,000 you called from developers and reinstating our parking officer at the Ivy Foot Patrol immediately. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Okay, thank you to our speakers. Any questions or comments? Okay with that I will, oh Supervisor Hartman.
I will second.
Okay well I will proudly make the motion to approve staff recommendation and just acknowledge again Eleanor Gartner's hard work on this a lot went into this MOU.
Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye motion carries thank you okay I think that ends our administrative agenda it does appreciate everybody and we will move to public comment which is the time when those can speak on non-agenda items madam clerk
0:40 – 0:476 turns
Chair Kaps and members of the board, we have seven requests to speak from the public on general public comment today. We are going to begin here in Santa Barbara with Kiss the Comedian to be followed by Larry Barrett. Kiss the comedian? Perhaps he has stepped out of the hearing room at the moment so we will begin with Larry Barrett to be followed by Gabriel Vasquez.
Good morning Chair Kaps and Supervisors, I'm Larry Barrett today I'm speaking only on behalf of Indivisible Santa Barbara because there hasn't been time to coordinate this comment with anybody else And I admit, I come to you with more than my usual level of confusion. I woke this morning to this headline in the Independent Santa Barbara Sheriff respectfully declines to inform supervisors of ICE activities and County Sheriff refusing to comply with SB 627 requiring immigration agents to wear badges and not wear masks.
I read this headline to my wife this morning. She's not a lawyer, she's not as immersed in politics the way I am and her reaction was the sheriff can't do that that's illegal rest assured much of the county is reading the headline the same way. I'm going to go off script because what I wrote an hour ago doesn't make that much sense to be trying to explain what the sheriff is thinking How could it be that reporting on ICE activities interferes with those activities? Do you know who reports on ICE activities routinely? ICE does that.
Law enforcement reports on its activities all the time. This is a routine duty. It's necessary to inform you what's going on, inform us what's going on. It inspires confidence. What the sheriff is talking about here is Above my pay grade, I don't understand it and I'm hoping you're as baffled as I am. After he made this declaration he went on to say and this is per the independent.
He's not going to comply with SB 627 that's a bill I believe this board endorsed presumably with approval of County Council. And again, I'm baffled and forced to say things here. I can't believe I have to say it's the sheriff's job to enforce the law It's his job to inspire confidence and respect in the law. Indivisible ran a protest here over the weekend, 13,000 people not a single incident of disrespect for law we announced in it to everybody that we did this in cooperation with Santa Barbara City Police. We praise them 7 million people across the country Not a single incident. Respect for law begins with the people who run law enforcement and it's exceedingly unhelpful to those of us who are trying to run these things in a lawful way, to have our Chief Law Enforcement Officer announce to the public he's going to pick and choose which laws he's going to comply with and not comply.
I'm going to assure you, this issue does not end with the article in The Independent. Thank you.
And we just received word that Gabriel wanted to speak on departmental item number three so we're going to return back to Kiss the Comedian and then we will go to Zoom with Rennie Strong. Kiss the Comedian?
Steve Lavagnino! How are you doing buddy? You look good, man. The best 5th District Supervisor of all time. The best 5th District Supervisor of all time. I just want to say the first thing I want to say is it's not easy being funny at 9 a.m. in the morning. It takes a lot of coffee and whatever medication I find on the sidewalk. Okay here's my letter okay Dear government officials, Majesty's Government, House of Lords, Council Members and Women and Emperors. My name is Kiss the Comedian. I'm an artist first then number two. I am a Black Republican. They eating the cats and the dogs!
I'm also an independent journalist. Check out my video on YouTube, Kiss The Comedian. I am here today to defend my President Donald J Trump, the greatest president of all time Donald Trump has done more for black people than Abraham Lincoln and Barack Hussein Obama combined. I want to send a message to all the late night show hosts on TV who make fun of my president, first on my list of not being funny is a fake Italian olive garden breadsticks eating Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel has a small Italian sausage, that's why service Silverman left him. Number two of not funny list is Stephen Colbert. Are you Christian or Catholic? Pick a side. But he's already canceled so we don't have to worry about him. Third on my list is Seth Meyers. Seth Meyers, Seth, you call yourself a stand-up comedian but do all your monologues sitting down.
Come on buddy, stand up for once. Fourth on my list is Jimmy Fallon. Jimmy Fallon can you please stop laughing at your own jokes. The only time you're supposed to fake life is when there's a hot girl in your house and you're trying to get lucky that night. Ha ha, she said that about you? She's only jealous because your ass bigger than hers. You want to see the new TV in my room. And last but not least, not so funny host is Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart is a better Jewish man than he is a comedian. Shalom, L'chaim, Mazel Tov. I know all the Jewish phrases.
I love when Jon Stewart fights for American 9-11 heroes and American veterans and American firefighters. Bohini makes fun of my president, greatest president of all time Donald J Trump. How dare you Jon Stewart? Try that in North Korea and Russia and see what happens. America is still the greatest country in the world and always will be. Playing point period. Shaboom jazam! God bless America. Thank you guys.
And my book is on Amazon.
And chair caps members of the board we had three members of the public not log into zoom to provide their general public comments so that concludes general public comment today.
Okay thank you then that means we can move to the first departmental item which is the Coastal Commission's conditional certification
0:47 – 0:516 turns
Yes chair caps and members of the board departmental item number one is from the planning and development department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the California Coastal Commission's conditional certification of an amendment to the local coastal program LCP regarding the cannabis odor ordinance amendments.
Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board we have Jeff Wilson assistant director and Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board.
Earlier this year, we adopted an ordinance amendment amending the Coastal Zoning Ordinance in regards to requiring specific order abatement systems to be installed on commercial campus operations. In September of this year, we received a conditional certification from the Coastal Commission with some modifications on that ordinance amendment and then we are bringing those to you today. And then where the goal is to be able to get that back to the Coast Commission Either by December or January of next year, so we can get final certification which will be before the 12 month implementation date that with the board had adopted earlier this year.
A quick overview of the modifications that the Coastal Commission provided is mainly clarification language. The original ordinance amendment indicated that it would be effective 12 months from adoption of the board's action, that date was March 18th so what the Coastal Commission's recommended modifications are is to put that date in the ordinance which is March 18th of 2026.
There was other clarification language they did as far as referencing the ordinances and the local coastal plan in that modification language Next slide. They also did some formatting changes, which is minor and was insignificant as far as the overall intent and direction that the board had provided through the adoption of that ordinance amendment. And we are recommending that the board find that this action exempt under section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act And our recommended action is to receive notice of the Coastal Commission's Conditional Certification, adopt a resolution accepting their modifications and conditional certification.
Determine it's exempt from CEQA and then direct us to return that resolution to the California Coastal Commission. And that concludes the presentation today.
Short and sweet reflecting there minor changes right? Okay any questions from the board? I didn't have any either. We can move to public
comment if there is any. Chair Kaps and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
I just want to say great work on staff and thank you to Commissioner Megan Harmon and the Coastal Commissioners for putting this as a priority to make sure that we're able to achieve the goals that we're setting for ourselves in the county. Today is a great day for people in Carpinteria Valley, it's something that they've been struggling with and it's good to see that there is change coming so thank you. So I'll be more happy to bring forward the motion approving Staff Recrimination A through D
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Roy Lee · Seconded by Bob Nelson
Show transcript
0:52 – 0:562 turns
Yes thank you Chair Kaps and members of the board We are going to return to general public comment with Renny Strong on Zoom. Renny?
Hello everybody, this is Renny Dean-Strong let's see here I am the father Actually my father, Earth Father is Richard Lee Strong. He was in the Air Force did two tours in Vietnam. I love how they say two tours like on some vacation or something and he second one he spent three months in a hotel room in Saigon and showed where to bomb all that Vietnamese people so sadly my dad has passed since February last year And hating his son who's speaking the truth about this government and, and the lies that have been fed. And I'm going dad got to know what's what's really going on and what's happening so sadly yeah he had Agent Orange and he still again just shows that his compliance and his obedience to this government has basically has ruined his life and and his anger In raising three boys by himself in LA County.
Very violent household, so yeah PTSD is not just post it's present even so how do we deal with that? My dad believed that he went over to Vietnam to teach the Vietnamese farmers how to farm. So you know if if you really are hearing me people. Teaching farmers how to farm what Western farming monoculture farming glyphosate roundup farming, Agent Orange farming.
Anyway just want to pass that on and again you know sadly my dad didn't know what he didn't know so I'm also the son of Johnny Lou Purtle is her maiden name who was a paralegal to John Yamani on Oahu and where John Yamani took on the Lahaina fires and all this. They basically, when the government and Edison burnt down the town. And yeah there might have been natural fires but we know that our government with their 5G smart meters, direct energy weaponry with the government military industrial complex.
It is using plasma energy and the lithium batteries, as I know you spoke about the lithium batteries. So let's not burn down our towns and our communities huh? But we the people need to speak up each individual needs to show up. I keep saying that on my Stop Geoengineering California page but they don't... People just don't wanna get in the game guys so when you have Palantir that wants total control I'm also going to close public comment. And we will move.
0:56 – 1:093 turns
Are we good? Chair Kaps and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the status of orphan and idle wells in Santa Barbara County.
Good morning, madam. Madam chair members of the board. The board directed the department to come back with the information on the status of the existing idle and orphan wells in Santa Barbara County. Subsequently planning development staff Aaron Briggs is our deputy director of the Energy Minerals and Compliance Division prepared that report and he's here today to make a presentation.
Mr. Briggs
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Aaron Briggs, Deputy Director of the Energy Minerals and Compliance Division in PND. And today I will be giving you a status update on orphan and idle wells in Santa Barbara County. On September 16th your board directed staff to provide a status report on the number location and condition of orphaned and idle wells in Santa Barbara County.
As of September of 2025, according to the California Geologic Energy Management Division or CalGEM records there are a total of 2,260 active and idle oil and gas wells in Santa Barbara County. Of these 1,039 wells are categorized as active and 1,221 wells are considered idle. Approximately 3,663 oil and gas wells have been plugged and abandoned in the county's jurisdiction to date This is an exhibit that the board has seen in the past, starting with the purple lines. The purple lines represent the supervisorial district boundaries.
And you've got 5th District up here in Santa Maria. You can see that the majority of oil and gas wells are located in the 4th District with some kind of spanning boundaries down here, in 3rd District in the Lumpoc field and also in the Zaca field. And then we have a cutout here which is a portion of the 1st District in the Cuyama area. But what you see here in the tan or brown color are the outlines of the oil fields.
The gray or light colored dots represent wells that have been abandoned and then the red dots are wells that are active, so you can kind of get a sense for where the active oil production is in the county today it's mostly in the 4th district with spots in the 3rd 1st 3rd and 5th Okay, so starting with idle wells. What's an idle well? The County and CalGEM have differing definitions which are stated here. County Code Chapter 25 known as the Petroleum Code defines an idle well as any well that has not produced oil or natural gas or has not been used for injection for six consecutive months of a continuous operation during the last five or more years.
CalGem's definition of idle wells includes wells that have not been used for two or more years and have not been, I'm sorry. Wells that have not been used for two years or more and have not been properly plugged in abandoned. For the purposes of our presentation today and in order to ensure consistency we'll be using CalGEM's definition because much of the information used in the board letter and in the presentation was derived from CalGEM's records The county does not track idle wells for any official purpose, nor do we have any requirements specific to idle wells. When County Petroleum staff are inspecting wells in the field there is no distinction between active and idle status.
CalGEM does have requirements specific to idle wells and tracks idle wells closely. CalGEM updated its idle well regulations in 2019 to create more stringent testing requirements to better protect public safety and the environment from potential threats. These regulations required idle wells to be tested, and if necessary repaired or permanently sealed and closed. These regulations also created incentives for operators to prioritize and eliminate idle wells by entering into Idle Well Management Plans.
Under these plans, operators are required to describe how idle wells are to be maintained and when they're expected to be abandoned or returned to service. Operators are incentivized to prioritize the phasing out of long-term idle wells through CalGEM's assessment of annual idle well fees. In September of 2024, Assembly Bill 1866 sponsored by Hart placed additional requirements on operators to further reduce the number of idle wells in their portfolio or pay increased fees.
Operators are required to prioritize which wells to address first taking into account the age of the well potential risks posed to life health property or natural resources and wells proximity to sensitive receptors Per AB 1866, operators must eliminate a set percentage of their idle wells annually based on the statewide total number of wells they own and the calendar year.
So this table here is Table 1 in your board letter and you can see that it categorizes each operator by the number, the cumulative number of idle wells that they own in the state of California And the more wells an operator owns, I'm sorry. The more wells an operator owns, the greater the percentage of the abandonment requirement in their idle well portfolio and then you can also see that as we move forward in time each two three year block The operators are required to abandon a greater percentage of their wells also.
So this is all kind of working towards a great, greater increased requirements for well abandonment. The idle well fees have also been increased to reflect the potential costs associated with the state performing abandonment. And then this, this was table two in your board letter and you can also see that the fees for each idle well increase as time goes on. So if an operator has wells that have been idle for 10, 15 or 20 years, the fees they're paying for each of those wells in order to maintain them goes up pretty dramatically.
There are currently 1,221 idle wells in Santa Barbara County managed by 32 different operators. Operators who have not filed an idle well management plan are responsible for paying CalGEM the aforementioned idle well fees. 11 local operators have chosen to file formal management plans to CalGEM, thereby avoiding the requirement to pay the idle well fees. These management plans include 472 idle wells and cumulatively identify 114 wells to be plugged in abandoned in the county over the upcoming eight year period.
So this is an exhibit that shows the location of all idle wells in Santa Barbara County. And you can see that they are grouped similarly to the active wells, they kind of go hand-in-hand for the most part. You do have a few located in 5th District. The vast majority of idle wells are located in the 4th District and then you have a handful that are kind of bleeding over into the northern boundaries of the 3rd District.
Okay, moving on to orphan wells which according to CalGEM's definition is a well that has no responsible party making it the state's responsibility to plug and abandon. The County's Petroleum Code does not include a definition of an idle... I'm sorry. The County's Petroleum Code does not include a definition of an orphan well nor does it include any requirements which apply to such wells.
All orphan wells are considered to be idle The county does not have a legal or financial responsibility to address orphan wells. However, the petroleum unit does inspect orphan wells on an annual basis for health and safety purposes and to ensure the minimum standards of the Petroleum Code are maintained. CalGEM has developed the Orphan Well Abandonment Expenditure Plan as a tool to track, categorize and prioritize orphan wells throughout the state.
Through a state contract, CalGEM facilitates the plugging and abandonment to current standards of orphan oil and gas wells and decommissioning of their associated production facilities. If a financially solvent responsible operator can be identified in the historic chain of ownership dating back to 1996, CalGEM will first pursue action at the operators expense.
In the absence of a solvent responsible party, CalGEM assumes the role of addressing these wells and directly facilitates plugging and abandonment. Through the Orphan Well Abandonment Expenditure Plan, orphan wells are prioritized based on their level of risk for leaking, any historic compliance issues and or proximity to sensitive receptors such as schools, homes or healthcare facilities.
Phase one of the program was carried out from 2023-2025 where the highest risk wells and production facilities were abandoned. Phase one included 378 wells and 51 facilities across the state. 172 of these Phase 1 wells were located in Santa Barbara County. Phase 2 will include the state's remaining high-risk wells, including 217 wells and 74 production facilities.
Any wells and facilities not included in Phases 1 & 2 will be addressed in the future. And here we have a map that shows the location of orphan wells. So in Santa Barbara County, the vast majority of our orphan wells were formerly owned by Greca. And those wells were passed down to two different entities from Greca, one Angel Petroleum and two HVI Cat Canyon which is essentially a Greca subsidiary.
And then obviously the red dots show the locations of those wells. They're mostly located in the Cat Canyon area here in the Santa Maria Valley and then we have a few in Casamelia A couple down here near the Zaca field and you know a couple of random wells here and there. But so CalGEM tracks these wells very closely as I mentioned they abandoned 172 of these in their Phase 1 program I feel we were very lucky as a county to have CalGem pay that much attention to us and abandon that number of wells in the county.
And so, staff, you know, we're grateful to CalGEM because otherwise these wells would be sitting out there with no operator of record, nobody maintaining them, nobody ensuring that they're in compliance with the county's petroleum code. So it's nice to have those taken off and closed up properly. This slide shows the status of orphan wells in Santa Barbara County. As of 2023, there were 361 orphan wells in the county.
As mentioned on the previous slide, 172 of those wells representing the highest risk were abandoned in Phase 1 The remaining wells are owned by HVI Cat Canyon with 38, and Angel Petroleum who is a non-responsive operator with wells located in Cat Canyon Santa Maria Valley in Casamelia with 151 wells. Because CalGEM assumes responsibility for permanently abandoning these wells they're included in the state's expenditure plan inventory of the 38 HVI Cat Canyon Wells 11 are actively planned to be abandoned as part of phase two and the remaining 27 are proposed for closure in the future.
All 151 of Angel Petroleum's wells are proposed for closure in the future. And that concludes my presentation. In summary, the Board's action today should be a receive and file of the report and determine that the above action is not a project under CEQA. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
1:09 – 1:158 turns
Thank you Mr. Briggs, questions from the board? Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes thank you Chair Kaps. You know first of all I want to thank you Erin for the presentation and thank my colleagues for allowing this presentation to be made. I think it's just really important to keep in mind as we go into our next discussion about what's out there with our orphaned and idle wells those numbers that you guys are looking at there are big it's in you know there's a real You know, this is my district. And I'm just concerned about this conversation that we're having up here what it ultimately means to some of those numbers in the future. I guess my first question for Mr. Briggs is so when does well go from being adult orphaned? It's when a company potentially goes out of business. Is that the case?
Yeah, so essentially when you boil it down, it means that the well does not have a responsible operator. And in the case of Greca, that's an example of a bankruptcy. So Greca went bankrupt. The business entity, the staff, you know, the business was no longer there to maintain the wells. So they're considered orphaned.
So and they've been going through bankruptcy process. They have assets, but despite that has been tied up in legal fights for years here at this point, right? Is that my understanding and difficult slog to get through that?
Yeah. And I think that most of that has been resolved. A lot of their former assets that were desirable were absorbed by other operators and are now being maintained properly. It's kind of they're undesirable assets that ended up being orphaned. Nobody came along to buy them out of the bankruptcy. And so they're just left there. OK.
And in the future, if oil companies in our county are no longer able to operate and have the revenue, there's likely there might be financial issues that might lead towards more idle wells becoming orphaned and actually more active wells potentially becoming idle and then orphaned? Is that a logical conclusion? That's fair to say. Yeah, so and that's what I'm trying to get at is that it means this I know there's gonna be a conversation with this next item about where we go with this but I think this is a much more comprehensive conversation than just you know banning future production and then amortizing current operations out of business I've all along said this needs to be a true partnership with the industry. And I guess maybe one of my questions with you is what has been more successful that you've seen, I guess either locally or statewide on abandonment?
Has it working with operators to actually make it through these plans or has CalGem been kind of a good solution for that?
So historically there we didn't really have strong abandonment requirements in California and operators were able to maintain wells in idle status however long they wanted, and then you know in 2019 when CalGem came along and increased those standards we saw an uptick in abandonments of idle wells. And then more recently we've seen another uptick when operators go to abandon a well they check-in with me to make sure that their project is exempt from permit requirements or from CEQA and so whenever An operator in the county comes to abandon a well, I see it. And I've seen personally a noticeable uptick the last few years in abandonments and I think that stems from the CalGEM regulations getting more strict. Okay
thank you so again I just want to make sure this is highlighted as part of the conversation we're going to have next because I do think we can't have this conversation in a vacuum. I do think that partnership with the industry is an important part of solving some these problems. I know there's some things that might get headlines But I think really this is a bigger conversation that we need to be having as a board moving forward with industry and true partnership, not just sitting down at edicts. You know there's enough that's already challenging the oil and gas business without us potentially piling on. And so that's where you know I like to see this board Out of today's operations, I know that it's not this item but I do want to kind of preview it.
Have that conversation about how do we actually move forward to actually solve some of these problems? You know ending the oil industry will not solve these problems. Eventually this will fall upon CalGem in a serious way as if we end up going through a process that pits our oil and gas operators out of business. And you know and I've said it before and I'll say it again this you know you guys saw on those maps this is the 4th District.
My district, these are my constituents. These are people that I represent and I take it seriously and many of them are actually out in this room right now. These are high paying jobs. I've got kids here that I grew up with that are in this audience that now work in the business. This is a big part of who we are and nobody takes it more serious than us. And so you know I appreciate the efforts of this board trying to do things that are good for the environment and I think there are things we can do but I do think it involves conversation and work with the industry to not just solve this problem on a statewide level that what's been done through state legislation but for us as a county to sit down and actually look on some local plans and how we can be a part of those solutions.
CalGEM, if you saw those numbers Their ramp down is about 20 years before they potentially could get through the inventory with operators if they go through this, the well abandonment plans. There's no promises that Santa Barbara County will be a prioritization for some of these These companies. And so if we really want to address the existing inventory and then the potential long-term inventory of active wills that eventually become idle, I really would encourage my colleagues to think about how we might be able to do that in the future. And so just wanted again thank you guys for allowing this presentation to take place. Thank you for allowing me to preview some of my future comments. I think it's gonna be really helpful.
1:15 – 1:2420 turns
Supervisor Hartman. Well, thank you, Supervisor Nelson for asking for this. It gives a chance for a little tutorial on some things I've been interested in as well. I guess I would start by what does it cost to abandon a well or decommission it? And then what under county rules or state rules are the responsibilities of an oil company when they decommission an oil field?
So I'm probably not, I'm sorry Madam Chair and Supervisor Hartman. I'm not the best person to ask about the costs we don't track that within the county maybe one of the members of the public could respond to that question so the County Petroleum Code includes a requirement that once the last well in a particular field is abandoned that they undergo lease remediation So once the lease is done, the last well is plugged. That operator's then responsible to come in and remediate any contaminated soil, remove all the physical features of the production site and essentially return the site to a natural state.
So I'm glad that you brought up Section 2531 of the Petroleum Code because that's another area where I have a lot of questions. We allow them to continue as long as the last well is producing something. So you don't have to do anything until the very end, and you've got a real incentive to keep that going even though it may not be very productive so you don´t have to incur all of the cost to remediate the oil field. And I'm...I don't know how much that is. I'm not sure I could discern that from your answer But I guess what I'm curious about is that in itself it is an incentive to just kind of ratchet down and either stop entirely or better yet go bankrupt, sell it to somebody else or go bankrupt. That is, I'm wondering how big a problem that is?
It just seems funny to wait till the very end to keep one well going And not have to do anything at all until the end. So could you elaborate that? Doug Anthony first brought this to our attention, he once occupied your chair and it was something that he was concerned about as well.
So Supervisor Hartman I think that train of logic is pretty straightforward and we most of our Leases have some legacy company like Chevron or Union Oil or Unocal or Texaco, I mean really big corporations. So most of these leases are tied to a responsible party that's simply not going to go away. Like there's somebody on the hook for most of these leases. There are some exceptions Most of our leases in the county continue to produce and therefore we're not really in that lease abandonment phase yet.
There are a handful like you mentioned where They have a well or two outstanding hanging around waiting for abandonment in order to initiate this requirement. I have been working with the land trust on a particular lease that's outside of the orchid field, that kind of fits this description that you just mentioned. And we're trying to work with Chevron to roll up their sleeves and start the remediation work.
So that's underway. I mean, there are definitely some challenges involved in this issue. And as time goes on and as more of these fields kind of run the course of their lives will be running into this issue more and more as time goes on.
So I guess I would just like to put a pin in this issue and say that I think it's worth coming back to and thinking about if this particular part of the petroleum court should be revised in some way. And I don't know what that is exactly right now. I'm really interested in repurposing oil wells and particularly excited by Senator Monique Lamone's bill for pilots for gravity-based energy storage. Is there any possibility of that in our county?
So it's my understanding that that bill, somebody is going to implement a pilot project in Kern County. And I think whatever the results of that pilot project are then going to kind of lead to the next steps. Is there potential in Santa Barbara County? Sure. We do have the physical infrastructure necessary to carry out the Lamone bill. But it remains to be seen whether or not folks want to step up and invest in that type of
Yeah, I'm not sure. I know most of it is there's a certain number I think maybe 250 or so. I don't know if they all have to be in Kern County or we could do it here but could you look into that? Or I see Director Armas may have some thoughts
I just want, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I just want to expand on the comments of Mr. Briggs. The bill that Senator Limon authored and the Governor signed does provide for the pilot program it is not specific or limited as I read the legislation to Kern County so there could be an opportunity for the pilots to be tested Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you very much for having me here today. I'd like to start by saying thank you to the Board of Supervisors for inviting me to be a part of this meeting.
Is it economically viable and then connecting it to the grid in some appropriate fashion?
If I can just jump in because they provided a visual. I got pretty excited about this bill, so there's a visual that answers the question about Senator Lamone's bill If we can pull up that slide. That demonstrates how idle wells can be turned into gravity-based energy storage sites and it just was passed so this will be implemented, this pilot program 250 and potentially some of them could end here. So the next slide please.
So it says, yeah using the mechanical systems to raise and lower weights inside the well to store and release renewable energy. And that company is called I think it's called Renewal. Yeah anyway it's pretty it's definitely very exciting. Supervisor Lee?
I just want to say you know we
will go back to you Supervisor Hartman but we'll jump in on this
I just want to say the PIPE program is being implemented in Cuyama Valley with EMB, this energy storage. So it's happening in our county. Okay
well that's terrific because I was going to say if we want a partnership with energy companies or oil companies this would be a really exciting area.
Yeah and it's happening.
That's great okay
back to Supervisor Hartman. Thank you Director Armas
Well, I guess I'll just conclude on Ida Wells by saying that I think the ratcheting down is really important that the state is involved in. But I think they're really concerning how many we have and why they continue to be idle. If we look at those who put in plans, I mean most are well over five years just sitting there and why? I mean it's a declining asset I assume if you don't keep it going things rusting get sandy and not really worth it anymore so anyway I'm really interested to learn more over time about this but I'm glad that we've opened the discussion here today Supervisor Lee.
So Aaron, can you talk about the process of capping oil wells? Are they the same kind of technology that they use in the 50s or is it more improved and modern? Are people just pouring concrete down these holes or what are they doing?
So Madam Chair and Supervisor Lee, no. The technology has improved pretty dramatically over the decades and now the process would be for an operator to decide that they want to abandon a well. They would take CalGEM's abandonment standards and they would apply that to the particular well circumstance each well is different but they would use CalGEM standards and then they would propose a work plan The work plan would be provided to the county, it would be provided to CalGEM. CalGEM would review and approve it and then the operator would carry out that well abandonment program under the supervision of CalGEM.
Okay there's a follow-up question so does the county have a plan to deal with abandoned orphaned wells here?
1:24 – 1:308 turns
So Supervisor Lee, the county does not have regulations for orphan wells and that responsibility of plugging and abandoning orphaned wells falls to the state. We're a partner in that process and we do coordinate with CalGEM to provide information, to get them in contact with folks who can provide access, things like that but when it comes to the responsibility, it falls to CalGEM.
I have a follow-up question. Do we have any estimate cost of the total to mitigate all the wells? Do you have costs associated with all the abandoned wells and open wells? I do not. Got it. And just a question, who gets the money from AB 1866? Who gets the funds?
Idle well annual fees that are paid into that program are kept by CalGEM and then applied to orphan well abandonment projects. So, I listed out the number of wells throughout the state that are going to be in their phase two and then in the future That work is partially funded by those fees. And that's the reason why AB 1866 increased the fees was to, was that they realized that this is a real ongoing cost to the state of California and that the operators ought to be paying for that in part. And so those idle well fees are applied directly to the program. Thank you
Thank you and I also thank you Supervisor Nelson for bringing this item forward because it, and I'm glad it's a separate item because to me it really opened my eyes to how huge this issue is in your district but impacting the entire county and impacting our entire state. And I agree with Supervisor that we need to be addressing it more and maybe there's an opportunity when APCD does its annual report, that maybe we surface it at the board level or something like that so that we don't duplicate efforts. But I just wanted to ask a question because I was confused in the report about our definition of idle wells when they become idle differing from the states. I don't have an opinion about which is Thank you for having me.
In my opinion, our definition is a little convoluted and it doesn't make a lot of sense in a practical sense. And I think that CalGEM's definition is very practical because we don't have local regulations that apply to idle wells. We don't treat them any differently than active wells. Our definition isn't really employed very often. And CalGEM, because they're working in this idle well world constantly their definitions applied all the time and so for the purposes of you know our conversation today and future conversations it's just a lot easier to use CalPERS definition because it's more meaningful and it's easier to understand
Okay, well that's productive. And a couple questions have been asked so far about costs related to Idlewell's Within Santa Barbara County and a letter did come in from the Sierra Club. At least for the 171 from Katie Davis who is here, so I don't know if you want to see if it's appropriate to ask you to speak but that total that was included in the letter was $36 million cost to plug and abandon 171 in Cat Canyon by Greca. I don' t know if there's anything in addition that you would like to add Miss Davis since you're here?
You have to come to the mic, please. You have to come to the microphone, please. But I know that Supervisor Hartman asked that question
or if you want to address it in public. I mean just on that point if you take 36 million divided by 171 it's 210 thousand per well so I'm sure it varies but that that's an example for you. Thank you.
So my last question for our staff and then we can move to public comment I think Again, I just was struck by the enormity of how many we have in Santa Barbara County and you all deal with permits and industry all the time. Just fresh eyes on it on a on a an industry is there any other comparable industry where An industry goes bankrupt and they just, just leave everything.
And it's up to the taxpayers to pay for it. I mean like if Raytheon went bankrupt and just left their industry for us to just deal with. I mean it's just flabbergasting to me that this is even I just really don't understand how this is a reality. And to me, it only emphasizes that we need to be transitioning even further because why is this something that we're confronted with? That the taxpayers are stuck with Dealing with an idle well that an industry has made money off for a long, long time. And of course as consumers we've all used but then But then they decided that it doesn't make money anymore and so then there's a environmental problem that just They can't deal with and so they just abandon I mean can you is there a comparison out there?
1:30 – 1:368 turns
Madam Chair members of the board I don't think we have enough information at our level to know whether or not there's any other industry that this kind of thing happens. Companies go bankrupt and companies leave messes in some circumstances. So my guess is there probably are other industries where that kind of thing does happen, it's just not something we experience here.
But I really don't think I'm suited to weigh in on that, I don't have the knowledge.
Okay well to me it seems it's just an observation then anyway. Supervisor Nielsen?
Yeah, I just wanted to maybe respond to that. Sure. You know what's different between this and Raytheon is we're not trying to put Raytheion out of business. And essentially if we go through with a ban on future oil production and amortization of their current operations will get them out of business. And so that's what's different here you know they don't have that threat these guys out here in the audience have that threat and so you know knowing that problem is there.
They've got like I said before they've already Other, you know the price of oil is down. The expenses to produce it is difficult but on top of having additional regulations that are I mean the stated purpose is to put them out of business. I mean that's what all the headlines say so that's why this is much different. You know again there's an issue out there but also we only solved that problem by working with the industry Those numbers that Katie mentioned, I think she said about $200,000. I hear it's up as high as over $400,000 is what's in the CalGem wells that they had to clean up for and then but the industry typically can do it for a lot less because again, they already have the equipment, they already have the staff.
I've heard the industry be able to do it for under $100,000 on most occasions. Obviously there's other wells that are more challenging. And again, the only way we do that though is working with them You know, them abandoning the idle ones or those ones that aren't producing as much but also allowing them to have a vibrant business to be able to pay for that.
They only ever make those improvements if they're able to continue to make money. Again, if they are going out of business because they can't work their current operations and then we make it more and more difficult for them, then we're hastening that process. And that's what my big concern is here. We should have a strategic plan You know, that looks out 20 or 30 years to try to solve this problem. So I think that's what it's probably going to take is you know, it's amazing to me that we're even talking about potentially discontinuing active wells when we have this many idle was already out there and to decrease that even more so I think there is a little bit of a difference that I think we should all be concerned about
Well, I think we don't need to get into deliberations yet. But but yeah, idle wells have been an issue for a long time. So let's move to comment unless you wanted to.
Well, I will just say quickly, I spent much of my career working on abandoned coal mine sites and acid mine drainage. So that's one example, but it's in energy. But Superfund sites also we have one in Casamelia in our county And the other point is we think of companies as oil and gas, but they could be energy companies. I mean it could be a broader join us as partners in the transition that hasn't happened so far.
Okay thank you let's move to public comment Madam Clerk
Chair Kaps, members of the board we have four requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to remain here in my apologies we have five requests to speak from the public. We're going to remain here in Santa Barbara to begin with Colin Jones be followed by Katie Davis.
Chair Caps and board members. I'm Colin Jones, a member of the League of Women Voters in Santa Barbara. And I'm here to express our support and thanks for your tackling this Issue due to its extreme importance and critical nature for our possible issues of pollution from these wells, whether they're continuing levels at what levels are continuing leakage of methane and climate gases. What is the risks?
Of their contaminating our underground water supplies. And the other issue, what a support is that tackling these issues is so important because putting them off just makes it more expensive and harder to deal with.
1:36 – 1:426 turns
We will remain in Santa Barbara with Katie
Davis to be followed by Haley Ehlers. Katie? Hi, Katie Davis. Thanks for this item. We do have a problem with idle and abandoned wells. Idle well fees have not increased enough to truly reflect the potential costs associated with the state performing abandonment and most operators prefer to pay the modest fees than properly abandoned oil wells. And what we learned from this presentation is that 61% of the idle wells in Santa Barbara County have no abandonment plans currently. So that's interesting information, thank you.
We need to stop adding to the problem by adding new wells. While operators are responsible for plugging wells they're just slow. One study found that there are 37,000 idle wells in California And it would cost $25 billion to clean them up, which outstrips industry profits. So you can see we're heading to a problem as demand for oil decreases there's economic pressure on operators the ability for operators to pay to plug the wells they drill may be even more challenging over time.
The fewer new wells drilled in Santa Barbara County, the fewer that will need to be plugged and abandoned later. I think that it is important when we get to the, we should stop drilling, adding to the problem, stop the bleeding. But then when we get to the issue of amortizing, we definitely need to tackle this problem and incorporate that into that discussion in the coming years. I absolutely agree to that. The good news is because there are around 2300 active permitted and idle wells in Santa Barbara County, plugging these wells could create upwards 1,400 jobs over that 20-year phase out lifespan. So at least it's something, there'll be some job opportunities there in fixing this problem. Thank you.
We will now go to Haley Ehlers to be followed by Michael Shatekis. Haley?
Hello, my name is Haley Ehlers. I'm the Executive Director at Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas or CFRG, a Central Coast based climate justice advocacy organization. To the cost of plugging question, I just want to note that over 1200 low producing operators in California were required to submit cost estimates for plugging their idle wells by January 1st of this year including dozens of Santa Barbara operators like BE Conway Energy, Santa Maria Energy and New Bridge Resources LLC I just checked and there are only 20 cost estimate reports available on WellStar, and that's for all of California. So in this case operators had the opportunity to inform state plans related to plugging costs and have failed to do so since January 1st.
And a strong way to address the variety of public health, economic and environmental threats that idle wells pose is to end any new drilling and responsibly phase out existing operations. It's important to recognize that both active and idle oil wells pose public health and climate threats. Research has found that two thirds of unplugged wells in California are leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is nearly always accompanied by other pollutants that cause health harming pollution like Volatile Organic Compounds, or VOCs.
Equally as important is the health-harming pollution from active wells. A scientific advisory panel for the California Oil and Gas Public Health rulemaking found that oil and gas drilling during the active phase of a well contributed 23.7% of the total VOCs measured while the idle period only contributed 0.6%. The county cannot afford, literally, to add to the idle and orphan well problem by introducing new harmful wells. And the most comprehensive way to address this crisis is a complete phase out.
For example, Los Angeles City has introduced a phaseout ordinance that specifically targets wells that have sat idle for one year or more by deeming them terminated. We recommend the board consider a similar policy. This would provide local ordinance support to the variety of state activities and policies that we just heard working to increase plugging of idle and orphaned wells.
Operators are already legally required to plug wells or be financially held accountable for the cost of plugging. It's the cost of doing business and a phase-out ordinance with a straightforward timeline can provide a responsible and managed plan to address idle wells, thank you.
We will now go to Michael Chiekis and we will go to Santa Maria with Ramon Elias who is our final speaker, Michael?
Good morning, my name is Michael Chiacos representing Community Environmental Council. We're an environmental nonprofit based in 1970 that's been working on environmental solutions here in Santa Barbara across the Central Coast and we're in support of any efforts to properly remediate abandoned orphaned oil wells. This is a massive problem as you've heard not only in Santa Barbara County but also across California and across the nation And it's frankly appalling that oil companies can go bankrupt and leave taxpayers on the hook.
Anything the county can do to force earlier remediation of these sites that are only have one or two oil wells that are still hanging on, so that would be a question to staff If a site only is producing one, two barrels a day. Is there something the county can do to force that site to close so that then the chevrons and exons of the world can come in and properly remediate before all the money's gone right?
We don't want to be the last ones here with so many oil wells just left holding bag right? So I do think that this is something the county needs to prioritize. It needs to aggressively look into what can we do? We were one of the first ones with an oil industry in the United States, and we need to really figure out how we can properly remediate these and not have taxpayers pay for it. We need oil companies to pay for this. Thank you.
1:42 – 1:4918 turns
And we will now go to Santa Maria with Ramon Elias. Ramon.
Thank you. Yes, my name is Ramon Elias and I'm a principal with Santa Maria energy. It was recently brought up with one of the by one of the speakers and I'm proud to say my small company has completely abandoned all of its wells done so profitably and we're one of Many other companies who are prepared and have in their plans to do such work as needed. So I think some of the some of the numbers and some of the exaggerations that were presented our way overstated I think it was Supervisor Hartman that brought up the question about what is a parallel to our industry with respect to what's going on, such as the Greca situation.
And I would submit it's the real estate industry and the real estate industry, I say, is an example because If you have a condition or set of circumstances where. A property owner is for whatever reason doesn't become a partner with the rest of government or the community things begin to deteriorate the relationship goes South I submit that GRECA and the likes of companies like GRECA was the product of the Board of Supervisors because the Board of Supervisors began a, you might say, a program of starting to work against oil companies and not with them. And so that invited companies like GRECA to come into play who had I think this is just my opinion the intent all along And that concludes public comment on this item.
Do you have a map of the South County abandoned and idle wells?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Lavinio, we do have that information. I was trying to make the slides today a little bit more understandable by focusing on where the majority of the wells are there are a handful of idle wells on the South Coast. I think we own one, unfortunately. So but to answer your question, yes, there are idle wells that are outside the scope of this particular map. OK, thank you.
Supervisor Nelson,
I have a question, I think Michael Chacos had a question about Enforcing earlier remediation. Does the county have those tools at all to force early remediation?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Nelson, the petroleum code currently requires lease remediation after the last well on the lease is abandoned. So we do not have tools that would force operators to remediate sooner than that trigger point.
And that's in part because this is a state power. Is that
we understand that? That's correct, so the county does not have the legal ability to force abandonment. That's a state requirement
and even if we want to change Chapter 25 to be more aggressive, we wouldn't have that as a tool. If we wanted to get that done sooner and we didn't have the tools to force it, we'd have to maybe have incentives?
Yes. And I also think that points to the reason why the code is written the way that it is now is that we don't have the ability to require abandonment but what we do have the ability to do is require remediation after abandonment. Sure.
But if we wanted to Work with the industry to try to create ways for them to be incentivized to abandon wells. That could be a strategy and tool that we have, but we don't have a tool to force any earlier. But if we wanted to try to put something in place to incentivize that, that could be something that the county potentially could offer. Sure, okay thank you.
Supervisor Hartman, did you have a comment? Well I had a question. Assembly Bill 3233 gives local government more power. You're saying it doesn't give power to require earlier remediation?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Hartman, so 3233 gives local agencies the ability to have land use control over oil and gas production activities. It doesn't give them the ability to force abandonment of wells.
So can't we use land use controls?
I think that will be discussed in the next item.
Well I mean, I'm trying to take away what have we learned from this presentation and what do we need more information on? And I am very interested in perhaps bringing our definition of idle wells in conformance with the state definition. You said that's an awkward and not very practical thing I'm interested in options for 2531 and how we get earlier remediation and not wait.
There might be other things others would like to see but it seems unfortunate to have a presentation in a robust discussion and then just leave it, so I know this is only a receiving file but I'm wondering if there's any interest in giving direction to come back, follow up? Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes thank you Chair Caps. You know I think some of this can't tie into the next discussion that was my hope here so I think what you're wanting to get more out of this let's continue that into the next discussion is my preference because I think that's an important part of this. You know, conforming our language to the CalGEM makes a lot of sense because I do think this is going to be a fertile field in the future and having consistent language is helpful. So I can't anticipate the problems that it could create. Maybe there is something I can anticipate at this point but it should be something we should maybe suggest to planning to look at as part of one of their annual I'm sorry.
1:49 – 1:5911 turns
Madam chair members of the board. I think it if we when we transition into the next item and have a discussion, we can talk about what what the appropriate direction would be. But we do have a pretty full work program in terms We can certainly talk about things that we would not do, not work on in lieu of working on something along these lines. But it's possible if it's minor enough we might be able to include it in some of the ordinance changes that the board would be seeking related to the next item.
So let's make a motion to receive and file this presentation at this point, and then we'll transition
it. Sounds good to me.
All right so I will make a motion that we receive and file this and determine that it is not a project under CEQA.
And I'll second. Okay we have a motion in a second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries thanks to the team with that we will take a 10 minute break 15 minutes come back at a little 10 after 11 Okay, welcome back. Everybody does such a good job at getting quiet. It's impressive. Okay we will move to departmental item number three.
Chair Kaps and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Community Services Department and the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the framework approach and budget to phase out oil and gas operations.
Actually Madam Clerk can you make an announcement about public comment because I know we already have quite a few?
Certainly chair caps and members of the board we currently have over 50 requests to speak from the public on this item so the chair has indicated that we will be providing 2 minutes per speaker with priority given to those. Members of the public who would like to speak for one minute first again there will be a maximum of 2 minutes with priority given to 1 minute speakers.
Thank you. Okay director armistice
Thank you Chair Kaps and members of the board. Jesus Armas on behalf of the Community Services Department as a clerk mentioned this is a joint presentation from Planning and Development and Community Services Lisa Plowman, the Director of Planning and Development is present as are her staff members Alex Tuttle and you heard a presentation from Erin Briggs joining me from CSD is our Sustainability Division Manager Garrett Wong We have a brief presentation and then we are available to answer questions.
On the screen is an outline of what we propose to cover in our presentation. The issue of dealing with the effects of climate change is something that this board has been dealing with and your predecessors have been dealing with for quite some time. In recent months, of course in August of 2024, the Board considered and adopted the Climate Action Plan that provided a variety of action steps that hopefully enable us to achieve our stated goal of 50% reduction by 2030, 50% reduction to 28 GHG levels At that time, you also asked that we take a look at other ways to deal with the oil and gas operations in our county.
In the months subsequent to that action critical legislation was adopted that really opened up the opportunities for the board to consider additional measures as was already mentioned AB 3233 was adopted and signed by the governor that enabled local jurisdictions to begin to consider limits or prohibitions on oil and gas operations or other related developments. And as was mentioned in the previous presentation, AB 1866 allowed for the idle well management efforts Earlier this year, we did come to the board and we suggested that some potential ways in dealing with this issue. And as we understood the board's direction and as was reflected in the minutes, we were tasked with developing a framework to come back to you this month And to address the various items that are listed on the screen.
And then as again, you just recently finished discussing last month Supervisor Nelson asked for additional information on this issue. Now we're gonna invite Planning to speak to a couple of approaches from a land use perspective.
Thank You Madam Chair Commission Board Members Alex Tuttle with Long Range Planning. So I'm just going to touch on the two phases that we've identified per your board's direction, and phase one would include updating our codes to prohibit new oil and gas well facilities. This would entail reviewing our existing zoning and petroleum codes and drafting amendments again to prohibit any new wells from being permitted.
It's a fairly straightforward process that staff would anticipate completing in approximately six months. We anticipate that it would be require minimal CEQA, either exempt or negative declaration that could be done in-house We would bring forward the draft amendments for the public hearing process, which would include both the Planning Commission as well as a recommendation up to your Board of Supervisors.
Staff anticipate that this initial phase could be completed with a fairly limited amount of staff time. It would require some deferral of other non-essential or non-time sensitive projects that are currently in our work plan and long range planning Phase one would be the phase out or amortization of existing Working to prepare an RFP and hire a consultant to prepare an amortization study.
We anticipate that that study could be initiated next spring through that RFP process, but would take approximately one year up to approximately one year to complete. CSD staff would manage and oversee the amortization study effort. Once that's completed and we have a sense of the findings and conclusions of that study, we would look at drafting ordinance amendments to incorporate whatever sunset period or phase-out period would be the results of that amortization study.
We do anticipate and expect this would require programmatic EIR That would be fairly exhaustive and comprehensive. We would anticipate that that would take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete and require some funding that we don't currently have set aside or appropriated for this effort. We would have more exact figures once we got further along the down the road, but we anticipate Once the EIR is completed and all the work there is wrapped up, then we would finalize the ordinance package and take it through the public hearing process. And along the way, we anticipate various opportunities for public engagement, community engagement that will speak to further.
Overall, we anticipate that phase two could require approximately three years once initiated. And would require additional funding, as I mentioned. Currently there is budget to move forward with the amortization study that's allocated. But if the RFP and the proposals we receive point to additional funding being necessary, we would bring that request forward to you as part of the 2026-27 budget appropriation period.
There would be a more significant amount of staff devoted to the phase 2 effort. And so again it would require deferral of other planning efforts, those that are either non-mandated or not time sensitive and our plan would be to bring forward to you when we have our next annual work plan next spring. We could present to you sort of what that would look like and what projects could be deferred over the next several years.
And with that, I will hand it back over to Garrett.
1:59 – 2:0516 turns
Still morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Garrett Wong here with the Sustainability Division. So as we are working on the analysis and developing the documentation and draft policies, we would be conducting outreach to the industry and affected stakeholders as well as the general public. We envision soliciting information from local operators that may inform the amortization study and its conclusions.
We would also communicate and coordinate with CalGEM As well as the air pollution control district. As we've heard and discussed earlier, the operators that are still in the state are financially responsible for the full final plugging and abandonment of the wells. However to implement the phase out ordinance additional staff and financial resources would be necessary.
During the preparation of the phase-out documents, we would also prepare an implementation and compliance plan to ensure that the compliance requirements stemming from the Phase 2 ordinance would be able to be tracked and monitored appropriately and enforced. So these are functions that the county currently does not have and would need additional resources for.
And we estimate that at least one full-time equivalent staff person would be necessary to carry this out. As was also mentioned earlier, there is funding that has been previously allocated to this effort from the Sustainability Initiatives Fund which was created by this board for the purposes of implementing the Climate Action Plan. The remaining balance which is $250,000 was allocated for the purposes of this initiative.
We recommend that be used to fund the amortization study And we also discussed earlier in this presentation the unfunded portion of this project, which would entail the environmental review. And as staff continue to work on refining those estimates that would be brought forth during the next fiscal year budget deliberations.
The Board this morning is asked to consider the recommendations shown on the screen, essentially to begin the work on the initial Prohibition Ordinance. Subsequently to develop some material for your consideration on phasing out I would like to start by saying thank you to the Board of Supervisors for allowing us to do oil and gas operations in our county, and to entertain the suggestion from planning and development that there be some modifications to the work plan. I would note that the framework as outlined here is a proposal obviously it's up to the board to determine if that approach is satisfactory or Thank you to both
departments, really appreciate the presentation. Questions from the Board? Supervisor Nelson.
Yes thank you Chair Caps. I was a little taken aback with the decision to break this up. You know I went back and looked at the motion that the board had made it was The board didn't ask to break this up into two different pieces. It was to come back as a package, to do an EIR on this and can you help me out with why we might be piece milling this now after Board direction to bring it forward with an EIR for these efforts?
Well, I was concerned about the perception that maybe we were overreaching. But I took a look at the minutes and it did indicate to direct staff to prepare a framework and we think this is a framework It didn't delineate in the board's discussion one approach over another. And so, the staff in evaluating this is simply bringing to your attention and to your consideration a way of dealing with a fairly substantial issue in a manner that's manageable.
And with that, your office has then gone off and worked with all our offices on explaining this process moving forward? Prior to this hearing,
we did visit the various district offices as we do every month and apprise them of activity that's going on in our department including this.
So your interpretation of the board direction here and what the movement that you guys are going on this away from what the board's original direction is so you guys reached out to the different offices to let us know that you'd be going in that direction
We apprised the supervisor's offices based on our review of the minutes and the direction given to the board. We were working on an approach as outlined today.
And so you said that staff thought this was an appropriate approach, that it wouldn't be needed to have a CEQA process and go through an EIR for potential prohibition?
The information we've received is that the nature of the first phase is a candidate for exemption or negative deck and the subsequent phase would require more comprehensive environmental review.
So there's been an initial study that's been done?
Not as yet, the board hasn't authorized us to proceed on this activity.
So how can you determine the environmental process if you have not done any initial study?
We have not determined it. We're suggesting that that's what our initial assessment is, not that we've determined that.
Okay. Again, I'm just concerned about the potential serial meeting involved with this that staff has gone off in a direction that I think puts us in a position of some legal risk here and I'm hoping that we steer this back to something that's a little bit more defensible.
2:05 – 2:1022 turns
Supervisors, just as a point of clarification. The staff did work with our office and we were adamant that we continue to look back at the board's minutes of what the board said at the hearing and again it was a framework and as you see on the recommended actions it's to either get board direction to initiate the work on developing the ordinance, to initiate work on preparing the RFP And there will be a lot more discussion today. And as we go forward on what level of CEQA review is required, I think staff conferred with County Council on the level of CEQA that might be required because they need to come back to what's the cost of all of that work. So I think today is an appropriate time to have that discussion but I just wanted Let you know that staff did, I think reach out to the appropriate sources and did confer with the minutes to see what board's direction was.
And if there's a disagreement about their interpretation, I think it's important to have that discussion here.
I've got a further question then about that so Was the recommendation of there's no risk in moving forward without an environmental impact report?
I'm sorry Supervisor Nelson, would you mind repeating the question?
Yeah. So was you said you conferred with staff and council and there was no risk on moving forward without an EIR?
Our information is at this point, we're indicating that we believe that the appropriate environmental level of review for the first phase and only the first phase would be either to determine if it meets the exemption definitions of CEQA or whether a negative declaration or equivalent would be necessary. That's the only assessment we're offering to you today.
You're good for now. Okay, Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I think I made the motion and I do remember it being suggested a framework. And I think that this gives us a framework now to discuss is this the way we want to proceed? I just have one question right now and that is about the timing of releasing an RFP for a potential amortization study. That's how we would know how much it costs. There's quite a wide range of what it could cost And I'm just concerned that we would get it back in time for our budget deliberations.
And I guess related to that, is it possible for a private foundation or others if it exceeds costs that the county could manage? What about outside donations?
As to the two questions that you've posed, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. One of the considerations for suggesting we issue the RFP in the spring is we don't have a good handle on the cost and there have been three amortization studies in the Los Angeles area and the cost was widely A wide range from a quarter of a million to upwards of two million. And recognizing that the only appropriation that the board has made is at 250,000 we wanted to get it more defined figure so that if discussion needed to take place during the budget deliberations you would have more precise information and so that's the rationale for the timing on the calendar.
And I'm sorry.
But just if I can jump in to clarify that we would have the, we would have that figure prior to our budget hearings?
Yes. So
prior to April.
It's
so our workshop is April. That's I think that's the confusion.
Thank you. I was thinking of a different spring. So we'll need to accelerate the time frame. We can do that too to satisfy the April timeframe.
That'd be great.
Yeah thank you for Catch me up. I'm sorry Supervisor Hartman you had a second part to your question.
Contributions from foundations or outside parties?
Yes we've done a little bit of research and we think there is an opportunity for the county to receive donations to direct it in this way should there be community interest in doing so
And just again, Supervisor Lee forgive me but I just to clarify that if an outside entity were to pay for an amortization study that would be completely independent so they wouldn't have any influence on the study.
Yes thank you it's important to note that any funding that's received if the board elects to receive it would be under the control of the county and not subject to direction or influenced by the donor.
Excellent okay Supervisor Lee.
I just want to touch back on SB 567, I see Ked Cordova from EMB here. I was wondering if you will come up and just give a brief description about what you and your company is doing with battery storage in the Camarillo Valley?
2:11 – 2:1923 turns
Chair Kaps, Supervisor Roylee and board members thank you for having me. I'm Ted Cordova representing EMB Natural Resources we're in the Kuyama Valley our local energy production and yes we've partnered up with a company called Renewal they are a startup business gravity-based storage turning idle wall assets into energy storage opportunities We've given, I think a couple of presentations to a few of you and we partnered up with them. We went for a grant with the California Energy Commission. We received several million dollars and I don't represent Renewal.
Speak on behalf of them, they were the lead on all this. We were just a partner to them in looking at our field in Kuyama as a pilot program that could be utilized to test their technology and see if they would be able to scale it up so it's been an exciting project Just as a company, we've always been interested in looking and exploring different carbon reduction clean energy projects. We have a very large solar project that went live in 2020 in Supervisor Royley's district. And yeah, we'd be happy to make more rounds and give more presentations about that project but basically it's you just utilize an idle well they bring their technology It goes up and down.
They store the energy based off of gravity, and then you can utilize it, send it back to the grid, take it when electricity would be more expensive or there's a lot of different options for it but it's exciting technology and one that we're excited to bring to Santa Barbara and test out
Okay. Thank you, Taylor and it'll be helpful if you can reach out to county staff to let them know what's happening that they'll be more informed. Absolutely. Thank you. All right thank you.
Supervisor Lee just as a update we have communicated with Renew Well and we're in the midst of trying to schedule a conversation with them
Is it just one well or are there multiple of the 250 that are authorized by the state?
Supervisor Harmon, thank you for that question. Originally it was a larger grant request. The CEC pared it down to a smaller amount so we didn't get the full amount that we requested but I believe that Where we're at now, it's potentially maybe five to eight wells. Yes.
Very exciting and congratulations for being on the cutting edge.
Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Supervisor Labadino?
Thank you Madam Chair. So I just want to make sure I'm getting this right so that we would take a private donation from somebody in the community to finance putting the industry out of business. That seems completely un-American and totally against everything we ever stood for, I just can't even understand how that even... You're gonna take a donation and I know where the donation would come from right? It's you're gonna get bunch of environmental groups put money together and we're gonna put this industry out of business. I got one question about that.
You want to give the thing about not clapping? Point of order. We don't clap, sorry.
I haven't had a chance to say that yet but we'll get
there. So if we aren't going to fund it with our priorities because I think it's very clear in this county that our last meeting we were talking about laying off employees and trying to stave that off by talking about what other cuts we're gonna make and other essential services that we do here If we can't figure out, if this doesn't rise to the level of making it part of our priority list, it just doesn't seem right. I don't see... If that's the case then we should be just fundraising and handling all of our finances that way because if that's what we're gonna do then the question, the main question I would have is who's next?
Okay, you get rid of the oil industry. It's probably AG. I mean they're the ones using pesticides are the ones, you know encroaching on all the affordable housing we want to build it. Yeah, it's the other way around but I mean that's the way they're looking at it. So okay. So question I would have is is there a plan first off is has there been since the last one? I could find was 2012. How are we doing as a county in our ghg inventory? How are we performing?
We did present a report to you when the cap was presented in August and we're going to be coming to you next month with our annual update.
But I don't mean the county in general, Santa Barbara County. I mean how is the county? Is that broken out by how we are as an organization? How are we doing at reducing GHGs?
To the county as an entity.
Yeah ourselves as a company, as a corporation business
Supervisor Lavanino and Madam Chair. So last year I believe it was or maybe earlier this year, apologies we conducted the county's first municipal greenhouse gas inventory which is to take total stock of all of the operations and activities that the county does so that's all our buildings and facilities are fleet vehicles and other things that we operate That was the first year that we've done it. And so as we do greenhouse gas inventories in later years, we're able to track our progress towards meeting our goals. We don't have a goal per se that's been established for municipal operations and our emissions As you know, General Services has been working fairly hard to increase our supply of renewable energy on facilities to increase our electric vehicles in our fleet and as well as the charging facilities necessary.
And so I would say on the whole we're doing fairly well in that regard. Good. So if, if
we move forward with this has been and I don't even know if this it's really weird for me to even ask if this is a staff recommendation because I do see that the recommendation comes with you want us to direct you to do it? Now I'm not going to put you in the spot of saying if you think this is a smart idea or not would be nice to know but it's not coming from staff so as part of this is there a plan To also ban petroleum products used by county employees. That we would, if we're not gonna allow the industry to exist are we going to wean ourselves off it ourselves?
I'm not aware of any discussions on that subject.
Okay and then if we talk to other departments and most number one jumps out to me is Public Works. I don't know if Mr. Sneddon I was gonna ask you what do we use on our roads And where do we get that from? That's the phone call I get most from folks is the state of our roads. So can you just, where do we get our asphalt from? How much do we use?
Supervisor Levenino to the chair. We do use recycled materials when we can in our projects that doesn't include asphalt it's mostly the binder or the aggregates and we paved last two or three years about an average of 36,000 tons a year which is and then about 5% of that asphalt binder so somewhere in the order of 2,000 tons
What's the alternative to asphalt? Like if we didn't do asphalt roads would be concrete or.
2:19 – 2:2625 turns
Yeah, that would be pretty challenging but it would be
challenging
because you could use concrete
which is probably I think it's the number one producer of GHG emissions is concrete so okay so asphalt a big Road's a big part of all this. I just want to take all this into consideration when we start studying this and okay, I'm good for now.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, I had a question about the amortization and my understanding is that this is for the oil operators. Trying to understand how this impacts the mineral rights owners and do we do amortization for their property as well? How does that work?
That's a very, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. It's a very challenging question quite frankly in looking at what other jurisdictions have done they've not given consideration to mineral rights but we do think that that's something that we should be consulting with a firm that is retained to make sure that we give due consideration to that issue.
Do we know the value of the mineral rights in our county?
Not that I'm aware of.
Okay, so and how does that work? Are you able to amortize that or do we just have to buy that out?
I think that's what we need to engage the professionals in the field to help render some advice to the county on how best to approach that.
I mean I think that's a front of the conversation before you spend hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars is knowing what that looks like right
I think you want to know all your costs and all your potential exposure before you render a decision for sure.
And so the amortization study would address how to compensate mental rights owners?
We will be seeking advice from the consultant about how to address that issue. To date, the amortization studies that have been done in this area have not provided clear guidance on that and in some cases they've simply bypassed that issue altogether.
They've ignored those property rights but you're saying our study wouldn't do that?
We're saying we want to consult with a professional to give us an approach that gives it due consideration
Okay, thank you.
Yeah just to step back a little bit this board we passed a climate action plan not too long ago that set a pretty ambitious goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030 more bold than the state can you just speak broadly about how this framework helps support the Climate Action Plan?
Madam Chair, when the Climate Action Plan was adopted currently at the time oil and gas emissions were not included in the greenhouse gas inventory. They're not included in the emission reduction goal of the county so that 50 percent by 2030 mainly focuses on the energy we consume in our buildings, the emissions that come from our vehicles The waste that we throw in the landfill and other sources. Those are the primary ones oil and gas has long kind of been separate from that. And we've kind of kept a little bit of a firewall largely because our climate action plan has been designed to be what's called CEQA qualified. So we use it as a document to mitigate emissions broadly across the county so that when projects come to the county planning counter They don't have to mitigate their own emissions.
They're relying on the county's climate action plan to do so And up until fall of last year, the county didn't have much jurisdiction or authority to maybe contemplate what potentially reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector might look like. Let alone guarantee that as being able to actually materialize at least by the time that we're trying to set our goals with our 2030 targets.
But then the new legislation came along last year that allowed more jurisdiction. We spoke to it briefly in the last item, but that gives counties much more jurisdiction to take authority.
That's correct.
Okay those are my questions for now. Maybe we'll move to a public comment at this point since we have quite a few, lots of interest. So at this point I will close public comment and turn it over to our clerk.
Chair Caps and members of the board we have 56 requests to speak from the public on this item and again the public are going to be Getting two minutes per speaker, but if there is anyone who would like to speak for one minute that will be priority. If you are here in Santa Barbara, if you can please line up at the podium to provide your comments and if you're on Zoom and would like to speak for one minute, one minute only on zoom not the two minutes just for the one minute please use the raise hand feature.
All righty And if you can also clearly state your first and last name that would be greatly appreciated
Chair Caps and members of the board, I'm Lee Heller. I try to spare you hearing from me too many times in one day so I forebore to speak on the last item since you heard from me on the administrative calendar but I would like to make the link between orphan and idle wells and the prohibition of new oil and gas development Government inevitably ends up dealing with the consequences of petroleum infrastructure down the line. At best, there's the cost of continued oversight and enforcement as operations wind down and close.
At worst we eat the cost of chasing down non-compliant operators or paying for the cleanup. Can you say GRECA? I lived in Summerlin for 18 years, and I can testify to the permanent impacts of old neglected oil infrastructure. This process will take time. Existing operations will need to continue this amortization process is going to be complicated but we can stop future development in a careful and thoughtful way that will save us future costs and make some headway against our county's contributions to climate change. Thank you
2:26 – 2:3315 turns
Any other speakers here in Santa Barbara for one minute?
Good morning. Emily Engel, Sierra Club and representing my family. I'm here for all the children and families who can't be here because they're in school and at work and don't have the time to be here. And also on behalf of the Sierra Club which represents over 8000 people locally. We recommend that you guys consider this issue at further length and follow the lead of places like Los Angeles that are further along in this path. The immediate step to draft an ordinance to prohibit new oil projects makes sense to all of us as we have learned from past proposals, the remaining oil here is heavy and energy intensive to extract It is some of the most polluting and expensive oil in the world to produce. Public health and other community risks of oil production far outweigh any marginal benefits for all of our local elderly, children, and families.
Our county can use our resources to protect our citizens including our kids and families and continue to thrive in a sustainable manner that values community health housing and long-term economic stability. We encourage you and your dedicated staff to proceed with an amortization study to inform the phase-out of existing oil operations, which are a significant source of pollution. A requirement to do an EIR for phase out is based on a questionable reading of the law but may be necessary because of the litigious nature of oil companies. Anyway thank you guys very much and I appreciate your consideration.
Any other members of the public in Santa Barbara that would like to speak for one minute please come to the podium?
Hello, my name is Lauren Leland. I live here in Santa Barbara and I am an organizer with the Polluters Pay Santa Barbara Coalition. I am here today in full support of moving forward with this ordinance in a way that ensures no new permits for oil and gas drilling, a phase-out of existing oil and gas operations, and sufficient programming to support transitions to clean and safe jobs.
We know that oil and gas operations are a serious threat to public health and are driving up emissions. In the time when the federal administration is expanding fossil fuel production and threatening the health of our communities and our ecosystems, it is absolutely imperative that we take action that is in the best interest for our collective future. I recently had the opportunity to work with local high school students who are dedicating their time to climate issues because they have grown up with climate disasters and are worried about facing the consequences of a world they were not responsible for creating.
Phasing out of oil and gas operations is a way to honor the next generations, and ensure a safer future for us all. Thank you.
Not seeing any others in Santa Barbara we'll go to Zoom with Molly McCoy to be followed by Michael Lynch. Molly?
Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Molly McCoy and I'm here for full support with this ordinance. I would implore you all to please prohibit any new extraction or production facilities as well as commission a workforce development study and subsequent programming to assist oil and gas industry workers in transitioning to other employment sectors with particular support for transition to clean energy jobs A recent UC Santa Barbara report on the benefits of an oil phase-out calculated that it could prevent an estimated $54 to 81 million in mortality related costs by 2045.
The extractive and just pollutive side of this industry is not worth it for our community, it is beyond expensive and beyond just damaging to everyone's health The phase-out policy could also prevent the release. Thank you, Molly. That
is your time. We will now go to Michael Lynch to be followed by Bill Woodridge. Michael?
Good morning Supervisors. Thank you so much for taking the Zoom calls. I'm Michael Lynch. I am a resident of Santa Barbara and I am speaking in support of all this Mainly what I want to say is, I am personally horrified that anybody would consider the financial benefits to any corporation or group of corporations over our collective health and safety. I've been here when there's been wildfires.
I know the impact of any of the oil disasters That half of a spill happening on our roads in the middle of a fire. I know, I can't get out. I know the impact of not being able to breathe because of the spills.
We've seen this. Thank you Michael that is your time.
Thank you very much.
We will now go to Bill Woodbridge, and if there are any other members of the public either here in Santa Barbara or on Zoom please line up at the podium or use the raise hand feature on Zoom if you'd like to speak for one minute. Bill? Hi can you hear me? Yes we can please proceed.
Hi Supervisors, my name is Bill Woodbridge in Goleta. I implore you to please stop new oil and gas drilling in this county as soon as possible and phase out the existing oil and gas wells as soon as possible. Phasing out drilling does not stop the county from getting oil for asphalt it just stops the drilling The oil in Santa Barbara County is the dirtiest, thickest, sluggiest oil left.
It takes toxic poisons and millions of gallons of water injected into the wells which is called fracking to loosen up the oil. Those toxins never come out of the ground and could easily seep into our groundwater. Then there's a fear that it'll raise gas prices. Gas prices are right now at the lowest they've been since the pandemic. And the two refineries that they claim would have to be shut down and would cause the lower prices, higher prices. They are shut down already.
It's just it's just insane. Thank you
Bill. That is your time.
Thank you.
We will now go to Eleanor Thomas to be followed by Seth Steiner. Eleanor?
2:33 – 2:3912 turns
Hi, my name is Eleanor Thomas. I'm a PhD student at the University of California at the Bren School and I strongly support the board moving forward with the oil and gas phaseout ordinance that not just bans new drilling but also phases out existing operations and is accompanied by strong support for transitioning to other clean energy jobs. There's a lot of clean energy development happening in our region and there should be a strong network for displaced workers to go find good supportive jobs in other industries, and yeah
that's
it!
We will now go to Seth Steiner and if there are any other members of the public on zoom that would like to speak for one minute. Priority is going to those wanting to speak for one minute, please use the raise hand feature set. Seth If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments we've unmuted you on our end.
All right. Good morning of the majority of supervisors has voted to phase out oil and gas production for looking out for the best interests of our county, they deserve a great deal of thanks. Many reasons have already been clearly and convincingly laid out for a phase-out. A partial list would include healthier air and water, and more fresh water for drinking and agriculture or more vibrant economy based on clean renewable energy and more productive uses for land including for housing.
Santa Barbara County can be proud of its long and widely respected environmental leadership In efforts that can lead to a better world for all the present federal administration poses substantial threats to further progress, so we must continue here and remain a beacon for other jurisdictions throughout the nation. Thank you.
All righty, it appears that concludes the one-minute speakers on Zoom. If there are any other members of the public here in Santa Barbara that would like to speak for one minute please make your way to the podium if not we will resume with two minutes.
Great and I think I forgot to mention that there isn't clapping or jeering or making noise we just do this if we like something that someone said thank you
And we will remain on Zoom with Tara Regifo to be followed by Inaka Slater. Tara?
Good afternoon, Chair Katz and Supervisors. My name is Tara Regifo and I'm a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Center. EDC wants to thank staff for its work and request that the board authorize staff to develop a framework to prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells, and phase out existing operations. This direction is consistent with the county's Climate Action Plan Measure LCE-1 adopted by this board last year to limit the increase of fossil fuel extraction and develop a sunset strategy.
With the passage of AB 3233 expressly authorizing a local government to prohibit oil and gas operations in its jurisdiction, the county has the authority to take these critical next steps. Notably, AB 3233 also makes clear that the owner or operator is still responsible for plugging and abandoning its wells and decommissioning attendant production facilities.
The cost of inaction today is too great. Oil and gas development is associated with a range of adverse environmental and public health effects. Focusing on the health impacts alone, the California Oil & Gas Public Health Rulemaking Scientific Advisory Panel recently confirmed a causal relationship between residential proximity to oil and gas development and adverse perinatal and respiratory outcomes.
In Santa Barbara County, 40% of oil and gas falls are within one mile of sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals and residences. Hispanic, Black and Asian communities as well as populations of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to live within these areas. Given these known hazards to public health it is imperative that this board authorize staff to prohibit new drilling and phase out existing operations.
Finally staff anticipates undertaking community outreach efforts during this process and I would like to stress the importance of the quality of outreach and not just the quantity. Meaningful and effective outreach to affected communities is especially important thank you
We will now go to Ilanka Slater, to be followed by Joseph Silvey. Ilanka?
Hello, everybody. My name is Ilanka Zlatar and I'm an organizer with the organization Oil & Gas Action Network. I want to add my voice to others who are urging this body to enact the phase out of new drilling and existing drilling. As we've heard all morning there are true and dire consequences of the impunity with which this industry has functioned for decades And I don't want to understate the challenge that lies ahead for us, but I am excited that the Santa Barbara County is considering becoming a leader in this and paving the road for others to follow. This is a really exciting opportunity for this county to show climate leadership on not just locally but at the state level and even nationally and internationally of what it could look like to phase out fossil fuels while maintaining safety and paving a road to a cleaner, better future for our children and for the next generation.
So I implore you to move forward with vision With a bold vision and thank you so much for taking this challenge.
We will now go to Joseph Sylvie to be followed by Tevin Schmidt, Joseph.
2:39 – 2:455 turns
Hi, my name's Joseph Sylvia. I'm part of the environmental engineering program at UC Berkeley and I study climate environmental justice and do research in that area. And I used to be against oil and gas because of operators like GRCA and ERG resources which have caused a lot of pollution issues in Santa Barbara County but And part of my research, I've found that there are still responsible operators out there.
And as we continue in the energy transition, we're still going to require a lot of oil and gas. In Santa Barbara County in particular, there are massive sieves of oil and gas leaking three to 400 barrels of oil and gas every day naturally off the coast of Santa Barbara. And they're actually one of the largest sources of emissions in California. And as we manage this transition, it's important to realize that stopping production in Santa Barbara is not going to stop demand. And we're just offsetting that demand and supply or getting the supply from places like Iraq and Ecuador where they're destroying the rainforest and causing childhood leukemia in Iraq and the Cancer Alley region there and the Romila oil field. So it's important to consider just a holistic approach to how this happens as we continue in the energy transition.
So I'd ask the board to really carefully analyze their steps as they move forward with this.
We will now go to Tevin Schmidt, to be followed by Zach Tipton. Tevin?
Good morning. County Supervisors, my name is Tevin Schmidt. I'm the Watershed Scientist for the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. We urge the Board of Supervisors to move forward with the Santa Barbara County Oil and Gas Phaseout Ordinance. A vote in favor of this ordinance will have immense positive impacts on public health tourism and the local economy, an environment upon which we all depend.
County-wide oil related jobs make up between 0.0023% and 0.0054% of all employment in the county These exceptionally limited job opportunities are highly unstable, with workers experiencing declining wages and benefits and increased safety risks. The fatality rate for oil and gas extraction is seven times higher than other occupations. We advocate for the transition support policies that assist oil and gas workers in the county to transition to other job sectors, particularly in the sustainable development of renewable energy infrastructure. We've all seen the devastation that oil and gas industry has caused along the Santa Barbara Coast. The 1969 and 2015 oil spills caused long-lasting impacts on cultural resources, tourism, and local ecosystems in fisheries.
We urge the Board of Supervisors to prohibit the new extraction and production facilities in a county and designate existing facilities as non-conforming use so these facilities will be subject to cessation and removal after an amortization period. The overwhelming majority of Santa Barbara County residents oppose expanding offshore oil development and 69% of residents believe developing clean energy infrastructure should be a priority. According to the Santa Maria Sun and Santa Barbara Independent, Bob Nelson and Steve Labadino have received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from oil and energy companies for their recent campaigns. Let's find out if democracy stands a chance against big oil money today. Thank you for your time.
We will now, Zach left our meeting so we will now go to Daniela Vallejos Garcia to be followed by Sneha Nambodiri. Daniela? Daniela, we have unmuted you on our end if you could please unmute on your end to provide your comments. Daniella if you can hear us, if you can please unmute to provide your comments. Oh looks like we just lost Daniela. We will now go to Sneha Nambodiri.
Hi, thank you so much for hearing from me today. My name is Sneha I am a student at UCSB and I'm urging the Board of Supervisors to vote in support of advancing the county oil and gas phase out ordinance California has committed to phasing out oil by 2025 and the Santa Barbara County has a responsibility and opportunity to lead that goal as other counties are. As the birthplace of the modern environmental movement, our county has always been at the forefront of sustainability and we should stick with this legacy. When setting a climate action plan either at the state or local level it only works if you stick to it and take action with it.
Continuing to allow oil extraction undermines these goals and threatens our region's extraordinary biodiversity as oil operations harm and kill sensitive and endangered species that make our county so unique. As a young person, I'm deeply concerned about the serious health impacts of continued oil production. These operations are major sources of local air pollution that contribute to things like cancer, asthma, heart disease and increased risk of wildfires. These harms make it harder and more expensive to grow up, to live and to work here Economically, oil-related jobs make up a small portion of our local workforce and a phaseout does not erase oil job opportunities. It creates new ones in clean energy and decommissioning work that keeps our communities more safe and aligns with the sustainable future that we want.
Each step towards phasing out oil strengthens our community's safety and our leadership on climate action, which are values that a majority of Santa Barbara residents already support. If you care about the health of your constituents and the long-term strength of our county this phaseout is not an option it is essential I urge you to vote for the County Oil & Gas Phaseout Ordinance that halts new permits We will now go to Santa Maria with Ramon Elias to be followed by Gabriel Vasquez back here in Santa Barbara.
2:45 – 2:527 turns
A Santa Barbara County rancher and a local mineral interest owner like thousands of other county residents. I also represent Council 3252 of the League United of Latin American Citizens, also known as LULAC. I'm here to speak against authorizing work and against adding this project to the long-range plan of the department. The vast majority of oil industry workers consists of Hispanics and other ethnic minorities in 2022, the average annual pay in California's oil industry was about double for the state's other private sector businesses.
However, the State of California and the County of Santa Barbara have caused deliberate and systematic ruin of a once vibrant and well-managed industry. Those actions have produced the highest taxes and energy prices in the country and for what? We don't live in a bubble Your action towards the phase out of oil and gas operation is doing nothing but causing great misery and suffering for most of our minority and marginalized brothers and sisters who can afford it least.
There are no provisions for economic relief. We make up 40% of the county's population, and LULAC is a statewide supporter of the oil industry. Thank you very much.
All righty now we will return to Santa Barbara with Gabriel Vasquez to be followed by Patrick Vigrant. Gabriel?
Hi, thank you for your time appreciate it. If these gentlemen are getting a kick back I'd like some of that. Right? That's kind Criminal in my opinion, but anyways I have a electric car. Right? I work on this street right the rig manager two minutes will not give me enough time to explain to you all but I see a bunch of people that are confused and uneducated on in our field down to prices and what's the direction with this with with with all this right We have a group of men that are law-abiding citizens that make good pay, that pay for you guys to be there. All right? We also vote, all right? We also have most of these people they're football coaches, regetti, places like this. You all have kids and some of these are coaches out there I just really want to know what you guys are going to do with us because my whole life, I've worked in the oil fields.
I drink the same water. You know, I want the best. My family migrated to this country. I think I see two sides that can work together and do what Americans do best, work together. Let's work together. So let's work out our differences and we need We can't just, I got an electric car right? I'd save money but then I also see other things that are pros and cons. We need to we can't it's not a light switch all right and my kids still have to go to college please. I have nowhere else to go you know and please make the right decision. You guys all look like intelligent people please think of us thank you Jeff appreciate it
We will now go to Patrick Feiglin, to be followed by Rex Bien. Patrick?
Yes, my name is Pat Vigin. I work for one of the local companies actually out of the LA office. I'm here to talk about that not only will this affect the Santa Barbara area if these rules pass but it will affect other places we do get service companies and supplies from people or from companies and people outside of the county. We get supplies from Kern County, L.A., San Diego, Orange County all with these businesses closing down those will be affected also Also that the companies have a large land areas and they're helping to maintain the roads, the access roads in these That are used by the telecom companies. They're used by the fire departments They're also Maintaining the seeps, the oil seeps that are in the area If the oil companies aren't there that somebody else will have to take care of those.
Thank you
We will now go to Rex Bien to be followed by Phil Daly. Rex?
Good morning, Supervisors. My name is Rex Bein and I'm the owner and operator of Ace Pump Inc. and Ace Pump Testing. We proudly provide downhole pumps oil filled equipment and hydro testing services throughout Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. We've been doing this since 1985. Our work keeps oil and gas wells operating safely and efficiently and in doing so we support 16 employees and their families all of whom live work and reinvest in our local communities There are local jobs and pay taxes help fund youth sports, sports nonprofits and contribute daily to the strength of our community. I'm here today because I strongly believe that phasing out oil and gas in Santa Barbara County would be a devastating mistake. This industry is not just about energy it's about livelihood small businesses and the stability of entire communities.
A forced phase-out would mean thousands of lost jobs, countless small businesses closing their doors, millions of dollars in lost tax revenues that currently fund essential services, schools, roads, infrastructure, public health and safety programs. You talk about saving lives and climate change. If you stop oil production in Santa Barbara County in California, oil will be produced in countries that are not near as environmentally safe as oil produced in California.
In 2019, I was in India and you walk out of the airport in New Delhi and you can't see the top of the 10-story Holiday Inn because of all the smog. They have three lane wide roads with five cars going side by side every one of them putting pollution in air. Countries like India and China will need to get their pollution under control before we can help the earth.
The pollution that's put out We will now go to Phil Daly to be followed by John Hook Leitner.
2:53 – 2:5810 turns
Morning. My name is Phil Daly, I've been in the industry for 47 years. Third generation in California and I'm with Kings Oil Tools and our company specializes in rig work and other specialty tools we use in the wells. Our crews work in San Luis Obispo County, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange and Santa Barbara Oil production contributes millions every year to fund things like roads, emergency services and public health.
With the county already facing a budget shortfall now isn't the time to remove other major source of incomes. Let's take a smart path and maintain local and state oil production for a proper transition to renewable energy Even Governor has realized that preserving in-state oil production is necessary to aid in transition. Thank you.
We will now go to John Hook Lightner, to be followed by Libby Rodriguez.
Hi, thank you board and I appreciate y'all being here. Thank you all for your service to do a good job. I'm the lifelong resident of Santa Barbara County in the beautiful Santa Maria Valley. I work for Pacific Petroleum and we have 200 hard 250 hard-working employees here just in Santa Barbara County alone great taxpayers good people We'd appreciate you keeping us all employed in the one industry love. Thank you
We will now go to Libby Rodriguez to be followed by Johanna Rodriguez Escobar Libby.
Hello, my name is Libby Rodriguez. I am an employee of Pacific Coast Energy Company and within the years that I've been working there, I feel very grateful to be able to help provide financial support to my family. It's a great industry to be working for and I think we have a great community. That being said, I am opposed to the ordinance to ban new wells and I hope we can continue drilling new wells in the future to avoid any sort of impact to the oil industry. Thank you.
We will now go to Johanna Rodriguez-Escobar, to be followed by Justin Martin. Johanna?
Good afternoon Chairman Kaps and Supervisors. I am Johanna Rodriguez Escobar. I was born and raised in Santa Maria. I was first introduced to the oil industry through my father. He was a proud worker of the oil industry worked for 28 years Retired in December, my father was able to raise me and my brothers and sisters with his job. In 2008 he introduced me to this job and I worked two summer interns which let me give me the opportunity to grow into the position I am now. I am accounts payable and I have worked for Pacific Coast Energy for 17 years now. I've seen this company grow for many years and I've been around when we drilled new wells.
work it gave to not only myself, my co-workers, our contractors. The two years within two years ago I was given the opportunity to introduce my husband to this industry. If this was to be passed it would greatly impact my immediate family. I would love for us have the opportunity to continue to grow as a company and have new future Wells. Thank you.
We will now go to Justin Martin, to be followed by Rich Field. Justin?
Good afternoon Madam Chairman and the Board. My name is Justin Martin. I am 36 as of this month. I'm an Environmental Health and Safety Manager for Pacific Coast Energy Company in Orkut. I've been in the oil and gas industry conducting air pollution compliance for 13 years as one of their contractors for 10 of those years but I'm here as a husband and a father to speak with you Thanks to the oil and gas industry, my wife and I were able to buy a home in Guadalupe with my stepson who is autistic and my stepdaughter who is attending UCSB majoring in political science starting this year.
I have been able to achieve two associate's degrees environmental health and safety and criminal justice from Allan Hancock College and a bachelor's degree from Columbia Southern University in occupational safety and health. Ever since I found my place in the industry, all of these accomplishments so far would not have been possible without the support and salary that I receive in the oil and gas industry.
Even now, my wife and I work at least two jobs each including our own tax preparation business in order to have a life here on the Central Coast. I can afford to pay for my daughter to attend UCSB because my school loans are paid off thanks to PCEC, all employees regardless of age get full benefits including 401k with 6% match. We give all employees 60 hours of sick time and tiered PTO PCC has allowed me to coordinate a toy drive with the Children's Resource Network for the last three years.
I have assisted with a paid internship program in order to help the next generation gain hands on infield experience and skills, everything from welders, plumbers, instrumentation operations and engineers, 30 plus different job duties all which support 90 employees and their families. Please reconsider.
We will now go to Rich Field to be followed by Carmen Rhodes. Rich?
2:59 – 3:046 turns
Good afternoon Chair Katz, Supervisor Board of Supervisors. My name is Rich Field I'm the Senior Environmental Health and Safety Manager for Pacific Coast Energy with our headquarters on the beautiful Orchid Hill located in Orchard California. We always extend invitations to each member of the board here to come up and see our operations, how clean, how compliant. And look at the hardworking men and women that have come to this hearing today or shown for us. I'd like to remind the Board of Supervisors that PCEC acquired the Santa Maria Energy Asset on the Carriaga.
And this ordinance to or this effort to stop the drilling of new wells, we have the entitlement. We have the CEQA entitlement to drill new wells going forward. It was for 110 well project probably about a quarter of those new wells had been drilled all entitled under CEQA and all effectuated by CEQAs and the build out, the drilling of new wells, the construction of ancillary equipment pipelines The whole nine yards. So you need to consider that as you phase out new drilling, we do have the entitlement for that.
Also I'm probably not aware that PCEC recently acquired the Greca assets so we have a majority of that. We acquired several oil and gas leases wells facilities including areas in Santa Maria Valley, Cat Canyon and the Cazamelia Oil Field That were formerly owned and operated by Greco and subsequently team operating both nefarious operators that had a poor track record of compliance and regulatory, you know, health and safety the whole nine yards in this county.
We spent millions of dollars to date addressing violations and addressing equipment failures that weren't addressed by these operators in the past. And we are in the process of rehabilitating these oil fields as well, new infrastructure, new tanks, new pipelines and getting rid of the equipment that's been an eyesore to this county.
Chair Kaps, can I ask the speaker a question? Thank you Rich for being here. So you acquired some of these GRECA assets and you guys have now taken on the responsibility of those assets including the potential future abandonment of those facilities as well so a huge liability that was potentially Before our entire community that you stepped up to the plate. Yes, too. We're
in the process of modernizing and bringing them up to date. We'd also have a robust idle well management program so we are committed to abandoning and a certain number of wells per year not only on the Grek assets but on Orchard Hill. We probably abandoned about 20-30 wells this year alone on Orchid Hill. So we are continued to that phase of the work And to continue to rehab these fields that have been disrepair for so many years and we have the right people to do it. We have the experience, thousands of years of experience. I alone have 30 years experience in this county. So I appreciate your time. Thank you Rich. And I would strongly recommend that we oppose the Santa Barbara County phase out the oil. So thank you for your time.
We will now go to Carmen Rhodes be followed by Alex Gutierrez. Carmen?
Good afternoon, Chair Capps and supervisors. My name is Carmen Rhodes and I'm the director of the UCSB Community Labor Center. As the county writes and considers these ordinances it is important to directly engage oil and gas workers in a conversation about what is needed to make this transition more just and equitable. While cleaner energy technologies could create new jobs these jobs often pay less than fossil fuel jobs and the skills are not always directly transferable.
Santa Barbara County is well positioned to lead the conversation from both sides of this equation. First, implementing policies and tools that make cleaner energy jobs better and two deeply understanding the skill base and knowledge of current workers where they are in their career trajectory and what pathways make sense for this workforce. UCSB researchers are committed to engaging directly with impacted workers Partnering with local labor groups and community organizations to produce a just and equitable transition report for Santa Barbara County.
As we begin this process, we welcome the opportunity to engage with you to understand your concerns and questions We aim for this report to reflect the voices and concerns of workers that you're hearing from today And to propose policies that can help inform the drafting of these ordinances UCSB researchers will map the demographics of the energy sector workforce, quantifying net job impacts from phaseout ordinances. and directly engage impacted workers.
Two, conduct public opinion surveys and convene community-focused discussions to analyze countywide sentiment on oil and gas phaseout with a particular focus on residents living nearest active wells. And finally assess the cost and job potential of oil and gas well remediation which we've heard a lot of questions about today. All impacted workers deserve to continue to live and work and retire here in Santa Barbara County. How do we ensure justice for these workers? We hope to work with you to answer this question together.
We will now go to Alex Gutierrez to be followed by Tony Padilla, Alex.
3:04 – 3:1010 turns
Good afternoon my name is Alex Gutierrez I work for an oil producer in Santa Barbara County as a facility operator I live in Orchard with my wife and my three daughters. Outside of work, I'm the director of fields for Orchid Youth Softball. We've got over 300 girls in our program and a lot of their support we get from PPCs, C-Trains, Port-A-Potties, Ace Pumps. They all donate money and support us for our nonprofit.
The industry gives back to the community in ways that people don't see. It's not just jobs, it's youth sports, local charities and small businesses. A phase-out would ripple through all of that. It would cost jobs, reduce local spending and take millions away from the county's general fund. The money that keeps roads fixed and emergency services running. Pushing this phase out through will hurt my family and many others. Please support my community and reject the phase out.
We will now go to Tony Padilla to be followed by Tito Laura. Tony?
Good morning, hello my name is Tony Padilla I am an operator at a local oil company here. My wife and I have I live in Orchard, we have two kids. Orchid was built on oil. It is a part of our history and our economy. These jobs and tax revenues pay for the parks, the schools, the youth sports. They are very – the very thing that makes the community great. The county is already facing big financial gaps.
Taking away major sources of local revenue and good paying jobs right now makes no sense. I'm asking the board to stop this phase completely. We can't protect them, we can protect environment without destroying the livelihoods of families who've kept this county running for generations. Let's focus on local control. Reliable energy and keeping Santa Barbara strong. Thank you
We will now go to Tito Laura to be followed by Philip Brown Tito
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Tito Lara. I am an engineer with Pacific Coast Energy. I started back in the oil industry in 2014 as a laborer on the rigs and I saw the value of hard work. In 2016, I decided to go back to school and study engineering. I graduated in 2020 from Cal State. Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Javier Martinez and I'm a senior at the University of Bakersfield with my engineering degree with a background in petroleum to build a better future for my family.
I am now doing the job I trained for providing for my wife and my kid and building their life here in Santa Barbara County. And worker safety. We are committed to doing things the right way. If oil and gas operations are phased out, it's not just the industry that gets shut down. It's a feature that I worked hard for. It's my paycheck, my family stability, our home. We're not asking for special treatment, just a chance to keep working, contributing and raising our families in the place we love.
Thank you for your time.
We will now go to Philip Brown to be followed by Maureen Ellenberger.
Good afternoon Chair, Caps and Board. As you heard my name is Philip Brown and I also work for Pacific Coast Energy Company. So PCC has been the owner and operator of Orchard Hill, the historic Orchard Hill oil field. It's a 125 years old field since 2004 so we are here to stay. We've been here a long time and as has already been mentioned we acquired the ex-Greco assets back in late 2023. So we haven't had them too long, but we've been working to make them compliant including as has been mentioned our intention is to obviously abandon the wells that we operate. That hasn't always been the case and so we have something like a thousand wells in the county. So we are the biggest operator now in the county so we take this issue very very seriously obviously And it doesn't, as we know I think it's pretty established that the consumption of crude oil in California has not declined as quickly as could be hoped.
Okay? It's flat little dip during COVID sure But it's really flat, but production in the county has fallen off a cliff. It's now less than 25% of the requirements for California. Now that is very low and uncomfortably low. And I think even there's been a guideline from the government office to not fall below 25%, but I could be mistaking on that. Whilst consumption is high and production is low, it makes no sense to me to import oil. Every barrel of oil that's shut in as part of this ordinance means a barrel imported from... Thank you, that is
your time.
Really? Sorry about that!
We will now go to Maureen Ellenberger to be followed by John Ullman. Maureen?
3:10 – 3:1511 turns
Good afternoon, Chair Kaps and Supervisors. My name is Maureen Ellenberger and I'm here to support the oil phase-out process and proposal. The economic case for this transition is clear. Global oil demand growth has slowed dramatically from 2% annually in 2023 to 1% in 2024 with the International Energy Agency projecting peak demand by 2030. China's oil consumption is declining rapidly due to many factors including their investment in clean energy and electric vehicle adoption. This isn't a temporary trend, it's a fundamental market shift. Currently California gas prices are disconnected from local production. Our refineries already import most of their crude oil because the Santa Barbara County's heavy tar like oil isn't the quality needed for efficient gasoline production.
The oil has an API gravity of 18 degrees or less making it among the dirtiest, hardest to extract oil in the United States. When Californians pay at the pump they're not paying for locally produced oil we import crude from Alaska South America and the Middle East because our oil is not suited for modern transportation fuel Continuing local production won't lower gas prices, but it will perpetuate environmental harm to our communities and our coast.
The oil industry itself recognizes these realities. New drilling permits in California collapsed from 2,664 in 2019 to just 73 in 2024, a 97% decline. Major oil companies aren't competing to drill new wells here because they understand the poor economics of our heavy crude and exhausted reserves. Meanwhile, we face a looming financial crisis. We've already seen potential liabilities of over $500 million for orphaned wells, wells abandoned by bankrupt operators with inadequate cleanup bonds.
Thank you that is your time.
Thank you.
We will now go to John Ullman to be followed by Colin Jones.
Hi, my name is Jonathan Ullman and I'm the director of the Santa Barbara Ventura Chapter of the Sierra Club representing more than 13,000 members and supporters. When you turn on the tap in any home in Santa Maria, the vast majority of the water comes from underground. Some years all of it comes from underground. Santa Maria relies on the Santa Maria groundwater basin. More than 200,000 people in northern Santa Barbara County rely on it every single day to drink and to bathe.
One of your highest priorities is to keep that water clean. But in the past 10 years, we've seen large out-of-state corporations try to squeeze the last pockets of this dirty heavy oil out of the ground using dangerous carbon intensive cyclic steam injection on a massive scale. Science shows us that oil contaminants are leaching through the cracks in the aquifer Expansion of oil drilling using steam injection significantly increases the likelihood that North County's underground source of drinking water will become contaminated.
But it's not just the water, already oil operations release 132,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. That's 11% of all greenhouse gases They also emit volatile organic compounds and fine particulates that cause asthma, heart disease and premature births. A phase out policy could prevent an estimated 54 to $81 million in mortality related costs by 2045. The oil industry has had a significant role in the economic history of Santa Barbara County.
But Santa Barbara County has changed dramatically, keeping such a declining industry propped up by a risky rube gold machine puts our health at tremendous risk.
Madam Chair can I ask a question really quick? Sir thank you for being here today. Can I just ask what community do you live in?
Santa Barbara County
Okay, so not North County? I'm just curious. I didn't know it was a trick question or anything. I'm sorry.
Facts are facts.
We will now go to Colin Jones to be followed by Nancy Avosi. Colin.
And let's just remember it's getting a little excuse me just is there some chatter while people are speaking if we can just please keep respect. Thank you.
3:15 – 3:216 turns
Chairman Capps and members of the board. The League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara asks, thanks you for the opportunity to give our support for stopping new oil and gas well drilling and to safely close existing wells in Santa Barbara County. To ignore or put off working to limit the effects of the county's major sources of greenhouse gases and air, soil and water pollution events just increases the problems that makes them harder or more costly to solve.
We support local efforts to limit climate change. The effects of global warming both locally and worldwide on our safety health and economy have increased to alarming levels The central coast is home to many endangered and sensitive plants and animal species and environments. Oil spills and events have harmed these species, they need our protection especially as they are already suffering impacts from climate change.
We support the county's efforts to study and mitigate the effects on economy of phasing out oil Such as the ideas of connecting the oil workers jobs to closing down aging wells and using these wells for green energy. Thank you.
We will now go to Nancy Avosi, to be followed by Ted Cordova. Nancy?
Good afternoon County Supervisors. On behalf of Santa Barbara County Action Network, SBCAN, we thank you for considering this ordinance to protect our environment, health and communities. We urge you to continue preparing actions to phase out oil drilling to achieve our climate goals. Considering our history, we should lead the way in climate action. I respect the employees of oil companies who are represented today and can understand why phasing out oil and gas may not be part of everybody's agenda. But in my ask for you all to protect our communities through sustainable actions, I also urge the county to continue to both promote and help create clean jobs that prioritize the hiring of this workforce at competitive rates.
A carbon neutral economy is possible for our county and for California if we work together. We have the will to find the alternatives that use clean energy for our roads and other infrastructure. The goal is in fact, to decrease dependence on oil and gas not to grow more dependent on oil from other countries. These efforts must come from county residents, but also be led by those who make oil and gas so accessible.
SPCAN cares about our county residents' jobs, but we also have to care about everybody's health and safety. As always, SPCAN is grateful for the opportunity to provide input, and we would be happy to participate in conversations that strategize how to move forward together. Thank you.
We will now go to Ted Cordova to be followed by Haley Ehlers.
Dear Chair Caps and Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. My name is Ted Cordova and I'm here representing EMB Natural Resources and specifically our local energy production in Cuyama. EMB responsibly operates the local energy production in the South Cuyama field located in the eastern portion of Santa Barbara County.
More importantly these operations also provide much needed careers in a remote area that otherwise had limited economic prospects. I would like to start by thanking the Board of Supervisors for They coach sports in the community as you've heard from others. They serve on boards, they serve on their local school boards. We offer summer internships to Cuyama High School seniors that are not on path to go to college. It's a small school, it's 15 seniors so we give them tours, we offer internships. One accepted this summer a full-time offer after their summer internship. So we are a pathway for a lot of people for good careers, especially those who need a second chance in life.
Those stories are abundant in our company and we're proud of that. These are the types of opportunities that are needed in a small town such as Cuyama. And to be clear, we are not opposed to a transition in the future. several things have to take place. We have to partner with the county, we have to have good conversations, a lot of studies, we have to think about our workers and we need to look at innovation in technologies that we've spoken about today so it's possible and we have spent time researching investigating and exploring other carbon reduction and clean energy projects and as you heard We've gotten grant funding, we've done large solar projects. It doesn't have to be a choice between the economy and the environment. We can lead on both and we appreciate the model.
Thank you that is your time. And opportunity to be able to create that win-win here thank you.
We will now go to Haley Ehlers to be followed by Kevin Ivey.
3:21 – 3:278 turns
Hi, my name is Haley Ehlers with Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas or CFROG an organization dedicated to protecting community health climate and our economy. We want to reiterate that these ordinances are well within the jurisdiction of the county to regulate oil and gas pollution Just last month, LA City introduced a draft ordinance of a similar nature where in Los Angeles County and Culver City are also working on similar ordinances. While these policies were reintroduced after 3233 was made law they are still very much alive and valid. Santa Barbara County is in good company in protecting public health and our climate.
The oil and gas industry is an important part of our region's history and our story. And just as Santa Barbara County was an innovative player in this industry in the early 19th century, we know we can be an innovative player in the necessary transition away from extraction and pollution to clean energy. The climate crisis does not allow business-as-usual, and the attacks on frontline community members' health and well-being cannot be continued to be allowed by this government.
We support the initiative proposed today by UCSB's Community Labor Center on authentic worker and community engagement in this transition. If we're going to talk about the un-American influence of money in government, it would be inauthentic to not mention the tens of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions that some supervisors have received directly from oil and gas interests or the $17 million spent on lobbying at the state level in just the first half of 2025.
by this industry. This responsible and managed decline plan is essential to fulfill the county's essential service delivery promise of a safe, healthy and prosperous life especially for the over 30,000 Santa Barbara County residents who live within an unsafe distance to a toxic oil and gas well over 60% of whom are people of color who have been at the front lines of fossil fuel pollution for over a century thank you
We will now go to Kevin Ivey to be followed by Katie Davis.
Supervisors, good afternoon. Kevin Ivey. I am a royalty owner and chairman of the Cal Royalty Network Committee of the California Independent Petroleum Association. We are the more than 500,000 middle class royalty owners that own the mineral rights below the surface throughout the state of California and we lease these mineral rights to independent operators like the fellows that you see here today that drill and produce the transportation fuels and the consumer products that sustain life here in California.
We count thousands of royalty owners in Santa Barbara County. As royalty owners, we all look forward to a clean energy future but despite our best efforts, we have not yet reached that energy transition and we need environmentally compliant labor-friendly Santa Barbara produced oil to get there. But there's just one thing. If we learned anything from the No Kings marches this last weekend, we cannot act like imperial monarchs and take the private property rights of Santa Barbara County mineral rights owners without paying just compensation which will result from the oil and gas phase-out plan that we're contemplating today.
In March this year, the Oil & Gas Ordinance which was referred to just a moment ago was found to be unconstitutional invalid and unenforceable by the county superior court AB 3233, which we have mentioned here today is no cover for Santa Barbara County. It will be shown to be unconstitutional because the state constitution preempts local county governments from regulating matters of statewide concern like oil and gas production. So if we intend to approve the proposal before us today, we must be honest with taxpayers in Santa Barbara County. We must be prepared to budget millions of annual legal fees to defend against the royalty owner lawsuits that will certainly follow. Ask our own county council they will agree.
Then, we must budget billions of dollars in payouts that will certainly result as we lose the property takings claims to royalty owners in court.
Thank you. That is your time.
Thank you. I encourage that we vote down or at least table the motion today. Thank you.
We will now go to Katie Davis to be followed by Edward Hazard. Katie?
Yes, here to support staff recommendations and thank them for their work on coming up with a plan of phases. As we have learned the remaining oil here is heavy energy intensive and some of the most polluting and expensive oil in the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. On top of the 1.2 million tons tracked in the County Climate Action Plan, that would have increased greenhouse gas emissions in the county by 63% when our goal is to cut them in half. That's clearly the wrong direction for this county.
Alternate uses for the land... The oil just brings in 1.7 million in property taxes, that's 0.01% of county revenue and jobs it's a relatively small .0023% of county total employment. Alternate uses create more revenue and better jobs. Just a planned transition is a better way to do this than having bankruptcies, booms and busts, people thrown out of work. This way we can plan for the transition because we are seeing a decrease in demand for these products. In California, 25% of new cars are electric. Gasoline use actually peaked 20 years ago in 2004 and has been on a steady decline. There are alternate, there is now bio-asphalt. There are other ways to make asphalt that are going to disrupt this market too so planning for that and seeing that we have a transition, seeing how we can transition the labor force is a better way to do it than just leaving it to chance and seeing the bankruptcies and cleanups that were left with which is what we're currently on.
That's the default. Thank you
We will now go to Edward Hazard to be followed by Nikki Tlaiby. Edward?
3:27 – 3:4215 turns
Chair Kaps and Supervisors, thank you for allowing me to speak. You'll excuse me I'm getting over a bad cold. My name is Ed Hazard. I am president of the California chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners My family and I are Santa Barbara County mineral and royalty owners. My family came to this county in the 1870s, and has been a vital part of this county, and in the establishment of the city of Santa Maria et cetera.
I would like to offer to staff and whomever you're hiring to do this amortization study To work with them and with our legal counsel because our belief is that you cannot amortize a depleting asset. And it's outlined by our attorney in the letter that we submitted for public comment In addition, I agree with everything that Kevin Ivy said. 3233 we are very involved in that. We are plaintiffs in that in Los Angeles and it will be decided we believe in Los Angeles fairly soon. We also believe strongly that it is an unconstitutional law and will be thrown out.
I would recommend that you forego taking any action today unless that action is to completely reject this phase out. I think you owe it to your taxpayers and your citizens to mitigate the financial risk to them both in taxes and costs and expenses of fighting legal battles over this, and the potential liability that you may incur through takings claims. So I urge you to either postpone a decision put this down the road or reject the phase-out proposal totally thank you
We will now go to Nikki Tlaiby, to be followed by Julie McCaslin. Nikki?
Good morning Chair Kaps and board members it's nice to see you all my name is Nikki Tlaiby and I'm here representing UCSB's Environmental Affairs Board. I want to say thank you I really appreciate your work in this oil phase-out and your plan. I also want to thank the staff for their hard work researching and planning here I understand hesitancy to adopt clean energy and phase out oil, but it is completely necessary if we want to sustain the coastlines and environment that SB residents love so dearly. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how compliant and clean these companies are disasters still happen And the production that occurs continues to pollute our air and waterways contributing to major public health issues.
While this ordinance is an amazing first step, I hope that this planning process will result in a clear path and timeline of oil phase out in Santa Barbara And I urge you all to prohibit new extraction or production facilities. Additionally, I acknowledge that it is difficult for those in the oil industry to transition and find new work so in order to support a just transition, I also ask that you commission a workforce development study and program to assist oil and gas industry workers in their transition to other employment sectors This can be done thoroughly and properly. The energy transition is going to have to happen, so we must start now in order for it to be a just process and consider the environmental justice impacts.
Thank you for your time.
We will now go to Julie McCasland to be followed by Eric Vasquez.
Yes, good afternoon to the Board of Supervisors and Ms. Katz I guess. My name is Julie McCaslin and in my career as an asphalt marketer our former company purchased your Santa Maria crude oil barrels processed that oil and supplied liquid asphalt to your county's asphalt batch plants at Buellton, Gary, and Sisquack Coastal California heavy crude oil, while spoken of widely this morning as being dirty oil in Santa Maria has some of the best asphalt qualities in the country. Barrels produced here exceed the standards engineered for high performance at the UC Pavement Research Center at Berkeley to meet the federal government's SuperPave goals.
There are three points I want to raise with you today. Asphalt pavement is critical to our transportation infrastructure. 100% recyclable product, far superior to its concrete counterpart in terms of its impact of greenhouse gas on the environment. And I want to mention today that as a former editor for the California Asphalt Magazine, the current issue of California Asphalt is discussing the environment and the industry in California since we're the largest road network in the country is looking at how to carbon capture Moving forward in terms of at the hot mix plant and also on the job site. The industry as a whole has done very well in terms of capturing blue smoke and making their facilities very environmentally friendly.
The highest and best use of taxpayers' dollars for road construction is on locally sourced quality materials. Should you phase out oil production in Santa Barbara County, those small independent refineries in San Joaquin Valley And in Los Angeles that are dependent on trucked barrels will be forced to pay more money and get less quality oil to produce the asphalt needed, not just for major construction which was mentioned this morning. More than 2,000 tons of oil is used. That's 80 loads of asphalt. Thank you. That may be two weeks of asphalt.
Thank you.
We will now go to Eric Vasquez to be followed by Tatiana Searle. Eric?
Good afternoon, Chair Kapsch, member of the board. My name is Eric Vasquez and I'm here representing Asfalta LLC. We are an asphalt producer located in northern Santa Barbara. We operate around seven miles east of the city of Santa Maria. Been active in the county here for over 15 years currently operating around 50 oil and gas wells and we drilled about 12 wells last year. I believe we're the most active driller in the state of California The oil we produce is heavy, that's been mentioned today. It's around the heaviest around it's really the consistency of peanut butter if you were to see it today and it's predominantly used for the prediction asphalt emulsion which goes onto our roads or bike paths parking lots here and around the central California and the coast One thing I wanted to bring up today is since May when I think the board directed staff to come back today, there's been a big change in how Sacramento has approached its energy policy.
Governor Newsom directed his California Energy Commission to go out and take a look at what's happening in the state of California and come back and advise him on how to move forward. And that resulted in SB 237, which just was adopted last month. And if you're not familiar with it please look it up and understand what that addressed. It actually had some components here for Santa Barbara County but it really addressed the statewide issue of keeping California oil going to keep our refineries going and provide California with the transition that's been mentioned so many times today. That word has been really thrown around I've probably heard it 30-40 times already today Sacramento has recognized that the transition is in place, and we believe that as well.
But I don't think a ban is a transition. And so I ask that the county adopt, consider forming an energy advisory commission to advise you on some energy policies going forward.
Thank you, that is your time.
And specifically address how you're gonna deal with asphalt here in the county, thank you.
We will now go to Tatiana Surley, to be followed by Albert Oten. Tatiana?
Good afternoon my name is Tatiana Surley and I stand here today representing myself a resident of Santa Barbara science and all ocean enthusiasts An avid surfer, paddle boarder, sailor, windsurfer, kitesurfer, kayaker, canoer, you name it. I am certain that my hobbies and the hobbies of millions of people would not be possible with another oil spill. In 2023 ocean-based tourism and recreation alone contributed approximately $225 billion to the gross domestic product of the United States. The risk to this industry alone holds economic argument in itself.
Holding a master's degree in environmental science and management from UCSB's Bren School, one of the top research institutions in the nation, likely the world, I can assure you that phasing out fossil fuels is essential for protecting our coasts and our lands not only for future generations but for our own generations. I stand here not because I believe I am entitled to playing in the ocean, but rather because reducing oil production and ultimately phasing out fossil fuels entirely will have lasting impacts for the Santa Barbara community, its ecosystems and beyond.
A phase-out policy here alone could prevent the release of 344,072 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2045 with avoided climate damages valued at a minimum of $21.8 million. To put this into perspective using the thousand ton rule, this would equate to 344 people globally on track to die prematurely from climate change solely due to Santa Barbara County's emissions. We need to look at the bigger picture, the long-term costs. It's not just about a $500,000 budget line item.
Please vote in support of Santa Barbara County Oil and Gas phaseout ordinance. We are Santa Barbara. We must lead by example. I stand here today looking out for our community, not our corporations and I hope that you all do too. Thank you.
We will now go to Albert Oten to be followed by Michael Chiakis. Albert?
Hi guys, I'm Albert Oten. I just want to start by saying that I really respect the decorum and deference that you show each other. It's super important and I wanted to let you know that I see that and I really appreciate it. Now I'm going to scream at you. I'm a board member of a small food company in town. It struck me that we have some of the same problems that you guys have had over the past three years, the staff of the company has tried to work with a large partner and a channel category that I wasn't sure about and they proceeded to lose a lot of money.
And I said how exactly are we going to fix this? They said well we're just going through a scaling process. We're gonna add another partner that's very similar to this one And after two years, they almost ran us into bankruptcy of scaling. And so we had to bail them out with our money and I said we're not going to do that anymore, we can't do that anymore. We haven't laid anybody off, but we've redirected the people involved with my company to the parts of the business that are actually profitable.
And if we do make it and it's still sketchy, it'll be because of that decision. And it struck me that it's similar here. In the 1940s oil companies abandoned wells and today we spend $2 million in taxpayer money to cap those wells. In 89, the Cosmilia field was declared a Superfund site. We spent $60 million and today we spend 4 million a year trying to clean that up. 2015, Venico was sort of an innocent downwind impact and they end up costing taxpayers $350 million. And then we have Greco which you guys have already heard about with $36 million.
So all of those have been really taxing so here's my proposal I agree with you that the people in this room, this side of the room they deserve good jobs. They're good people. I disagree with maybe the industry so I propose that I pay for unlimited margaritas we go for a party van to Lancaster and then we all have a group hug together and get them really good jobs that pay a lot of money to them.
We can agree on that right?
Thank you that is your time We will now go to Michael Chiakos to be followed by Randy Musco. Michael?
Hard to follow that up. My name is Michael Chiakos, representing Community Environmental Council and we are strongly in favor of the staff recommendation. California has a carbon neutrality by 2045 target that was codified into law in 2022 with AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act. More oil extraction is completely at odds to the state law. Many of Santa Barbara County's oil fields peaked in the 1950s. The data are clear, oil production here is already phasing out. The question is whether we phase out responsibly or let the decline happen chaotically?
The oil industry is notorious for privatizing the benefits and externalizing the costs. Revenues to the county from local oil production are now just $1.7 million in property taxes. Compare that to the $36 million it costs taxpayers to plug 171 orphan wells left by Greca after their bankruptcy, or the estimated $348 million to shut down Veneco's operations after their bankruptcy.
California is quickly transitioning away from oil into electric vehicles. California oil usage peaked in 2006 and has been declining since. Last quarter, 29.1% of new passenger vehicles sold in California were EVs. In 2024 medium and heavy duty the big trucks, the FedEx vehicles, electric school buses you see were 23% of new vehicle sales that was double the state's target While we lead our nation, China just hit 59% EV market share. In Norway it's at 99%.
EVs keep getting cheaper and better and their sales are accelerating globally. For these reasons and others the county should start now to prohibit new oil drilling and work on a plan to phase out existing wells. Thank you.
3:42 – 3:4820 turns
We will now go to Randy Moskal to be followed by Brian Garcia. Randy?
Good afternoon. I am not Randy, but Randy had to go deal with a family matter.
Did you did you fill out a slip though? We just need to make sure your
right. I'm going to give I'm going to deliver his comment,
but we needed your name.
Oh sure, sure, sure. You
fell out of
slip. I did and then I was told I couldn't give a public comment so I'm trying to give Randy's public comment, but I can give you my name. My name is Olivia Simonson.
Madam Clerk, you could. So she didn't fill out a slip How many more do we have? Okay, we're fine but if you come back next time. We had already closed public comment by the time you got here. Right,
but Randy had to go deal with a family
member. Yeah it just doesn't work like that so okay. But then we have five more so you're fined
please proceed. And
if he could
please just give your first and last name to the clerk when you're done that'd be great thank you
please proceed. So my name is Olivia Simonson And I'm giving comment on behalf of Randy Moskal.
Thank
you. Randy is a resident of Carpinteria, he has been in the oil and gas industry his whole career and he is the manager and partner of a service company called California Well Services. And California Well Services operates in Santa Barbara County including providing services to companies like PCEC and they do things like well elimination, well work some of the critical services that we've been talking about today And they are basically, they do like the doctor's office work for all the wall bores.
Randy's employees are from all walks of life including the formerly incarcerated and they found work in his company that allowed them to have a sense of pride in being able to provide for their families with a well-paying job. That's what every single guy and gal in this room wearing blue represents today. They have futures that are on the line based on your votes today.
And they believe in showing up for their community. You've heard from so many of us about the work that we do, supporting local schools, sports teams, golf tournaments, nonprofits, you name it. Companies like Randy's and Randy and the guys and gals in this room represent that community outreach and giving back because we live here and we work here and we recreate here and kayak here and we enjoy having a better environment for all of us We believe strongly in energy growth and in all of the above energy strategy.
You will need oil and gas for decades to come, but innovation is critical. You've heard that in the room from E&B Natural Resources and more. Shutting down this industry while demand is still high with no real alternatives is not a solution. So thank you for voting no today and supporting companies and people like Randy.
We will now go to Brian Garcia to be followed by Pancho. Brian?
Hello, my name is Brian Garcia. I live in Bakersfield where I've worked in the oil industry for years for Well Analysis Corporation where I'm the sales and public relations manager. I represent our hardworking oil workers through CROWN which is the California Oil Workers Network As of 2024, roughly 94,000 people are currently working for and dedicating their lives to our wonderful industry.
A percentage of those live and work in the area while others may not live in the area but work and are still provided opportunities here due to the services that are still necessary. I used to travel here to Santa Barbara frequently for work on drilling sites and production operations. The industry was thriving, and I was hopeful about moving here, eager to become a hardworking asset to this vibrant community. But with the growing restrictions on oil production, those opportunities have faded, and my dream of becoming a hard-working citizen here in Santa Barbara is no longer an option.
Eliminating drilling and oil production in this city would be disastrous for the community. It's not just about my story, it's about thousands of families who rely on the high-paying jobs this industry provides from work workers to local businesses that economic ripple effect is massive Oil revenue funds our schools, roads and public services. Without it we risk budget cuts, higher taxes or weakened community programs. Plus local production bolsters energy independence keeping fuel prices stable and reducing reliance on foreign oil. I've witnessed a plethora amount of oil workers have to leave Bakersfield and move to other states to chase their jobs in livelihood. And the way that has directly affected Bakersfield in a negative manner is undeniable.
You don't want the after effects of that here in Santa Barbara Today, oil and gas operations are cleaner and more responsible than ever. Modern drilling uses advanced technologies like precision directional drilling which minimizes land disruption and state-of-the-art emissions controls that drastically cut environmental impact. These innovations ensure we can produce energy sustainably while protecting Santa Barbara's beauty. I urge to oppose this measure by supporting responsible modern drilling. We can preserve jobs, strengthen our economy, and put hardworking people like me back to work in this community. Let's keep opportunity alive Thank you.
We will now go to Poncho to be followed by Ben Oakley. Poncho?
3:48 – 3:545 turns
Good afternoon everybody, thank you guys for allowing us to be here today. So I've been in Cat Canyon which is in the northern county for almost half more than half of my life actually. I've seen a lot of these guys in this room today come in higher on as laborers, painters in some cases. They are supervisors in their current roles. No other industry that I know of really provides that.
A lot of these guys are high school graduates, barely high school graduates like myself. And the oil industry has allowed people like us to grow and prosper in Santa Barbara County. That means giving back to the county, right? We've all been able to give back to the counties you guys have heard today. Very many industries that I know do that. Sorry, let me go through my notes real quick.
So I'm mostly here to speak on behalf of those guys. Our company is in Cat Canyon. We have some local mom and pop shops, some employing 4 to 10 people, some 10 to 20, some hundreds. Nonetheless, every single one of those employees like everyone here has a family to go home to. Numbers are captured in the 10s and 20s of employees that are going to be affected by this.
I know personally hundreds of employees' families, family members by name that will be affected by this. So you guys have heard it once or twice but I'm here to speak on behalf of those guys and hope that you guys make the right choice in the future. Thank you.
We will now go to Ben Oakley to be followed by Mike Ombro. Ben?
Good afternoon, Ben Oakley with the Western States Petroleum Association and first of all I'll admit my did not renew my subscription to Asphalt Magazine. Anyways, we're here to urge the board to reject this proposal. It runs contrary to the most recent state policy that was mentioned earlier aimed at bolstering in-state production to maintain a stable transportation fuels market in California. That's SB 237 which was passed by legislature and signed by the governor recently It also makes continued operations in Santa Barbara County less profitable and more at risk of failure.
Operators need to have the ability to maintain production in order to ensure sufficient revenue sources to continue meeting their state-mandated idle well management obligations that we heard about earlier today. The proposal erroneously suggests that Santa Barbara County can find the ordinance exempt from CEQA. So it's just not clear at all why one phase of this project requires an EIR, but another phase the county is proposing to find it exempt.
CEQA exemptions do not apply if the proposed project has an obvious impact on the environment. Increasing dependence on foreign oil is one such environmental impact that the county will need to contemplate when conducting environmental review. Bans on new drilling necessarily result in declining production because all wells have declining rates of production.
That lost production has to be made up to meet demand, and where it is made up from has environmental impact. An example of that is increased emissions from transportation of crude oil from foreign countries or trucking. The county should also avoid using amortization as a means to avoid taking claims. And I see that I'm running out of time, so I'll just make the point that we question the validity and legitimacy of amortization as a blanket policy to reduce taking claims generally. Thank you very much.
We will now go to Mike Ombro to be followed by Pasha Madhavi who is our final speaker.
Hello, thank you. My name is Mike Umbro with an organization called Californians for Energy and Science Hopefully this one of these last comments we can focus on some science here California's consumed over 500 million barrels of crude for the last 40 plus years So this anybody saying demand is declining is just not presenting the truth It's specific to Santa Barbara This is an active region The Chumash discovered oil here thousands of years ago based on oil seeps. National Geographic actually says they had smaller head sizes so you can imagine the amount of volatile organic compounds that were freely being released into this atmosphere, into this ecosystem at that time. Thankfully we learned how to produce it which is the only way to reduce natural crude oil seeps and reduce the emissions that you're going to see if you shut down this industry The Santa Barbara Channel is home to some of the largest natural oil and gas seeps in the world, emitting methane, ethane, propane, benzene and other VOCs.
UC Santa Barbara's Marine Science Institute has published multiple studies on this documenting that the seeps account for more hydrocarbon emissions than all permitted offshore platforms combined during production years. That's a lot! Pressure depletion from oil production reduces seeps. As reservoir pressure drops, we reduce the amount of airborne hydrocarbon concentrations which fell dramatically when they studied the performance at ExxonMobil's Holley platform and this was also verified by UCSB, NASA and CARB between 1990 and 2010. So if you shut down this industry, you will ruin your tourism business Nobody wants to come to a community where you smell it in the air and you walk, and it's all over your feet. You're gonna cause a major environmental problem if you shut this industry down.
We're the only thing stopping it from being a tar pit swamp. Thank you.
3:54 – 3:5916 turns
Okay we almost made it let's see next last one.
And we will now go to Pasha Madhavi who is our final speaker.
Thank you very much. And I think I have some slides as well that I submitted? Yes, they're
ready. Perfect.
My name is Pasha Madhavi. I'm a professor at UCSB where I teach and research political economy of energy and statistics. I'll speak to questions surrounding the quality and economics of our county's oil. I am glad there is a nice prompt to get to the science so I'd like to talk about some data that's directly sourced from state agencies in scientific reports from Petroleum Engineers.
These have been submitted to the board as part of a report, which I'll summarize briefly here but happy to answer any questions should they arise. So I'd like to highlight three points from this report. Number one because of the energy intensity of California's production as we've heard today our state's oil has higher emissions than nearly all other oil supplied to state refineries on a per barrel basis, even when factoring in emissions from processing and shipping. This is from CARB.
It's also more expensive again even after accounting for getting the oil to refineries. Point two and this is the next slide. This is the case for our counties fields as well, two of which are highlighted here. This is methane intensity in particular These numbers are likely underestimates when it comes to expanded or extended operations such as steam injection, which generates even greater greenhouse gas emissions compared to historic levels.
And now to the last slide. Point three, most of the county's existing oil wells have likely recovered their initial investments in capital costs. Of course we will need to do amortization About 62% of our county's oil wells are about as old as I am, so more than 40 years old. About roughly half, 51%, of all existing active wells have produced 100,000 barrels of oil which means on average that each well has generated $7.3 million in revenue above industry estimates for average drilling and completion costs.
So as we consider an oil phase out here in Santa Barbara, let us be a light for all other oil producing regions in the country and the world. And showing how we can deliberately and innovatively manage an orderly transition towards clean energy. Thank you for your time.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Okay, thank you for all of our 56 speakers. Really appreciate the perspectives from so many people. So now we'll go back to the board with any questions first before comments or deliberations. Any questions? Supervisor
Nelson. Yes I have a few questions. Thank You Chair Caps. New wells, I don't know if that's defined. Do you have a definition that we're talking about here?
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. I mean when we say new wells, what we intended was the drilling of a new well in the county. A new hole?
Yes. That's helpful thank you. How do we deal with those that are existing entitlements that are out there if there would be a ban on Because there's some people that have gone through an entitlement process, they've gone through the CEQA process is all part of that. So how does that impact the new will? Are those already considered part of our inventory and would not be considered new wills or are you just talking about new permits?
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. So we do have some facilities that are in that category and I think that would be something that would be determined throughout the process, but currently they have their entitlements and they could move forward, but. I mean, I think we need to analyze that a little bit more closely.
Is that analysis or is that policy?
Well, I'm thinking. OK,
well, I got another one. Yeah,
let me come back to that.
And then the other one was I think there was some really enlightening conversations about asphalt and oil produced for asphalt. And I guess my question both for both departments is is that part of the consideration at all? In this, do we look at wells potentially different based on whether it's used for asphalt versus whether the oil is used for creating gasoline?
3:59 – 4:0416 turns
Well, the first phase if the board approves moving in that direction is as Ms. Plowman mentioned to prohibit any new holes from being dug. The material that the board received has some thoughtful questions that we have to look at from the asphalt company up in Santa Maria in particular and of course Director Sneddon spoke about implications to our own operation so I believe that needs some further research.
The prohibition is not intended to be all-encompassing as much as it is to deal with, in the initial phase, the drilling of new wells, new holes.
What if those holes produce the oil that's used for asphalt?
When we come back with the ordinance on the phasing out, we'll have to speak to that question directly and the board will need to decide if that's an appropriate course of action.
All right. And then I'm asked a question about amortization, does that take into because it's a mathematic calculation or financial calculation? So would that include the abandonment remediation costs as part of that calculation?
It's my understanding that that's factored into the total cost of essentially discontinuing that function.
Right so those costs have to be absorbed Which means a longer amortization period potentially. So that those can be, because those are additional expenses which would bring revenues down which mean the amortization period would be longer right?
Right so they're going to be taking into account all of the capital acquisition operating and shutdown costs and then look at that against a reasonable return and come forward with a suggested time frame.
Okay and I guess my last question on the kind of CEQA for planning, you know this two-phase approach that i've been critical of. You know there's maybe planning can speak to that doesn't CEQAs discourage piece milling projects so that you can bring things into you're taking a project and breaking it into pieces? Isn't that something that CEQAS discourages aren't there isn't there a lot of law around that?
Yeah, Supervisor Nielsen generally that is correct. But there are circumstances where it may make sense to have 2 steps in a particular process. And it's really is the board's discretion as to whether or not they want to take this into steps or in one step. But I think there was a sense that maybe But I think in our assessment of it. Determine that we thought it would be piecemealing of the overall process.
Again, you haven't also done an initial study yet to determine?
We haven't done the work yet. So based on our professional judgment and working on environmental documents for many, many years that it's possible that it might qualify for a lesser document but we still need to do the analysis.
There's also possibility it might qualify for more robust document
Anything, it's possible. It's possible but we'll have to look at it a little bit more closely but we were leaning towards either an exemption or possibly in MND. I did want to get back to your other question. I'm sorry I sort of stumbled there. I was trying to recall what our conversations were internally but projects typically when we have an ordinance and we amend our ordinance if somebody has an entitlement they're allowed to pursue that entitlement And so any removal of the right to drill these wells that they have not drilled would be considered as part of that amortization process.
Okay,
thank you.
Do we have any idea how many new wells we've approved in the last decade or since I've been here? I mean do you have any idea number of wells we've approved in the last decade?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Lavagnino. That's a tough one. Last 10 years, I think the last wells that we approved actively were in 2019 and then tracing back before that there Santa Maria Energy was in 2013. That was about 110 wells, I think I heard that number earlier. Just estimating total in the last 12 years probably about 200 maybe 250.
4:04 – 4:1523 turns
And all of those come before this board and the Planning Commission and have all kinds of hearings and determine reason, reasonableness. On appeal? Yes. Not necessarily as the original decision maker but yeah. Correct. But okay. And how many wells have been drilled that haven't been appealed and come to the Board? I think only Vaccaro maybe? Petro Rock, yeah.
Petro Rock, Santa Maria Energy. Those are the two that immediately come to mind. Okay. Thank you. PCEC
Supervisor Hartman.
Oh, I'm back to idle wells and a question. And we talked about the definition but I'm also interested in this was Director Armas and I were talking in the break whether it might be possible for the county to work with CalGEM to develop a protocol for idle wells well actually for the issue with 2531 Petroleum code where we're waiting till the very end until you start remediation on a site.
Could you speak to how that might work?
Our brief conversation was in recognition that the county doesn't have the ability to deal with abandonment. And so what we'd want to explore, at least at the staff level is whether there's a mechanism for us to notify CalGEM when wells have reached a certain point among the entire field so that it's not simply awaiting the final well. Whether that's functional or not I think we need to examine and that's what I was trying to convey.
So, I'm interested in pursuing that exploring how we address that in some way and this is one strategy
Okay, actually I had a question for Professor Madabi if that's okay with your report. I know we two minutes is not a lot of time so just two questions just if you can help me understand how you including your report that Our wells are, have the highest across the state in terms of greenhouse gases. Why? Can you explain just flesh that out a little bit for me? Why is the oil here more intense?
Yeah, absolutely. Chair Kaps, thank you for that question. So to start I mean the first piece relates to this question of in-state production and why California's wells in general are so much more energy intensive or rather higher in greenhouse gas emissions? The two that I showed on the graph there in our county, so it's Orkut as well as Cat Canyon Do you have higher rates of methane intensity? Part of that is through leakage. But then when you take the total greenhouse gas intensity, the issue is the amount of energy it takes to get oil out of the ground. That's a big part of it now. Of course there's been a lot of great conversation about innovative techniques that can reduce that greenhouse gas intensity. That has not been the case in these fields at least as that's been tracked both by CARB and by petroleum engineers I'll add that that data from CARB has an annual public comment period.
Each operator and field can question those estimates. This is not something that is set in stone going forward, so that's where a lot of the information comes from. So
this is state data?
This is state data, and then there's supplemental data that's based on petroleum engineering scientific studies, yes.
And then there's been a lot of talk about demand and gas prices, et cetera. Can you speak to that? I know you referenced in the report that California can still meet its demand even with fewer wells.
Absolutely. Thank you for that question Chair Caps. Vice Chair Gunda, who's the vice chair of the California Energy Commission had issued a fairly thorough report in response to the governor. It was something that was brought up during public comment. In that response and in fact as a result of those conversations DPMO, the Department of Petroleum Market Oversight has analyzed the data to see that indeed the issue when it comes to refinery closures and demand may not be as acute as the public is suggesting. In particular, there are two problems. One is the actual input of crude oil into those refineries that can be fully handled by imports of both foreign and Alaskan oil. That is what the vice chair has indicated, that is what the CEC has indicated our ports do have the capacity to manage that import so it is separate from this issue.
Santa Barbara's oil contributes about 1.6 percent of the oil that is processed by in-state refineries so that's fairly minimal again can be replaced or offset with imports whether from Alaska or from abroad both on a cost competitive basis and of course they are cleaner greenhouse gases.
Yeah thanks for that, go
ahead. Yes I was just going to get to the point about demand so the CEC's own demand projection scenarios across all three both a slow fast and a rapid projection still see that in-state refineries after the closure of the Phillips 66 and the Valera refineries is still going to be met by existing refinery capacity. Where there will be shortages, such as the fire which was devastating two weeks ago down in Wilmington can be made up with an increase in marine imports of gasoline but by and large the state is not in as crisis of a situation as has been painted
Yeah, thank you for that. And I when yeah, I just I actually wanted to so you know there was a lot of flurry of activity towards the end of the legislative session related to our energy needs and and so I wanted to find out from the source and so I met with Vice Chair of the Energy Commission Gunda yesterday and he He looked at our framework, he reiterated that our output is minuscule. It's 1.6%.
And he did not say that this gave him any cause for concern. In fact, he thought that this was very much aligned with the state's priorities of quote, doubling down on transition. And so we were able to connect Vice Chair of the Energy Commission thanks to Assemblymember Hart's office and with our team to look at this framework and make sure that we're headed in the right direction with this framework. And again he He was very, you know, very happy to make the connection and also to understand that we're doing this very methodically. Very methodically with his proposed amortization plan that would take decades. And so I think it's really important not to realize that as much as oil production is extremely important to those who are here in this room has been historically that it does represent 1.6% of our state's oil production.
So to that end, I just wanted to ask one more question of our team of Director Armas amortization. It was brought up again. I want to thank those who work in the industry for being here. I learned a lot from many of you and your stories and your heartfelt sentiments And particularly the person I'm making eye contact with right now, when you said the words you said this is not a light switch and that I hear you. And I just wanted to ask Director Armas when you've looked at other plans around the state what's the sort of a time period that people are, that jurisdictions are looking at when they are looking into phasing out oil and gas operations?
Based on our observations and our review of the material, the prevailing pattern seems to be a 20-year time horizon. And that's also the subject of an ordinance that's before the City of Los Angeles which is expected to act on it later this year or early next year with that kind of timeframe in mind.
And I'm very interested and we talked about this the last time that we, this board took this topic up. But I know, I know this isn't a... There are some companies in industries where some employees that have been working on drilling transition into the decommissioning and we can certainly learn from those examples is that correct?
I would say yes.
Okay, thank you professor. Was there another question over here? Just a comment. Chair Kaps. Those are just two questions. Chair
Kaps, I did have a question. Okay Supervisor
Hartman
Yeah. I was looking at your report about the decline, the projected 30 percent decline by 2045 in gasoline consumption and I wonder in California and I wonder if you could just elaborate on that those are again California Energy Commission studies it's not you pulling numbers out of a hat
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. That is indeed correct that is from the California Energy Commission from the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight it also employs CARB data those are projections that are updated again annually they are based on a pretty wide range of scientific studies as well as the data that the state collects we've heard before that we have seen already historically a dramatic decline in gasoline consumption, in particular, in the state since going back to 2008.
But these numbers again they're from the state directly. They have an open comment period. They are using state data provided to the state by oil and gas companies, by refineries, by distributors, by many others. So this is not me pulling any data from anywhere else other than the State of California which has published this work. Thank you.
4:15 – 4:255 turns
I think it looks like we're done with questions, any comments, final comments or deliberation?
Sure.
I know you're all looking at me to lead off so why not?
Certainly let's do it.
Well first off I just want to say I appreciate everybody that's here. We handled this very diplomatically and I thought everybody did a good job So just a couple of responses to some of the stuff I heard at public comment. And I've been a firm supporter of transition, but you know we're hyping that electric vehicles are now at 23% or 24%. What we don't say is 77% of people still want It's great that 23% are over here and I know that number is actually kind of stagnating at this point.
It seems like we do cherry pick stats. The other stat I heard was, well it's only .0023% of jobs. It's easy to say when it's not your job. When it's my job, I'm like, it's 100% of my job. So the county has its differences And honestly, I've been up here for 15 years trying to find common ground with South County and trying to find ways that we balance things. I was not a supporter of the county split. I thought it was a really bad idea.
I just thought we should work together and I heard a lot of people talking about working together more but we only have two industries in North County that allow people to go from poverty and pull themselves up. One of them is ag and the other one's oil So when we eliminate one of the two tools that people can go, that go to high school and just go off and start working and then move up and create a place where they can own a home and coach their kids and raise a family.
And I know you're saying well it's only gonna be worth, it's gonna take 20 years to do. I wouldn't want to know that my job was getting eliminated in 15 or 20 years so We ran a video this morning on our history in Santa Barbara, and 175 years. And oil plays a huge role in that, especially in North County. I wanna talk about the non-profits. North County relies heavily on our non-profit community.
But what our non-profit community relies on is the oil industry. You cannot go to an event in the Santa Maria Valley PCEC is a donor. Pacific Petroleum is a donor. E&B has stepped up. Every oil company, Vaquero Engineering, that's who funds our nonprofits that provide services to our community. Yes, we all understand that we need to move to a cleaner reliable energy source. And I have been up here all this time voting for all forms of green energy supported the wind energy in Lompoc heck yeah let's do it let's make it happen.
Greening the county, the fleet, we've transitioned to electric vehicles. We've done solar farms throughout the county. I support all of those but Consumption in California is outstripping what wind and solar can do. It's just a fact, I mean if you look at the governor did a 180 on Diablo Canyon it was like we actually can't close that right now. So the bottom line to me is always we still use oil All of us use it, not just North County. South County uses it. Those that are strongly environmental use it.
The folks that were up here talking today wanting to get rid of the industry you use it so to me it's always it just seems that it's this idea that if we don't see it and it's not in our backyard that that it's okay but And the charts that you showed of where we would be bringing oil from, I saw Saudi Arabia was on there. I don't know if I wanna be... Let's cut off all of our production and let it come from the Middle East. It doesn't sound like a plan or recipe that's gonna work.
And I'm not a scientist but I would challenge any numbers that said it is more environmentally superior to drill in a Middle Eastern country with the regulations they have, put it on a tanker, ship it across our ocean. I sit on the air pollution control district. We're trying to stop whale strikes all the time from these big tankers. They're gonna come in and come into Santa Barbara and then put it on truck and ship it somewhere and that's environmentally superior to what we're doing?
I don't think so. So... We need to be balanced here And I think sometimes things get thrown out. One of the ones that I heard a lot was, well it's the air quality. Air quality is a big you know we are damaging our air. Well the reality is that something people like to use a lot of times. Well we all sit on the Air Pollution Control District Board. Let's talk about air quality in Santa Barbara County, smog ozone.
In 1991, we exceeded the state ozone standard 97 days. In 2016, three days. 2025, no days. Okay so smog alerts, we had 148 of them in 1970 totally eliminated don't have any more. Airborne lead pollution has decreased by 99% nationally since 1980 because they got led out of gasoline. Your air quality, you're breathing way better air than you ever did in the 70s and 80s. I remember going to Magic Mountain and I was up there and I looked down, you couldn't even see the city because it was just dark and my lungs actually hurt so I do appreciate government regulation but in this sense it's gone too far.
In 2014, the same groups that are supporting this ban put a measure on the ballot Measure P. It didn't even go as far as today's initiative. All it did, it simply looked to ban fracking, cyclic steaming and acid well stimulation treatments. Guess what happened to it? It lost 62 to 38 when the people voted on it. This isn't a squeaker election 51-49, a toss up this is a beat down 62-38 even the Santa Barbara Independent endorsed against it.
So when the people have spoken and okay it was 10 years ago 11 years ago but the people have spoken on this issue not us The actual voters, they sent a message loud and clear. Why would we go spend millions of dollars and loads of staff time to push an agenda that the people already voted on? They already decided on this. So maybe things have changed but I think it'd be much cheaper for us to go back and take this to the people again and let them decide what they think. Do they want to get rid of the oil industry? Do they want to put these guys out of work I think that the answer would be a resounding no.
And I would, I think it's like $150,000 to put it on the ballot. I'd much rather spend 150,000 going and figuring out what the people want. And so that would be my recommendation. Um, I know we think we're going down this balanced path that we're gonna take 20 or 30 years make this happen. I don't want, I wouldn't want that hanging over my head. So I wish we didn't have to do this and have these hearings like this but we do every couple of years but I think we can do better. We do something like this all it does in North County it I have to sit there and defend They're like, well why are they so concerned when there's no wells in South County? It's us. It's Cat Canyon. It's Santa Maria.
We should be the ones making that determination and when something like this happens that just drives up the arguments where people want it just causes the divide again and I'm always up to one trying to say no it's okay let's come together we're one county one future we're doing this together we need to make it work And it just gets tougher and tougher and tougher to defend.
4:25 – 4:376 turns
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Caps. Thank you Steve. I also wanted to thank everybody who showed up to speak today. You know there's many in the room men and women that spoke passionately about their chosen career path. The stories that you guys are telling are very familiar to me because they're my own story. You know, this is highly personal to me. I was raised by a single mother who worked for an oil company. It's because of that that I'm here today.
So I don't take it lightly and some people might accuse me of getting campaign donations from oil companies to drive me farthest from the truth. It is the men and women in this room that drive me. And that's why I'm up here fighting for that because it is hugely important. You know, I don't feel like I can top what Steve said. These are the careers, this is the pathway from poverty to home ownership, sending your kids to college and becoming lawyers and doctors.
We don't have a lot of that like you guys have down here. And it is so difficult, so difficult to be told how to live our lives You know, there's a lot of conversations happening in our country about being people not feeling represented by their government. The people out in DC making decisions for people here in California. I hate to say that's how we feel up here and so you know, I made my position clear that I think this is a bad idea.
I think that we should be working with our oil companies not trying to read them their obituary prematurely You know, I think we have some really great operators out here. Yeah, we have a bad history of some really poor operators over the years, absolutely. But nobody on this board has fought to have more oil wells abandoned than me. One of the reasons why our numbers were so high with Calgium is that I continued to work with DOGGR and Calgium to get more and more of our wells in Santa Barbara County on that list.
And that's from the oil supervisor, the one that takes all this money from evil oil companies. It's not the case. This is my district. These are my constituents that sent me here to this board to fight for that. 76% of you guys voted for me. That's a pretty big number. Okay, so you want to know about the people who have spoken. They've spoken to send me here to fight for them because this is impacting their lives, their community.
These are my friends, these are my neighbors, these are my constituents and I'm going to continue to fight like hell to prevent this from happening. I think it is a really bad idea for us to try to purposely put one of our important industries to put our constituents out of work. You know, the market Technology will impact us over the years. It may happen naturally, there may be some things where we actually start to look at the oil and gas industry as part of the solution and actually that's what we're starting to do.
You know, there's also carbon capture. We know that is one of the only ways that the states can be able to make its climate. So I know that some of my colleagues say that's pie in the sky but it's actually science and it's something that we're going to have to rely on in the future if we want to help meet the goals of the state of California. I respectfully ask my colleagues to think twice about moving forward with this.
We have a lot of challenges ahead of us as a county, I think those only happen when we're united. We have a lot of expenses ahead of us. We have budgets that are challenging. We are looking at laying off employees and I see this is only a pathway for additional lawsuits and strife in our community that we frankly just cannot afford. You know, one of the things we talk about in this county is it's one of the most lopsided counties that also has so much wealth but have so much poverty.
I know somebody, I think just a political scientist maybe said that there's 100 jobs that are impacted here. We know it's over 1,800 and these are all high paying jobs in North County that we don't have replacements for. It's nice and cute. The UCSB wants to have some polling on that, but you know there's the rubber has to meet the road at some point we know what's effective and what works and we're doing up there in Santa Maria Valley and the Lompoc area.
So again, I'm not going to support anything that moves this forward. I actually would prefer to see us potentially have a motion to abandon this. Maybe you could just return back to our existing Climate Action Plan which we are going to be able to meet without doing this and get on to doing the other work of accounting that's so important. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you. I'm fortunate that my three and a half year old grandson has moved to the area. And when I pick him up at his daycare, and I look at his little compatriots, I wonder what kind of world is this going to be for them? I've enjoyed a lot of benefits as most of us in this room have but we're leaving a very different planet for those who come after us.
Excuse me. We've got an administration in Washington that is denying there is such a thing as climate change and stopping all research and all funding. But we know that it's real, we've been measuring it since 1958 in Hawaii when there were 315 parts per million. Today, it's 426 parts per million. So that's the first time in at least 3 million years that it's been that high.
The average annual increase over the past decade has been about 2.5 parts per million a year. That's 100 times faster than natural changes at the end of the last ice age, so we're making dramatic, dramatic changes to the planet. We're engaged now in the sixth great extinction. So we talk about what are the costs? And I feel the desperation in this room and the concern of people about their jobs.
But let's look at the costs on the other side, and we see that... We see the fires have 172% increase in burned forest area in our state. What does that mean? That means my constituents are coming, I can't get insurance. I can't sell my house. Nobody can get a mortgage to buy a house without insurance. Would you lend money? What about the bluff collapses that we're seeing in Isla Vista? I mean, there's tremendous property damage. Sea level rise. What's that going to mean for infrastructure, for roads, for bridges, for the water infrastructure? These are billions, trillions in costs that we're just putting blinders on.
What's it going to mean for the future? We've seen the debris flows. We've seen in this county What has happened? It's a tremendously difficult thing to make change. We cling to what we know and what's familiar, but we really have to make change. At the state level the goal is in law by 2045 we want to be carbon neutral In the county's action plan, we actually call for phasing out oil. That that's going to be something we have to do. That is broadly recognized that we've got to reduce oil but what's happening? The oil industry has known since the 50s about these impacts on the climate They could have made huge strides in this transition and been not oil companies but energy companies. They could have led the way, but instead a 2025 report showed that the global energy sector is now hitting an all-time high.
We're going in the wrong direction. And how do we, how do I just somebody here say that I have to use whatever power I have to try to change this. Now California is now the fourth largest economy in the entire world and while we may not be a huge oil producer within the state, we still have a lot of standing, we still have a lot of status and what we do matters and it can be an example to others The energy transition is well underway and California is a leader in that.
I happen to serve on the 3CE board and we follow this a lot, how much of our energy is coming from renewable sources. And we've met or exceeded our total electricity demand in our service region many, many days. And battery storage has tripled just since 2020. So we're headed in the right direction. Batteries now provide over 12% of our nighttime demand. So we've made a huge shift in a very short period of time and our job I think is to try to hasten that.
Counties have always had an important role but this new legislation gives us a new opportunity to exercise that so AB 3233 is why we're here today And I believe we do have the authority to act on behalf of our community, and I'm prepared to support staff recommendation. I'm very eager for the amortization RFP to go out so that we get the information back in time for budget.
And I'm also interested in the issues of the idle wells and how we can deal with that. Thanks for hearing me out. Thank you.
Supervisor Lee?
So Steve, you said that in North County is about ag and oil or it's different in South County where we're focused on tourism and the environment. And Bobby said people voted for you to fight like hell. People vote for me to fight like hell for those industry as well so right. We agree on that. I'll just go straight in to my point. I do support staff recommendation.
I do support the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but as well as jobs and careers. I'm not here to put people out of jobs. I want them to transition from a different industry to a new one where you can continue to provide for your family. So I'm a business person too. I have kids so I do understand your challenges I'll do my best to make sure that you have jobs and be able to provide.
This is hard, this is difficult but there's two things that I want to see that we do. For the RFP, can we add an economic impact to it? See what it does to our economy for the RFP and to add direction to staff to come back with few options to deal with abandoned or orphaned wells as part of the first phase. So there's just things I want to see added to that motion.
4:37 – 4:439 turns
Supervisor Lee through the chair, that is more substantial than the description that you've offered. It's really a significant undertaking particularly around an economic evaluation and trying to understand what that means it's not as simple as straight and straightforward Thank you very much.
Well, maybe I'll pick up. I support staff accommodation as I have in the past and Supervisor Hartman was eloquent in the existential climate crisis that I feel on a daily basis and I do feel as though just to sort of appreciate The comments made by my colleagues here to the left, my left. That I hear you on this divide and I don't want this to be divisive but yet I also feel as though we're putting these jobs for a reason and I feel charged that There is a climate crisis and it comes down to the local level. And am I going to be satisfied with just continually to promote an industry as much as I support the workers, support the families, support the coaches, support that the charity, support all of the individual I don't oppose the people.
the benefits to the community. I don't oppose the families that you are raising, there is a big difference there that is possible to do those things in the same time but I do oppose an industry that all the data shows is dwindling and we need to be moving and I'm now a supervisor that has the chance to help us move in a direction that we need to be moving into and that is towards renewable and that's what I support But with that, I want to do it responsibly and that's the opportunity. I think that Supervisor Lee really is and we all share to do that responsibly. We heard from Carmen Rhodes of the UCSB Labor Center. I don't know how he worked that into the amortization plan.
We have the intention but if we can really make sure, if it's 1800 jobs or 2000 jobs that we do have a strong commitment. That is to me not LA, City of LA size project. That is a project that we can take on. I want to be optimistic that we can really work to make sure there is a strong transition plan with the companies. We've heard some examples already of some companies that are making a transition or a hybrid transition perhaps, to transition to perhaps still doing oil and gas for awhile but then transitioning to other renewables. Again I have a lot to learn in this area but I really would like us to do it. It looks as though we have the support to move in this direction to do it in a way that Santa Barbara That's landmark, that puts us on the path to something very innovative.
So with that I'd second, I think it's Supervisor Hartman's motion or
perhaps
not yet?
I don't think I made a motion yet.
Okay.
I did have one other issue I'd like to... Sure. Or just as we think about the amortization study, I have a hierarchy in my own mind that I think is worth exploring in the framework and the first would be idle wells Then those that are within health protection zones. And then those that are over watersheds and are a threat potentially to drinking water supply. And then those that are outside, I think those could have a longer period of time because they pose less threats. So it's at least something to consider.
So with that, I will make-
Just want to talk to Director Armisen again about Economic study, can we be more specific and ask for a job study where we look at the impacts of the jobs that it's affecting?
Supervisor Lee through the chair. I heard your remarks and a few others really focus on what is commonly described as a transition plan, an employment transition plan. And I would ask that you give us some time to evaluate how we might prepare Thank you very much.
4:43 – 4:4924 turns
Okay. And the costs, I assume UCSB doesn't do all this work for free so but maybe you could bring that back to us at some point? So with that I'll make the motion A through D in staff recommendation.
Okay. I've got a question on the motion. Sure
Supervisor Nielsen.
Thank you, Chair Caps. I just want to kind of clarify just a couple things because we had some confusion on what the motion was last time so I want to kind of get down so I make sure I understand. So the abandonment and remediation costs will be part of amortization study? Is that... Do I understand that correctly? Okay. The mental rights values and compensations will also be a part of that?
That would be the time at which that issue would be addressed yes
Okay, and then the discussion of asphalt oil versus production oil. Where does that get? And I see Supervisor Hartman kind of on your head so help me with that where is that discussion continue because I do think that's a something. Does it get pulled out? At what point does they get pulled out? Does it get combined? Is there different numbers for that? So I just want to get some clarity on what to expect when we see you again next time.
That's an interesting way of phrasing it. What I would suggest is that planning and CSD staff need to get together to develop the first phase of the work effort, and that's probably what we need to evaluate to be clear about And then the last one, it was on this first phase. You guys think likely it's either an exemption or a
The that phase, but you guys still haven't done an initial study yet. So that will come back the initial study and that determination will be made between now and when this comes back to the board.
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. So we will, we will assess it and determine whether or not it qualifies for a categorical exemption. And if we don't think or statutory whatever it is with some form of exemption under CEQA, if we don't think it qualifies then we would do an initial study that would lead to the MND.
Okay thank you. Or an EIR if there's significant impacts that are unavoidable. Okay thank you. We
were intending to release the RFP and then come back to you in time for any budget discussions on the ramifications of its cost.
Supervisor Lee?
I would like to see a job study done in the first phase. I think it's important that we don't allow people to sit around worrying about the jobs and that we do as soon as possible, that we can get this accomplished. Is that something that you'd be open to amending in your motion?
Supervisor Lee, I think it's better in the second phase. We've encountered this in other contexts and it's a very expensive and very theoretical proposition so I think we need to use the first phase to work with UCSB and those who can do this kind of study and kind of map out what it would look like and what it would cost. I don't think we're there yet and I don' think we need to be there yet We're not phasing out existing wells.
Fair enough, thank you.
Yeah okay so we're...
So no support for my ballot measure? We're going to vote on the
ballot. I don't think we might be raising
our own money and putting it on the
ballot ourselves.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–2
Show transcript
Motion passes 3 to 2.
Okay,
thank you for
everyone for being here really appreciate it and with that okay let's please keep it respectful everybody and we'll and remember we're still meeting so we'll be quiet Let's take a minute. County Council, please give us a preview for closed session.
4:49 – 4:514 turns
Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. The board is scheduled to meet in closed session for anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation for cases and public employee appointment for the county fire chief and the estimate is an hour and 15 minutes.
We are back from closed session. County Council, let us all know what happened.
Thank you madam chair members of the board in post session, the board met on public employee appointment for county fire chief and the board considered decision to initiate as to 4 cases. And that's the first matter. The board decided to initiate litigation. The details of which will be disclosed once the action is formally commenced by anyone that asks and has the first matter the supervisors voted for in favor of initially initiating litigation supervisor Nelson abstaining Okay,
with that I will adjourn this meeting until Tuesday. Well this says Tuesday November 3rd but I think it's Monday November 3rd. I didn't mean to call you out and I just caught that okay we are adjourned