Meeting Summary
Present: Cooney, Ford, Park, Martinez, Reed
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Director’s Report
- Staff reported that the Board of Supervisors approved the Long-Range Work Program without modifications, prioritizing state-mandated items and housing implementation.
- The County has approved over 2,000 new housing units with approximately 5,000 more in the pipeline, while staff launched free, pre-approved ADU plans for units under 800 square feet.
- Staff requested the restoration of one vacant Long-Range Planning position to address budget shortfalls, subject to upcoming Board budget hearings.
- A concept requiring marketing plans for market-rate units is scheduled for Board review, though staff noted fair housing laws prevent mandating local right-of-first-refusal.
Phase 1 Oil and Gas Prohibition Ordinance Amendments
- Staff presented amendments to the Land Use Development Code and Coastal Zone Ordinance to prohibit new onshore oil and gas drilling, responding to the 2030 Climate Action Plan and Assembly Bill 3233.
- The proposal exempts existing facilities with vested permits or approved drilling plans, while Phase 2 will address the amortization and phase-out of existing operations.
- Public comment was divided, with supporters citing climate goals and health concerns, and opponents arguing the process lacked sufficient CEQA review and stakeholder engagement.
- The Commission voted to make required findings, determine CEQA exemption, and adopt a resolution recommending approval of the amendments.
Resolution Definitions and Adoption
- Staff indicated that specific definitions for "new" versus "existing" wells were not deemed necessary due to common understanding.
- Commissioners debated the timing of adding definitions, with some suggesting deferral to the Board hearing process to avoid rushed decisions.
- The Commission voted to proceed with the current resolution language without adding specific definitions.
Signing of the Resolution
- Staff requested a motion to designate the official signatory for the adopted resolution.
- The Chair moved to direct the Vice Chair to sign the document, citing a personal refusal to sign.
- The Commission voted to direct Vice Chair Cooney to sign the resolution for submission to the Board of Supervisors.
Full summary
Agenda Item: Opening and Administrative Matters
- Pledge and Announcements: The Chair led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Clerk provided the standard announcement regarding live broadcasts on CSB TV channels 20 and 22, and availability on the County website and YouTube.
- Roll Call: Commissioners Cooney, Ford, Park, Martinez, and Chair Reed were present.
- Agenda Status Report: Staff presented projections for upcoming hearings:
- April 29 (Santa Barbara): Development plan for a footpath handrail in the Sermon area; housing project in the Los Alamos area on Price Canyon.
- May 6 (Santa Barbara): Utility Scale Solar Amendments Project (continued item).
- May 13: Hearing canceled.
- May 27 (Santa Barbara): Chick-fil-A project (continued item); appeal of a parcel map.
- June 3: No items projected.
- June 10 (Santa Maria): Tentative parcel map; development plan permit transfer for the asphalt refinery.
- No other items were projected for June or July.
- Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items): Jason Marischale (Kimberley Gardner) spoke regarding housing needs, citing high rental costs and decreased permitting. He suggested the Planning Commission regularly report the number of units permitted in unincorporated areas to evaluate housing element effectiveness.
- Informational Reports: Chair Reed reported on observing the scoping hearing for the Solomon Hills development.
- Approval of Minutes:
- Motion: To approve the minutes of the meetings held on March 4, 2026, and March 25, 2026.
- Second: Seconded by a Commissioner.
- Vote: Passed.
- Director’s Report:
- Long-Range Work Program: Staff reported that the Board of Supervisors approved the program without modifying staff recommendations. Significant time is allocated to state-mandated items (Open Space, Circulation, Safety Elements) and Housing Element implementation.
- Housing: The County has approved over 2,000 new housing units, with approximately 5,000 more in the pipeline.
- Ministerial Permits: Staff is working to create more ministerial permits to simplify processes. A briefing on this was moved from May 5 to May 12.
- Solomon Hills: Staff noted the scoping hearing for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was held. Comments focused on housing costs and recruitment/retention challenges.
- Pre-Approved ADU Plans: Staff launched free, pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) plans that are 100% plan-checked (excluding site preparation). These plans offer various architectural styles and sizes (mostly under 800 sq. ft.).
- Budget: Staff noted an effort to address the county budget shortfall by keeping two vacant positions in Long-Range Planning open. Staff requested the restoration of one position, subject to Board decision during budget hearings scheduled for April 13.
- Local Preference for Marketing: A concept requiring a marketing plan from developers for market-rate units is going to the Board on April 21. Staff noted that due to fair housing laws, they cannot mandate right-of-first-refusal for local residents.
- Q&A:
- Chair Reed asked about workshops for rural/agricultural areas regarding ADUs and worker housing. Staff stated there is no current outreach in the work program but expressed willingness to collaborate, noting challenges with sanitation for larger farmworker housing complexes.
- Commissioner Park asked why pre-approved ADU plans do not include larger sizes (up to 1,200 sq. ft.). Staff explained the sizes were selected based on the preponderance of units seen and the preference for matching existing structures. Staff noted that larger pre-approved plans from other jurisdictions could be used and would receive expedited plan check.
- Commissioner Park suggested investing in long-range planning to revise zoning ordinances and elements to streamline development review. Staff agreed, noting the upcoming briefing on ministerial permits aims to downshift simple projects to ministerial status to reduce processing time and appeals.
Agenda Item: Ordinance Case No. 26-ORD1 and 26-ORD2 (Phase 1 Oil and Gas Prohibition Ordinance Amendments)
- Ex Parte Reports:
- Commissioner Cooney reported meetings with Katie Davis, Tara Rengifo, Haley Ehlers, Pasha Madabi, and Michael Chiacos.
- Commissioner Ford reported a Zoom meeting with Haley Ehlers, Katie Davis, Michael Chiacos, Mr. Mondavi, and Ms. Ranjitha.
- Commissioner Martinez reported a phone call with Ed Hazzard (NARO) and a prior conversation with Charlie Katherman. He also mentioned speaking with approximately 20 citizens in Santa Maria.
- Commissioner Park stated he did not have specific ex parte contacts to disclose beyond casual community interactions.
- Chair Reed reported meetings with Ed Hazzard (NARO California), Andy Caldwell (CoLab), Tom Widrow (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association), Ramon Elias (formerly Santa Maria Energy), Claire Weinman (Grower Shippers Association), Eric Vasquez (Asfalta), Mary Hayden (Chamberlain Ranch), and approximately 100 other ranchers/farmers.
- Staff Presentation:
- Purpose: To review and recommend approval of board-directed amendments to the Land Use Development Code (LUDC) and Coastal Zone Ordinance (CZO) to prohibit the drilling of new onshore oil and gas wells in the inland area and coastal zone.
- Background: The amendments respond to the 2030 Climate Action Plan (adopted August 2024) and Assembly Bill 3233 (signed September 2024). The Board directed staff to identify viable measures to address greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas extraction.
- Phase 1 (Current): Prohibits new drilling of onshore oil and gas wells. Staff estimates adoption this summer, followed by submission to the California Coastal Commission for review/certification (9-15 months).
- Phase 2 (Future): Includes an amortization study for existing wells/facilities and a long-term plan to phase out existing operations. This may include an EIR and is anticipated to take approximately three years.
- Current Status: As of September 2025, CalGEM records indicate approximately 1,039 active and 1,221 idle onshore oil and gas wells in the county. The last approved oil drilling and production plan was in March 2014. A land use permit was granted in September 2019 for the Amrich Project.
- Proposed Amendments:
- Revise LUDC Section 3552.50 to prohibit new onshore oil and gas drilling in all zones.
- Revise LUDC Section 3553.40 to remove drilling operations/facilities.
- Revise LUDC Section 3553.60 to remove the "drilling only" option from modifications.
- Revise LUDC Section 3555.30 to remove proposed oil drilling from applicable findings.
- Similar amendments proposed to the CZO.
- Exemptions: Existing facilities/operations with vested land use permits or approved oil drilling and production plans authorizing future drilling are not affected.
- CEQA: Staff recommends determining the amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA under Sections 15307, 15308, and 15265.
- Recommendation: Make required findings, determine CEQA exemption, and adopt a resolution recommending approval of the LUDC and CZO amendments.
- Commissioner Questions and Staff Responses:
- Definition of "New Drilling": Staff clarified that re-entering an abandoned well is prohibited. However, reworking, sidetracking, or drilling to a new downhole location from an active or idle (not abandoned) well is not prohibited and does not require a new permit.
- Scope of Prohibition: Staff confirmed Phase 1 prohibits new drilling countywide. Phase 2 will address the phase-out of existing operations via an amortization study.
- Community Input: Staff stated they are responding to clear Board direction to prepare these amendments.
- Economic Impact: Staff stated this will be considered in the Phase 2 amortization study, not in the current Phase 1 effort.
- Definition Clarity: Chair Reed suggested the ordinance should explicitly define "new well" and what is excluded to ensure defensibility.
- Recent Permits: Staff reported zero new well permits were issued this year and last year.
- Consultation: Staff reported no meetings occurred with oil producers, environmental groups, universities, supervisors, or CalGEM during preparation, other than coordination with the County Counsel.
- Abandonment Standards: Staff confirmed that wells abandoned prior to CalGEM requirements may not meet current standards, but CalGEM can require re-abandonment to current standards if new development occurs nearby.
- Takings Liability: Staff stated takings were considered and worked on with staff and the Board for various phases of the project.
- Measurable Success: Staff suggested observing real-world reductions in the county's greenhouse gas emissions.
- Exploratory Wells: Staff speculated the CZO emphasis on "no exploratory drilling" was a relic of when the ordinances were written, noting coastal exploration has more variables.
- Global Impact: Staff acknowledged that while local emissions would decrease, the global impact of a single county's reduction is very small.
- Public Comment (Agenda Item):
- Support:
- Ramon Elias (Santa Maria, LULAC Council 3252) expressed opposition on behalf of the local LULAC chapter, stating the body is not qualified to make such decisions and that the process ignored the livelihoods of workers.
- Stella Simons (The Clean Coalition) urged approval, stating this is a critical step toward achieving Climate Action Plan commitments.
- Bill Woodbridge (Goleta resident) urged approval of the ban on new drilling and the plugging of leaking wells.
- Vivian Chiang Kai (UCSB Environmental Affairs Board co-chair) supported the amendments to protect community health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Emily Engel (Santa Barbara Fear Club leader and parent) advocated for the ban to protect children’s health, drinking water, and local biodiversity.
- Katie Davis quoted Supervisor Joan Hartman to highlight climate change impacts and noted the county’s action plan calls for phasing out oil.
- Janet Blevins (Lompoc resident) cited 15 years of opposition to oil development and questioned the appropriateness of commissioners with oil rights voting on the issue.
- Haley Ehlers (Executive Director, Climate First Replacing Oil Gas/CFRG) argued the ordinance is legal under AB 3233 and does not impair vested rights.
- Pasha Madavi (UCSB Professor) presented findings from a 10-month study by the Community Labor Center at UCSB, finding that 65% of county residents support prohibiting new onshore oil and gas drilling.
- Tara Ranjifo (Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Center) stated that the proposed amendments are consistent with AB 3233 and do not constitute an illegal taking.
- Ken Huff (Co-Executive Director, Santa Barbara County Action Network/SBCAN) cited the Scalmanini Report, which identified 65 locations where oil or its constituents were found in groundwater wells in the Santa Maria Valley.
- Carla Mena (Director of Policy, Los Padres Forest Watch) supported the amendments to protect sensitive habitats, watersheds, and air/water quality near Los Padres National Forest.
- Nancy Marr (Ocean Futures Society) cited scientific consensus regarding climate stability and the historical impacts of the 1969 and 2015 oil spills.
- Michael Chiakos (Community Environmental Council) supported the staff recommendation, citing state policy (AB 1279) and the high greenhouse gas impact of local oil reserves.
- Kara Sanford (UCSB student) and Melissa Munoz (fellow with Climate First Replacing Oil & Gas) urged approval, citing potential reductions in CO2 emissions and public health concerns.
- Candace Mannigan (Coastal Ranchers Conservancy) supported the amendments, highlighting threats to groundwater resources and endangered species.
- Opposition:
- Eric Vasquez (Representing Asfalta LLC) opposed the proposal, arguing that the county had not assessed all impacts and was exposing itself to legal risk by short-circuiting the CEQA process.
- Andy Caldwell (Representing CoLab) argued that the ordinance should be folded into the Phase 2 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because it will result in environmental impacts.
- Charlie Katherman (Professional Geologist and Oil Producer) opposed the ordinance, stating that it eliminates options for working with the industry to reduce emissions.
- Ed Hazard (President, California Chapter of National Association of Royalty Owners) opposed the ordinance, arguing that an EIR is required under CEQA and that AB 3233 is unconstitutional.
- Ted Cordova (Representing EMB Natural Resources) opposed the ordinance, arguing that prohibiting local production shifts demand to foreign sources with weaker environmental standards.
- Drake House (Petroleum Engineer and President of Sierra Resources) opposed the ordinance, arguing that it would not reduce demand but would shift production to other areas with higher transportation emissions.
- Rich Field (Senior Environmental Health and Safety Manager with PCEC) spoke in opposition to the phase-out, arguing that local reductions in drilling do not significantly impact global GHG emissions.
- Deliberations:
- Commissioners discussed the role of the Planning Commission versus the Board of Supervisors in legislative matters.
- One commissioner stated they would support the ordinance because it aligns with the Board of Supervisors' direction, while raising concerns about the distinction between large and small oil operators, the economic impact on ranchers, and the need to address idle and orphaned wells in a potential "Phase Two."
- Another commissioner expressed opposition, arguing that the process lacked sufficient community outreach and stakeholder engagement, and that the ordinance did not account for the economic reality of workers and the lack of immediate 100% replacement energy sources.
- A third commissioner supported the ordinance as a public health and environmental protection measure, noting its alignment with the county’s environmental justice element.
- A fourth commissioner supported moving the item forward, trusting the Board of Supervisors to balance the record, while noting they had consulted with various stakeholders.
- A fifth commissioner opposed moving the item forward in its current state, arguing that the ordinance contains a CEQA exemption despite potential significant changes in land use and indirect impacts.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: To make the required findings for approval, determine that the case numbers are exempt from CEQA, and adopt a resolution recommending the amendments.
- Second: Seconded by a Commissioner.
- Vote: Passed.
Agenda Item: Resolution Definitions and Adoption
- Discussion: A staff member stated that definitions for "new" versus "existing" were not considered necessary due to common understanding but offered to provide further details if the Commission desired. A Commissioner expressed concern that addressing this issue immediately would be rushed and potentially detrimental, suggesting the matter be deferred to the Board hearing process. Another Commissioner agreed to leave the current language as is, noting that public concerns regarding definitions had been heard.
- Motion: To proceed with the current resolution without adding specific definitions.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Agenda Item: Signing of the Resolution
- Discussion: A staff member requested a motion to designate who would sign the adopted resolution for submission to the Board of Supervisors. The Chair moved to direct the Vice Chair to sign the resolution, stating a personal refusal to sign the document.
- Motion: To direct Vice Chair Cooney to sign the resolution.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Adjournment
- Decision: The Chair thanked the members, and the meeting was adjourned.