Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning. I will call to order the September 15th, 2026 regular meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Supervisor Hartman. Here. Supervisor Lavagnino.

Here.

Supervisor Lee.

Here.

Supervisor Capps. Here. And Chair Nelson.

Here. At this time, please stand and join us in pledging allegiance to our flag. The next item of business is the approval of the September 1st, 2026, minutes from the September 1st, 2026 meeting. Can I get a motion? Move approval.

I'll second.

A motion from Hartman, a second from Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is the County Executive Officer's Report. MS. PETERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US THIS MORNING?

I DO. GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS. I AM STARTING WITH A REPORT FROM THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE ABOUT THE JAPANESE CONSULATE DELEGATION. ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE WELCOMED A DELEGATION FROM THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF JAPAN IN LOS ANGELES FOR A DISCUSSION AND TOUR HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA. The visit included an overview of the office's plant health, pest prevention, and environmental protection programs, as well as tours of local agricultural facilities. Chair Nelson and members of his team joined the tour, which provided and fueled an opportunity to explore potential collaboration in smart agriculture, agriculture data collection, and other agritech initiatives. Representatives of the Consulate General of Japan expressed appreciation for the opportunity to learn more about local agriculture, noting the significance of Santa Barbara County agricultural exports to Japan. I also have an update from County IT. The County Information Technology staff members Kyle Slattery and Mark Garcia recently completed the year-long Certified Government Chief Information Officer, CGCIO program through the Public Technology Institute and Rutgers University. The executive leadership program focuses on IT governance, cybersecurity, and digital transformation, strengthening the county's capacity to align technology investments with organizational priorities and lead complex cross-departmental initiatives. Congratulations to Kyle and Mark. I also want to acknowledge that today is September 15th is National Voter Registration Day and the County of Santa Barbara is encouraging eligible residents to verify their voter registration information and register to vote ahead of the November 3rd, 2026 general election. Voters can register or check their registration information at the county elections websites sbcvote.com. The deadline to register for the upcoming election is October 19th. The County of Santa Barbara will host a virtual El Nino community meeting on October 1st 2026 from 530 to 7pm. The meeting will provide residents with information on the weather outlook, County Creek and road preparations, personal preparedness and key storm and flood safety tips to help residents prepare for potential winter weather impacts. Spanish interpretation and closed captioning will be available. registration information can be found on the county's website and finally this morning i'm pleased to share with you a new video in the your county your services video series this series provides our community with a behind-the-scenes look at county programs and services helping explain how county government works and how residents can access services videos are shared through channel 20 the county's monthly newsletter CSB TV's YouTube channel and county social media in English and Spanish. This latest video highlights the county's 911 dispatch operations, including what happens when residents call or text 911 and how dispatchers connect them with the appropriate emergency response. Let's take a look.

Welcome to Santa Barbara County. Let's explore what the county does for you, your county, your services.

911, what's the address of your emergency?

When you call or text 911, help begins the moment your message reaches a trained emergency dispatcher.

Okay Jorge, what's going on there?

Available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, these highly trained professionals are often the very first people to respond in an emergency. What address did you use? gathering critical information, coordinating resources, and helping send the right responders when every second matters. Is anybody hurt? Across Santa Barbara County, 911 calls are answered by trained emergency dispatchers. Depending on where you're calling from, your call may be answered by the Sheriff's Public Safety Dispatch Center or another local public safety answering point. If your emergency requires fire or medical assistance, your call is seamlessly connected to the Regional Fire Communications Center so the appropriate and closest available emergency responders can be dispatched without delay. Behind the scenes, dispatchers are doing far more than answering the phone. They're coordinating with deputies, firefighters, paramedics, and other emergency personnel, sharing updates in real time, and helping ensure every emergency receives the response it needs. But what if making a phone call isn't possible? Text to 911 is available throughout Santa Barbara County and connects you directly with a live, local emergency dispatcher. Whether you're unable to speak because of a medical emergency, you're in a situation where speaking could put you in greater danger, or you're deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, text to 911 provides another way to get help. Knowing what to do before an emergency can make all the difference. If you can, call. If you can't, text. Help is always just a call or a text away.

With gratitude to our 911 dispatchers who do that important work every day, that concludes my report.

Thank you. Thank you, CEO. At this time, Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to today's agenda?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have just one quick announcement this morning regarding public participation. 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 who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page two. Please note that Zoom is available solely for the purpose of providing verbal public comment and is not intended for viewing the meeting. Alternative viewing options are listed on page two of the agenda. If you have any questions, please contact the clerk of the board's office at area code 805 Again, that's 805-568-2240 or by email at sbcob at countyofsb.org. And that concludes my announcements for today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And just an announcement from the chair for those here in the meeting or those that are watching online that may want to participate in public comment. I know there's a lot of interest in Department item number one, the oil and gas prohibition. Likely public comment, depending on how many speakers we have, will probably be two minutes. So I just want to make sure those of you that are here that are preparing to speak that you have a chance to look over your notes and see if you guys can keep it within that time frame. So I just want to get that announcement out before we get started here. And with that, the next item of business is the administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items from the administrative agenda? A17 from Supervisor Hartman. Madam Clerk, is there any items from the public that the public has pulled?

Chair Nielsen and members of the board, we also have A17 vote by the public today.

Okay. All right. So at this time, I'd accept a motion for the balance of the administrative agenda. So all items except A17. so moved second motion by hartman second by lee any further discussion seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously okay at this time we will go ahead and move on to our resolutions before coming back to item a17 madam clerk will you please read administrative item number one into the record

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of September 14th, 2026 through September 20th, 2026 as Diaper Need Awareness Week in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Lori Goodman, CEO of LEAP. And Lori, if you can please make your way to the podium. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas diaper need the inability to afford enough clean diapers can adversely affect the health and well-being of children and their families with national surveys indicating that nearly one in two families struggle with diaper need and that 48% of families delay changing diapers to extend their supply. And whereas a sufficient supply of diapers is often required for babies and toddlers to participate in childcare and early education programs, enabling children to thrive and parents to work, yet many parents facing diaper need report missing an average of five days of work of work each month to insufficient diapers and whereas without enough diapers babies and toddlers risk infections that may require medical attention leading to medical costs and parents may be unable to access child care needed to work or attend school destabilizing the family's economic well-being and whereas diaper need is a public health issue and addressing it can lead to economic opportunities and improved health for children ensuring all families have access to basic necessities to thrive and whereas santa barbara county is proud to be home to community-based organizations like leap learn, engage, advocate, and partner, which distributes diapers to families and whose establishment of the only registered diaper bank in Santa Barbara County plays a critical role in supporting families, improving infant health, promoting economic stability, and advancing local and state economic growth. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge that September 14th through the 20th is recognized as Diaper Need Awareness Week and thanks LEAP, their staff, volunteers, and donors for their service and encourage citizens to support organizations that distribute diapers to families in need so that all children and families in Santa Barbara County can thrive. Passed and adopted today.

Ms. Goodman.

Thank you so much for recognizing this important week and recognizing that diaper need is not just one week of the year, but every week of the year. In December of 2020, I got a phone call from a friend and acquaintance who said to me, did you know there's no diaper bank in all of Santa Barbara County? Did you know there's not a diaper bank in Ventura County or San Luis Obispo County? And if people want to access a diaper bank that's registered, they need to go to Los Angeles. Would LEAP, we were Isla Vista Youth Projects then, would LEAP be willing to start a diaper bank? Now there's no public funding for diapers. It's not like food stamps or WIC, none of that covers diapers. And this was top COVID. We didn't know how we were gonna do it, but we knew there was a need and so we said yes. 328,000 diapers distributed later. I can say with confidence that we collectively are making a difference in Santa Barbara County for Santa Barbara County families. The community has stepped up and joined us. We have diaper drives this week and this month across the county from Lompoc through Goleta into Santa Barbara. Yesterday I was talking with one of our parents who, actually a grandparent who is now caring for five of her grandchildren unexpectedly. And what she said that the diaper pickup allows her to do is bring a little extra joy into her grandchildren's life. because she knows she can get a little extra each month in terms of diapers, she can sometimes make a choice to buy them ice cream or some water play. Now I think every child deserves some kind of joy and so I'm glad to be part of taking care of the necessities. Last year we opened our Lompoc Children's Center and that meant that our Family Resource Center also expanded into Lompoc. We are seeing families come from San Maria, from Orkut, from Lompoc, from the Valley, from Isla Vista, from Goleta, from Santa Barbara, all come to different places to get diapers. This coming year we are looking at expanding our reach to partner more formally with Family Service Agency. This last year we've been partnering with Hearts Aligned so that we can really amplify that reach. 328,000 diapers since when we open February 2021, I think that we're looking at a big increase in the coming year. We couldn't do it without your support and these will be distributed to a family soon. Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right. Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number two into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Lavagnino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of October 4th, 2026 through October 10th, 2026 as National 4-H Week in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today as they're making their way to the podium, we have Melissa Gillen, Shannon Klisch, Quinn Camacho, Lila Garay, and Albert Flores. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Santa Barbara County's network of 4-H youth members, volunteers, and leaders will celebrate National 4-H Week during the week of October 4th through the 10th, 2026, with a theme beyond ready, which reminds us that 4-H is building a ready generation in a world of change and equips young people with skills for the future while meeting them where they are today. And whereas 4-H is America's largest youth development organization, supporting six million youth across the country, expanding from its strong agricultural roots, 4-H helps young people explore the world around them and grow into productive adults. And whereas California 4-H is delivered by the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, known locally as UC Cooperative Extension, and envisions a world in which youth and adults learn, grow, and work together as catalysts for positive change. This is made possible through a continuance partnership first established in 1920 between the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the University of California to ensure local access to a nationwide network of educators and scientists dedicated to the development and application of knowledge to address local agricultural, environmental, youth development, and community health issues. And whereas in 2025 through 2026, Santa Barbara 4-H reached over 555 youth and 120 adult volunteers in community clubs and through expanded learning, engaging them in hands-on and experimental learning in projects such as large and small animals, welding and ceramics. And whereas compared to the peers, 4-H youth are four times more likely to make a positive contribution to their communities and two times more likely to take courses and pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math . National 4-H Week showcases the incredible experiences that 4-H offers youth people and highlights the remarkable 4-H youth in Santa Barbara County who work each day to make a positive impact on those around them. And now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge October 4th through the 10th as national 4-H week, we encourage all of our citizens to recognize 4-H for the significant impact it has made and continues to make by empowering youth with the skills they need to lead for a lifetime. Passed and adopted today.

Thank you so much for recognizing this week. My name is Melissa Guillen. I'm the 4-H youth development advisor for Santa Barbara County. And 4-H is delivered locally through UC Cooperative Extension. So thank you to the county and to the board for supporting Cooperative Extension and keeping these programs going. This year, we've been really excited to pivot our focus to college and career readiness. We have a lot of exciting initiatives on the horizon, including our Teens as Teachers program. We're bringing back Camp Wahoo, which will have a counselor and training program and some career exploration camps. So really excited for 2027 and the rest of this year and getting those going. You've heard enough from me. I'm going to let you hear from some of our members. So I'll have Albert, Lila, and Quinn speaking with you all today. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Albert Flores and I'm a youth member of the Carpinteria Forage Club. I raised a goat last year and I had a lot of fun. It taught me a lot about animals and it taught me a lot about just being myself at fair. It was a very good experience and I'm doing it this year as well. I'm raising a goat and a turkey this year and I hope that will go good this year. Thank you.

Thank you, Albert.

Good morning. Thank you all for having me. My name is Lila Garay and I'm the current president of Playa del Sur 4-H in Carpinteria, although some people know us as Ron's Club. For those who don't know, we're the furthest club south of Santa Maria, so getting dragged out of bed at 6 a.m. to be here sure beats going to school. I've been in 4-H for three years and two animals in particular have changed my experience. The first was a little brown goat named Megatron. I got Megatron during one of the rougher periods in my life. I wasn't sure if I wanted to raise a goat or a lamb, but the second I saw him, that decision was pretty much made. He was feisty, loud, and absolute loved eating my hair. For six months, I raised him. He completely changed how I look at livestock. I went from wanting an animal to realizing that I wanted to spend my life around them. Megatron taught me love, and then came Roscoe. Roscoe is my Charolais red Angus steer, and he was practically a giant puppy with hooves. He would run to the gate to see me, especially if I had a carrot. He stepped on me, bruised me, bit me, and generally made showing him an adventure, but I always forgave him. And when it was time to sell him, I had to learn something else. Loving an animal means willing to let it go. Today, I'm back to doing what I love. I have two dairy goats, two pregnant boar does, and I'm working toward my goal of becoming a goat breeder. Megatron got me started. Roscoe taught me how to keep going. And 4-H gave me the opportunity to discover that livestock isn't just something I raise. It's what I love. My name is Laila Garay, the two-time president of Playa del Sur 4-H of Carpinteria. Thank you for having me.

Thank you, Laila.

Hello, board members. My name is Quinn Camacho. I'm a sophomore and have the pleasure of being the president of San Ynez 4-H. 4-H has brought me up and built me in so many ways. I now understand that hard work and determination can get you through anything. I can speak confidently in front of a crowd and lead my team to our goals. I love the community that 4-H has brought me and the friendships that will last a lifetime. Thank you for everything.

Thank you.

Thank you, Quinn. Supervisor Lavagnino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it wasn't that long ago that we were going through some tough budget times here at the board, and there was a movement to eliminate 4-H funding. And I know it says in the resolution that we serve 550 kids and 120 volunteers. I promise you, at least that many were here in the audience. And all it took was for us to hear from the kids to realize, like they said, 4-H is way more than raising an animal. It's teaching character development. It's teaching public speaking. It's just an overall life-changing environment. And You know, thank God that day we did not cut the funding. And it's obvious now that we should be looking in ways to continue to increase funding. This is one of the best youth programs out there. Thank you all for being here. And especially for those that came from Carpinteria. You do have makeup. You're going to be staying late at school today. But thank you to the leaders and all the volunteers that make 4-H a success.

Thank you. And thank you. all right all right we'll next go to our items that were pulled by the public or by board members i think the only item that we pulled was a17 madam clerk can you go ahead and read that into the record

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, administrative item number 17 is from the General Services Department as well as the County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the donation of 1401 North V Street, APN 093040023 to this County of Santa Barbara located adjacent to the Lompoc Animal Shelter, RP file number 4124. This is in the third district and there is a forfeits vote required on this item and we do have one request to speak from the public on this item.

Okay, we're gonna have the public come and speak first and then Supervisor Hartman.

And we will now remain here in Santa Maria and go to Kari Coady. Kari?

Good morning, chair and members of the board. I'm Carrie Cody, the secretary of SBC Animal Care Foundation. It is a privilege to be here today to celebrate this donation for our county animal services. I want to extend our sincere thanks to the family and to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Being able to keep this property in our ownership for the animals allows the play yards to continue. And these play yards really give the animals in the county's care the opportunity for enrichment, for exercise, and for some fresh air. So we really appreciate this donation. I also want to recognize CAPA and the Lompoc community. There's an amazing homegrown pride in Lompoc. Its residents roll up their sleeves, advocate for their community and work hard to raise their community and the lives of the animals within it. That spirit matters and it's why this is such a big part of why we're here today because they were able to nurture those relationships. Projects and donations like this allow our work to move forward thoughtfully while continuing to provide excellent care and services. I would also like to recognize Director Sarah Aguilar for her leadership and vision, her commitment to animal services, and her willingness to look for possibilities has helped move this effort forward to reality. At the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation, we are proud to serve as the philanthropic arm and friends of the Santa Barbara County Animal Services. Together, we keep our finger on the pulse of the county, listening, advocating, and taking action to assist our most vulnerable shelter animals. This is an example of what can happen when government, nonprofits, advocates, and community members come together with a shared vision. We invite you to continue being part of that work by joining us at Tales of Hope this Sunday, September 20th at Stowe House in Goleta and our Zombie Glow Run walk on October 17th in Old Town Orchid. Thank you for believing in our shelters, our communities, and most importantly, the animals count on all of us.

Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

right supervisor hartman thank you uh i just wanted to thank mary louise breitman who made this donation it really allows for much more flexibility in the planning we've got some county money and some federal money going to improve the lompoc animal shelter and this will give us more space more flexibility within which to design so thank you to mrs breitman

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Any further questions about this item? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and take a motion. Supervisor Hartman?

Move staff recommendation.

Second. Okay, a motion from Hartman, a second from Lee. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. Well, that concludes our administrative agenda. We're moving right along. Next item of business is general public comment. This is the time in the meeting for members of the public to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. So if you want to talk about oil and gas, this is not the time to talk about that. That'll be coming later. So, Madam Clerk, are there any general public commenters at this point today?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have two requests to speak from the public and general public comment today. We are going to begin here in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell, and then we'll go to Zoom with Theo Carretto. Andy.

Chair Nelson, members of the board, and Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. I want to talk about errors and emissions from your solar decision to dedicate up to 16,000 acres of land for solar and battery energy storage. supervisor caps you acknowledge that that would only take two percent of ag lands we're not against solar and battery depending on where they're at but you know that we have this affordability crisis that everybody is concerned about and the number one poster child for that is housing we're asking that your board consider rezoning 16 000 acres of land for housing We think housing should be as high a priority, if not a higher priority than solar, because California has a glut on solar. The other problem with this is that you, on your own authority, rezoned ag land in Carpinteria and in Goleta to meet your RHNA numbers, but cities have to go through LAFCO to do that. And your members that sit on that board are not exactly helping the cities do that. With regard to resiliency, think that this is going to create resiliency, but as you know, if you did the math, there's not enough flat land which solar requires in this county or in the state of California for us to go 100% solar with battery energy storage. And finally, just consider our own record here. The one industrial-sized solar facility that we have in Cuyama, that power goes to Kern County. It doesn't help our resiliency or to create a microgrid here. The same thing is with the Lompoc Wind Energy Project. That doesn't help Lompoc or the county. That power was purchased by Marin County. And your own 3CE is doing projects outside the county and outside the state. So this concept that you want a microgrid for resiliency, you've got no guarantee by what you just did to accomplish that. And finally, I felt like you entirely glossed over the threat of fire, especially on the Gaviota Coast. Your Tahiqua's facility got harmed by fire. What would happen if a wildland fire, which, as we know, the Gaviota Coast burns every 10 to 20 years, hundreds of thousands of acres, what would happen to solar and battery energy storage in a wildland fire? You'd have a toxic waste dump on your hands. So the other thing is on conservation. As you'll know from the next item, solar does not conserve land compared to oil and gas. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.

And Theo Corretto.

Well, I do appreciate the clapping. try to keep the meeting meeting moving so we don't do clapping in the boardroom so if you want to show your approval typically people wave their hands but we don't do clapping just going to set us up for later in the meeting so just and that's a rule across the board either way guys so it's not picking on this item in particular unless resolutions i'm sorry yes supervisor um these are just long-standing traditions at the board and you know some of you maybe you're waiting for first meetings here i just wanted to let you guys know how we proceed with the rest of the day so with that madam clerk

chair nelson members of the board i did just want to note for the record that our uh speaker that was announced for zoom theo caretto is not logged into zoom but we did have a late request to speak from anna ars please proceed we will go to anna now anna yes hello thank you

So I wanted to give general public comment because this morning ICE was at the South County Santa Barbara jail. They were there since 6.30 in the morning. They were terrorizing the community. We were just observing. We did not interact with them in any negative way. They started to push and harass volunteers who were at the jail. and they bare pepper sprayed our volunteers while we were observing at the jail. When we went to the sheriff's to request support, all they were able to say was like, we don't collaborate with ICE, which was not the request. The request was like, they are being extremely violent to the volunteers and we have evidence of this violence. We need you to do your job and ensure that they stop just without motive pepper spraying people just because they feel like it. And so we're highlighting this again because these are issues that continue to happen. The sheriff is not protecting the community. They are just trying to use this as an excuse that they're not in collaboration. And I don't even know why they need the millions of dollars that they have if they're not even going to be out here actually doing their job and taking in complaints. So as Board of Supervisors, please, we are again coming to you to ensure that you hold the Sheriff's Department accountable and stop collaborating with ICE.

And that concludes general public comment for today.

All right. Thank you very much. Moving right along. We'll go ahead and begin our departmental items at this time and our one and only item here today on departmental item number one. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding phase one oil and gas prohibition ordinance amendments.

All right, just for some agenda management, we're gonna go ahead and start with the presentation, and then we're gonna have questions from the board. At that point, then we'll go to public comment. At approximately about 10.30, we will take a break, allow the interpreter and others to take a small break, and probably return to public comment at that time. Once public comment is concluded, the board will make additional questions of staff. And then we will do deliberations before making a final decision on this item. So just give everybody a preview into how this will proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Today we are returning with an item that the board requested. It is an item to consider ordinance amendment changes that would prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells into the future. I have we have a number of staff present today to assist with answering questions and to make the presentation. And we have Karina Martin. who's the planner working on this case. She'll be making the presentation. We have Kathy King, who's our supervising planner, Alex Tuttle, Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning. We have Erin Briggs, Deputy Director of Energy, Minerals, and Compliance and Enforcement. And we have Jesus Armas from CSD, Director. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Martin, and she's going to go ahead and start the presentation.

All right. Thank you, Director Plotman. Ms. Martin.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. Again, for the record, my name is Karina Martin, and I will be giving today's presentation on the phase one oil and gas prohibition amendments. So this slide is a overview of what today's presentation will cover. And to briefly recap, in August of 2024, during the adoption of the 2030 Climate Action Plan, The Board adopted a resolution directing the Community Services Department, commonly known as CSD, to identify measures and goals to address greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas extraction and processing. In response to the Board's resolution, CSD returned to the Board in May of last year and presented several options. CSD identified that prohibiting new oil and gas drilling is the most viable and least resource intensive option to develop, adopt and implement to ensure no net increase in onshore oil production from new drilling. The board then directed staff to return with a framework to develop ordinance amendments and a long term plan to phase out existing oil and gas facilities and operations. In October of 2025, CSD staff in coordination with P&D presented the board with a two-phase approach due to project complexity. The prohibition and the preparation of a long-term plan were divided into two phases. Phase one focuses on preparing zoning ordinance amendments to prohibit the drilling of new onshore oil and gas wells. Phase two will include the preparation of an amortization study for existing wells, oil and gas facilities and operations, and is being led by CSD staff. Staff anticipates that phase two will include preparing an EIR and considering and preparing amendments to effectuate the phase out period to seize operations, existing operations, and staff anticipates that this process could take approximately three years to complete. As part of Phase 1, the Board directed P&D staff to amend the LUDC and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance to prohibit drilling new onshore oil and gas wells in the inland area and in the coastal zone. These amendments are intended to align with measures and goals contained in the 2030 Climate Action Plan that address greenhouse gas emission reductions and be consistent with Assembly Bill 3233 which was signed into law in September of 2024 and authorizes jurisdictions to impose restrictions by ordinance to prohibit oil and gas operations or development or impose regulations, limits or prohibitions that are more protective of public health, the climate and or the environment than those prescribed by state law. In October 21st of 2025, P&D staff provided your board with a status report on the number, location, and condition of orphan and idle wells in the county. This status report is included in the board agenda letter package as attachment H, And at that hearing, staff reported that as of September 2025, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, known as CalGEM, records indicated that there are approximately 1,039 onshore oil and gas wells categorized as active and 1,221 as idle within the county's jurisdiction. The county last approved an oil drilling and production plan. for oil and gas drilling in March of 2014, known as the North Gary Production Plan. And more recently, the county approved a land use permit in September of 2018 for three new wells for a project known as Amarage. Moving on to the amendments. The proposed amendments to the LUDC and CZO revise existing standards to prohibit drilling new onshore oil and gas wells, prohibit reentering previously abandoned wells, revise the applicability and development standards to be consistent with the proposed prohibition, and the proposed changes will not apply to existing facilities and operations with a vested land use permit or an approved oil drilling and production plan that authorize the future drilling of new wells. A summary of the proposed ordinance amendments begins on page three of the September 15th board agenda letter package and are outlined in the next two slides. To summarize, the LUDC amendments revised sections 35.52, 35.53, 35.55 to prohibit new onshore oil and gas drilling in all zones and update applicability and development standards to align with the proposed prohibition. And again, similar amendments are being proposed to the coastal zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments are recommended to be determined categorically exempt from environmental review. As further explained in attachment B, class seven and eight categorical exemptions applied to actions carried out by a regulatory agency to protect natural resources or the environment. As a result, no significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of these ordinance amendments pursuant to CEQA sections 15307, 15308, and 15265. On April 8th, staff presented the proposed amendments to the County Planning Commission where they voted three to two to recommend adoption of the LUDC and CZO amendments to prohibit onshore drilling of new oil and gas wells, as well as to revise applicable development standards for consistency with the prohibition. Staff prepared minor LUDC and CZO amendments after the County Planning Commission hearing to provide further clarification. These minor changes include clarifying that the proposed prohibition does not apply to existing and vested oil drilling and production plans and redrilling existing wells, correct typos and references to definitions in the Petroleum Code, and revise the permitting guide in the LUDC to reflect the prohibition amendments. Staff returned to the County Planning Commission on July 1st where they voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the coastal land use plan amendment for consistency with the proposed prohibition amendments as well as to correct outdated references to public resource code sections 30260, 30262, and 30263 for consistency with recent legislation. The Inland Amendments will go into effect 30 days from the date of adoption and once adopted, staff will submit the Coastal Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification. This process may take up to 9 to 15 months. And finally, the recommendations for today's proposed amendments can be found on pages 1 through 2 of the September 15th board letter. To summarize, they are to make the required findings for approval, including CEQA findings found in attachment A, determine that the proposed ordinance and coastal land use plan amendments are exempt from the provisions of CEQA, adopt ordinances amending the LUDC and CZO found in attachments C and D, adopt a resolution to approve an amendment to the coastal land use plan found in attachment e and finally adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of the local coastal program amendment to the California coastal commission for review and certification and finally direct staff to submit the amendments to the coastal commission and that concludes staff's presentation and staff are available for questions

All right, thank you. I'm going to take the chair's privilege since most of this impacts my district. Ask some questions first here. I want to make sure I understand the county's overall direction correctly. The board has already directed staff to pursue both a prohibition on new onshore oil and gas wells and future phase out of existing onshore and gas operations. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct.

OK, what is before us today is the first piece phase one.

That is correct.

Prohibition of new wells. And the second piece phase two is already underway. It is intended addressed eventual cessation of existing operations.

Yes, Mr. Chair, that study is underway.

OK, in both days in one and phase two were directed by the board with the same action.

That is correct.

Thank you. My next question is, is oil considered a mineral resource under CEQA and is our planning and our county planning documents?

Mr. Chair, yes, that's correct.

Can prohibition prohibiting prohibiting future wells make some oil and gas resources that otherwise might have been developed practically inaccessible?

I would say that's correct, yes.

OK. Did the environmental review quantify or identify the mineral resources that could become unavailable as a result of this ordinance?

So, Mr. Chair, the environmental review for phase one is a CEQA exemption. And the CEQA is meant to look at environmental impacts, not necessarily economic impacts. And so the focus of this ordinance is to limit the amount of drilling that can happen. And it was reviewed and determined that because of the nature of the ordinance, potentially being more protective of the environment, that a CEQA exemption would be

the correct path there is going to be an environmental impact report that is being prepared as part of the amortization study and phase two the second piece correct thank you for that i do have some additional questions to go along with my questions around sequa did staff evaluate whether the loss of mineral resources availability could be environmentally significant Yes or no is fine.

Well, Mr. Chair, not as part of the CEQA exemption. That's correct.

Okay. Did staff analyze whether prohibiting future wells could affect investment decisions or the economic life of existing oil field, oil operations?

Mr. Chair, I think that is more appropriately assessed in phase two.

So we did not.

We did not. Okay.

Did staff analyze whether phase one could affect the timing of well plugging, abandonment, or facility decommissioning?

MR. CHAIR, WE DID NOT.

OKAY. DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ANALYZE AND ASSOCIATED ANY OF THE ASSOCIATED EFFECTS SUCH AS TRUCKING, EQUIPMENT ACTIVITY, WASTE HANDLING, GRADING, OR SITE RESTORATION IF THE TIMING OF THE DECISIONS MIGHT CHANGE BASED ON A PROHIBITION?

NO, SIR.

OKAY. SO THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT EVALUATED AS PART OF THIS EQUAL PROCESS?

THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU HAVE OUTLINED TODAY HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED IN THE MANNER THAT YOU ARE ASKING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DID STAFF IDENTIFY EVIDENCE THAT PROHIBITING NEW WILLS IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WILL REDUCE PETROLEUM DEMAND IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY? SO BY STOPPING WILL THIS IMPACT? DID WE ANALYZE THAT?

I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?

SO DID WE LOOK FOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROHIBITING NEW WILLS MIGHT HAVE IMPACT ON DEMAND? no sir did we look at identifying evidence that it might have um changed demand statewide no sir um did we analyze whether some portions of the production that otherwise might occur here could instead be supplied from somewhere else outside of santa barbara county we did not did we analyze where the replacement supply would likely come from we did not did we compare the environmental impacts of producing and transporting that replacement crude with producing crude in santa barbara county not as part of phase one but i think many of the questions that you're asking will be factored into phase two understood thank you but not not not for this year and under the not for this phase under a sequel exemption okay um all right Does the conservation element that we have currently state that mineral resource extraction makes a relatively important contribution to our local, state, and national economies, and as such, should be encouraged?

I expect that it does.

Does it also say that counties should encourage exploration for new resource sites?

It may, yes, sir.

Have either of those provisions been amended or repealed?

No, sir.

Has the county previously in environmental documents relied upon those policies when finding oil development consistent with the comprehensive plan?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So what is staff's explanation for finding a countywide prohibition on new oil and gas wells consistent with existing conservation element policies?

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I'd have to go back and look at the conservation element. I think those are introductory comments and not necessarily policies and so The change in the code we have found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan Despite that it says it should be encouraged It's correct and the new new Resources should be explored If it's not an identified policy, Mr. Chair, then it is not. We don't have to find that code consistent with those introductory comments.

OK. All right, that will be it for right now. I have a few other questions here before we go to public comment. Sure. Questions for my other colleagues? Supervisor Hartman?

I just had a clarification. The number of active and idle wells, we had, I think, three different numbers floating around, one in our board letter, one in a statement, and then one in your presentation. So I just wanted clarification on that.

Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, if you'd give us a moment, we will collect that information for you.

Commissioner Hartman, through the chair, apologies. The PowerPoint was an older version. But for 2025, there were 1,039 active onshore oil and gas wells and 1,221 idle onshore wells. And that is consistent with what's in the board letter. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lavagnino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it was stated that the Planning Commission voted three to two to support these no new wells ordinance, but recently they also just voted 5-0 to approve the asphalt facility. That was not appealed to the Board of Supervisors, so I don't know a lot about it. I did not watch that hearing. So in that hearing was there and maybe supervisor nelson already asked this but as part of that packet was it studied um the environment environmentally preferential um manner in doing this was it looked at using local oil or what was what was determined in that facility what would be going to that facility

Supervisor Lavagnino, through the Chair, the action at the Planning Commission was the change of ownership. They already had an existing permit that was still valid, and so this was them taking ownership of the facility, and they're currently making improvements to that facility so that they can begin operating again. They've been shuttered for quite some time.

Okay, what was the timeline? Do you know what the timeline is to open that back up?

you know they they are optimistic about it opening this year but we think um based on some inspections that we've done it'll probably be in 2027. okay thank you

Thank you, Supervisor Levin. Any other questions? Supervisor Capps.

Just a clarification to one of your questions about oil production, because we did prior to this coming to the board the first time around, I did a meeting with the California Energy Commission and the Vice Chair Gunda. He looked at our proposal and said that it would not have a significant impact on production. So I'm just looking at my notes and I can find them later, but I have more of a direct quote to that regard.

yeah my question was i guess was more not on the production but um i think we're talking about mineral resources that would become inaccessible um i think there's some proven mineral resources in our county that don't have current production out of them and that they might become inaccessible which sounds like they would and that's the consistency question that i have all right other questions from the board um i have i guess one couple more questions on um this the health effects so there's been some conversation about why to move forward with a prohibition and there's also a new state law on the 3200 feet from an oil well and that's because it's a kilometer away and that's kind of the the health protection zone i think they call it is that am i understanding that correct do we know how many active variety wells in santa barbara county are within that 3200 feet

MR. CHAIR, WE DO NOT. VERY FEW AS OUR STAFF ESTIMATES.

OKAY. MAYBE 1 OR 2%, MAYBE PRETTY MINOR THAT ARE ACTUALLY IMPACTING POTENTIALLY UNDER THAT HEALTH PROTECTION ZONE THAT ARE PROTECTING PEOPLE'S HEALTH. DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE REMAINING RESOURCES COULD BE POTENTIALLY ACCESSED WHILE STILL STAYING OUTSIDE THAT ZONE? SO WE HAVE AREAS THAT WE'RE NOT ACCESSING NOW. you know, new wells could potentially access those resources and still be in a health protection zone, right? Is that accurate?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And so the public health materials in our record generally shows that risk increases with proximity, well density and production volumes, right? That's what I'm seeing in there. And we're saying that 98% of our wells are not in proximity and we don't really have dense oil fields right not like you see another like current in other places is that correct yeah that's generally correct okay and our volumes are moderate to low here relatively low okay um do we have any study um our records indicate when the health risk becomes zero at all i don't believe we have that information all right thanks um Does any study in our record establish a significant health impact to sensitive receptors from every new well, regardless of how far it's from?

No.

Okay. Did staff evaluate a more restrictive setback or other location-based regulations as an alternative to a countywide prohibition?

We did not. Okay. Thank you.

Those are my questions. All right. With that, seeing no additional questions from the board, we will go ahead and move to public comment. Madam Clerk, how many public commenters do we have today?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have 53 requests to speak on departmental item number one.

OK. So we're going to go ahead and get started. That's going to be two minutes apiece. That's going to be about two hours of public comment. Like I said before, we will break about 1030 to give everybody a little bit of a breather and then come back to public comment at that point. Yeah, go ahead and get started.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we are going to begin here in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Eric Eisenhammer. Andy?

Chair Nelson, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. Your board's not ignoring the elephant in the room. You're ignoring the foreign tanker. 250 million barrels of oil come to California every year, and and 345,000 barrels of refined product come every day. So you're not reducing greenhouse gas emissions, you're just shifting them and actually increasing them. You're also ignoring that upwards of 50% of every barrel of oil is used for something other than energy. and you're not addressing the impacts of that shortage including for asphalt that you yourself use on county roads you're ignoring the fact that you could save hundreds of thousands of dollars on the following lawsuits that supervisor nelson uh bravo built the record for that all by himself you can save that money by just watching la lose their lawsuit on this very same matter You're ignoring the will of the voters. Even in Santa Barbara, Measure P, the oil was, the rights to drill and all that were preserved in Santa Barbara. There's hardly any region or any precinct where that measure lost. You're ignoring the constitution of both the state and the nation that preserves mineral rights. This is one of those things that this has the same protection as surface rights, intellectual rights. Mineral rights are protected. You can't take them or say you no longer can use them without paying these people for what they're losing so just to recap we're bringing in 52 million barrels a day from brazil for 50 million from iraq uh ecuador and argentina between those 60 million the list goes on and on you're you are accomplishing nothing but virtue signaling thank you andy we will now go to eric eisenhammer to be followed by janet blevins eric

Good morning supervisors, my name is Eric Eisenhammer I'm public affairs and public relations director for narrow California advocating for oil and gas mineral and mineral. and royalty owners who would be harmed if you move forward with this proposal. Royalty owners are farmers, ranchers, seniors, students, and nonprofits. They rely on their royalty income to pay their bills, to leave a legacy for their children, and give back to our community. Royalty owners are also property owners. The insurance that one's property cannot be seized by government fiat is a foundational American constitutional principle, and taking their property is no more right or moral when it's done slowly in phases. Oil is an integral part of all of our lives in ways many people don't even think about, such as our roads. We're often told to shop local. Doesn't that also apply to the oil and gas that we use every day? Shouldn't we be supporting our own community members rather than buying our oil from overseas? In Naro, California, we are proud of our track record of successfully standing up for the rights of the families who would be harmed by this measure. Today, I come to you with petitions signed by over 200 citizens, royalty owners, and even our local mayor, Alice Pitino, urging you to reject this harmful proposal. Thank you very much.

We will now go to Janet Blevins to be followed by John Wickenden. Janet.

Thank you very much. I'm so glad that my friend Andy brought up the failure of Measure P, because the fact is that ever since Measure P failed, you have not approved one single new oil development. And Steve agrees with me that that is absolutely the case. It can be researched. So Measure P failed, but what it did succeed at is explaining to the public what oil development does and all of the harms involved and so no new oil project has been approved since the failure or i like to think of it as the success of measure p because it informed the voters so now the natural uh evolution of no new oil projects has come to pass here i hope No new wells either. We are feeling the effects of climate change. We have gone over the scientific limit of two degrees centigrade. This results in not only extremely hot weather, people dying, but also extremely cold weather and snow in the deserts. So it's extremes on both ends. And it is very dangerous. And we need to lead the way to stop more oil wells, no more wells. I thought about wearing a party hat and having a little party blower thing, but that's not allowed. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Buttons.

We will now go to John Wickenden to be followed by Ted Cordova. John.

As John heads up here, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment this time.

My name is John Wickenden. I'm from Fox and Canyon, Sisquak, California. I'd like to go over quickly the history of California production. In 1980 was when the peak of oil production in California was 1.1 million barrels a day, and there was 50 different refineries in California at that time. It was the second largest production in the US, behind Texas. Now, 42 years or so later, Crude is only 23% of produced in California, with 77% from foreign countries in Alaska. California is presently the largest consumer of jet fuel and the second largest consumer of gasoline in the United States after Texas. California now only can supply 22.9% of the gasoline, the oil in California. The price of oil as of last month was 5.58 in California per gallon. And the national average was $3.64. That's $1.94 plus over the state is over the California national average. And as of this morning, the price of gasoline is $6.49 a gallon. now the present thank you gasoline oil produced is comes from brazil 17 or 18 percent

Thank you, John.

Iran is another one is 17.5% of our oil comes from Iran. Thank you, John. Which is the country we're kind of having trouble with.

Thank you, John. I appreciate it.

Then comes Guyana is 13.7%. John, your time is up. Okay. Please reject the oil and glass policy. production ordinance and protect the property rights of Santa Barbara County. Thank you, John. I have John. The branch has been in the family 189 years. I have three daughters, seven grandchildren and two great grandchildren. Thank you, John. Thank you.

Thank you, John. We will now go to Ted Cordova to be followed by Kevin Evey. Ted.

Good morning, chair and supervisors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Ted Cordova and I'm here on behalf of EMB Natural Resources and more importantly, the employees sitting here today. whose livelihoods are directly affected by this decision. We continue to oppose the phase one ordinance prohibiting future local oil production does not eliminate the need for oil or the products made from it. Before making such a significant policy decision, we believe the county needs to fully understand the environmental, economic, and community consequences of where that supply will come from instead. And we really appreciate the earlier comments from Supervisor Lavagnino. The county should understand that relationship between local production and local asphalt needs. We strongly support such an approach and understanding. Taking the time to understand those impacts before moving forward is responsible policy making and we appreciate the board's willingness to consider those. I also want to emphasize that a just transition has to be just for the people and communities actually experiencing it. New Cuyama is a community of roughly 500 people and EMB happens to be one of their largest employers. Our employees live there, they work there, they raise their families there. This year we offered summer internships to all 15 seniors at the Cuyama High School. Last, we had two that accepted. And last year we had one intern that turned into a full-time position. So those are things that are very impactful for the community. So all these, in a community this small, those jobs and opportunities matter. The employees sitting here today are the people who live with the consequences of the decisions made in this room. And we respectfully ask the board to postpone action and not close the door on responsible local production without first understanding those consequences and considering reasonable alternative and fair pathways forward. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Cordoba.

We'll now go to Kevin Evie to be followed by Alex Gutierrez. Kevin.

Good morning, Board. Kevin Ivey, my family are mineral royalty owners. We are among the 500,000 Californians that lease our mineral rights to independent operators that produce the petroleum products like asphalt and transportation fuels that sustains life in California. Royalty owners kindly ask that instead of approving the proposed oil and gas phase-out ordinance, that you please table this ordinance and instead let's begin a study now of how we achieve sustainable local crude production in Santa Barbara County. We are all troubled when we walk along our beaches and we get tar on our feet and we see tar balls floating in the surf. But that beach tar is not the result of landside oil operations. That is the result of natural marine seepage in Santa Barbara Channel. Cal Berkeley professor Joseph Selvey's research shows that as many as 400 barrels of oil and up to 7 million cubic feet of gas seep into Santa Barbara Channel every day naturally. That's what's washing onto our beaches. Natural seepage from the coal oil point site off Isla Vista alone is 150 barrels daily, 55,000 barrels a year. And now that there's no production from Platform Holly, reservoir pressure is increasing and reservoir itself is recharging. Not to minimize it, but the unfortunate and preventable Refugio 2015 spill of 3,000 barrels is only a day and a half of total natural seepage into Santa Barbara Channel. My point is this, let's not let natural oil seepage color our decision making for landside oil operations. We can collaborate and design a program for green and sustainable local oil production that may be among the first in the nation right here in Santa Barbara County. Let's do it. Work with us. Let's collaborate with oil field workers here today, producers, royalty owners, and with planning staff and design a sustainable local production program that meets the goals for clean energy transition while still providing petroleum products that Californians need. Let's table this proposed ordinance today and commence a study right away. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ivey.

We will now go to Alex Gutierrez to be followed by Tony Padilla. Alex.

Good morning. My name is Alex Gutierrez. I work for Sentinel Peak Resources and I live in Orchid with my wife and our three daughters. Outside of work, I'm the field director of Orchid Youth Softball. We have got over 300 girls in our program and a lot of financial support comes from local field companies. This industry gives back to the community in ways most people don't see. It's not just jobs, it's youth sports, local charities, and small businesses. Pushing this phase out through will hurt my family and many others. Please support my community and reject this phase out. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now go to Tony Padilla to be followed by Emory Johnston. Tony.

Good morning, board. My name is Tony Padilla. I'm a Sentinel Peak Resource Operator. My wife and I live here in Orchid our whole lives with my two boys. Orchid was built on oil. It is part of our story and our economy. These jobs are tax revenues paid for the parks, schools, and help with the sports. The very thing that makes our community great. The county has a big financial gap and taking away local revenue and jobs does not make sense. By phasing out oil, you're cutting into not just my job, but it impacts those contractors that our communities employ. It extends to the businesses where all our families pay our hard earned money. This is our community that you will be impacting. I'm asking the board to stop this phase out so we can protect the environment without destroying our livelihoods. Let's focus on local control, reliable energy, and keeping Santa Barbara County strong. Thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

We will now go to Emory Johnston to be followed by Cliff Simonson. Emory?

Thank you. What I have to say is pretty redundant, I think, from what has been said. I'm a royalty holder in Cuyamma, and we've been involved in the oil since 1949, my grandfather. And it's pretty important to the whole community. One thing I would point out that may not be redundant is that although this is a very important issue, I think we need to give it great thought, which is redundant, study and cooperation. And I really don't need two minutes because everything's been said that I had in mind. But appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

We will now go to Cliff Simonson to be followed by Doug Imparato. Cliff.

Good morning, Supervisors. My name is Cliff Simonson. And I am with I've been in the oil industry for 50 years and I've worked and I'm I'm second generation. My daughter back there is third generation oil and gas. I've worked here in Orkut and Santa Maria as well as around the state and for 50 years. 50 years. It's unbelievable. I really enjoyed the comment about the diaper program. I think I really would support that. I just want to note that diapers are made from oil and gas. So just a fun fact. We're a service company up here. We do the, we're like the mobile doctor's offices for wells. And we work on all the compliance, well removal and such. And The elimination of wells and the industry up here would be, I think, a tragedy for the economy and for the energy supply that we need in the state. So let's delay the study. Let's look at what it does for the county and for our people in the state of California. We need to protect the local jobs and the families, those jobs support. Thank you.

We will now go to Doug Imparato to be followed by John Hockleitner. Doug?

Good morning. My name is Doug Imperato. I am a Santa Barbara resident for the last 35 years I've lived there and a UCSB graduate. So my concern with these ordinances under consideration is simple. They impose real economic costs on the county without any real benefit. They'll have no impact on global CO2 emissions and no impact on climate change. First, the economic cost. Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation 2025 study estimated the county's oil and gas industry supports 5,061 jobs, including 1,402 direct jobs, 519 million in labor income, and 1.27 billion in economic value added. These are significant benefits to our local economy. And the proposed amendments could ultimately eliminate much of this activity. Now consider the climate benefit. These amendments do not reduce petroleum demand. This is pointed out by a few people here today. Californians will still drive, fly, and use petroleum products. If oil is no longer produced here, the oil needed to meet that demand will be imported. Imports already comprise more than 80% of the California oil demand. These ordinances simply will change where oil is produced, not how much is consumed. California's own Air Resources Board recognized this as emissions leakage, reducing production here while shifting production and associated emissions elsewhere. back in the day we would probably call this a nimby situation not in my backyard it's okay to produce oil somewhere else just not here so these proposed amendments have real measurable costs with no real benefit thank you doug that is your time thank you we will now go to john hawk lightner to be followed by olivia simonson john

Good morning, thank you for hearing me. Chairman Nelson board. My name is John Hook Lightner. I'm a lifelong resident of Santa Barbara County. I'm with Pacific Trojan California Incorporated. I've been in the oil industry approximately 53 years. We have 305 employees, all about 225 from Santa Barbara County residents, and we pay living wage sustainable for them to buy houses and support their families. The oil industry changed a lot since I started. There's about 50,000 barrels a day in production in Santa Barbara County here. We used to go up to the Santa Maria Refinery, which was union oil at the time, and through their extensive pipeline system, we used to make a lot of the gas. You guys have approved the old Conoco Refinery on Sinton Road going. We desperately need the asphalt here for road repairs in this county and this state. I beg you guys to have a little bit of common sense and help support our industry and for everybody to have good paying jobs in this state. Thank you. Thank you, John.

We will now go to Olivia Simonson to be followed by Rich Field. Olivia.

Hello, good morning, supervisors, Mr. Chair and staff. My name is Olivia Simonson. I'm with California Well Services. We are a service company supporting the well maintenance of local producers. I wanted to emphasize two of the key points that Supervisor Nelson mentioned in his conversation with staff earlier. Firstly, that the county's use of a categorical exemption for phase one ignores the significant impacts of the combined ordinances on mineral resources and fails to consider the greenhouse gas and other impacts that will be the inevitable result of the phase out. These are just some of the many flaws that make the county's use of a categorical exemption for the phase one impermissible and unlawful under CEQA. Further phasing this ordinance process into two phases and sequestering the environmental impact report in phase two is a textbook example of the kind of piecemealing that is prohibited under CEQA. So really crucial to take these things into account and to make sure that we do this process right. I am really confident that this county can be a leader in sustainable and just solutions that balance the energy and climate goals of this community with the reality of the abundant natural resources that are available here. And prohibition is the easy step to take. Balancing the interests of the amazing folks in this room and the reality of the natural resources that are available here in this community is the hard part. And the work and the conversations that need to happen in order to create those solutions, I implore you all to have those conversations. We're here for those conversations and we look forward to figuring out how we can create balance in this community with sustainable leadership that balances goals and local production. Thank you.

Thank you, Leah.

We will now go to Rich Field to be followed by Bill Dunlap. Rich.

Good morning. Chair Nelson, Board of Supervisors, my name is Rich Field. I am the Senior EHS Manager with Pacific Coast Energy Company. I'm here to speak on the ordinance that is before us. Before I start, I did tune into the Planning Commission hearing last week or a couple weeks ago about the refinery change. Since the refinery Think would be a good thing for for local production because it does represent Most of our to all of our production since we are one of the larger producers here in North Santa Barbara County One thing I wanted to bring up was Planning Commissioner Park's statement about the refinery being a carbon sink, which I thought it really kind of caught my attention. And I want to give recognition to the district, Joan Hartman, and her planning supervisor for calling that out. I think that's a good path forward for us. I think, you know, through negotiations, maybe we stop what's going on here and we go back to the drawing board and look where we can produce our oil locally. and send it to the refining process as well. The new refinery is not the cleanest refinery in California. There are cleaner refineries that are building lower emissions. Just look over in Taft. That refinery is much cleaner than the refinery that is going in. So there's opportunities for more expansion for asphalt in Santa Barbara County. We can produce a cleaner and provide them the barrels that we need. So I encourage... planning to go back to the drawing board for the first phase and let's start talking let's start talking outside the box to see how we can prolong our life in this uh in north in north santa barbara county thank you for your time thank you rich we will now go to bill dunlap to be followed by claire weinman bill

Thank you, Chairman Nelson and supervisors for allowing us to speak today. My name is Bill Dunlap. I'm a resident of Newport Beach and a fifth generation oil royalty owner. My great grandfather, who was Speaker Pro Tem in 1910 in the assembly, was asked by the assembly to draft the first oil drilling permit in California. uh because he did i guess a fairly good job they issued it to him and he was one of the owners of the great lakeview gusher in taft california which spewed oil environmentally safe for months but that's changed now california is one of the most regulated and strictest environmental states in the nation and in the world, yet we import oil that you've heard tonight in great amounts, up to 80%, that has no environmental concern to it. No one goes down to Brazil and looks at how they drill the oil, but yet we import it up here in old tankers, costing us hundreds of dollars per gallon actually excuse me dollars per gallon more and that's why we pay this higher price because we buy foreign oil so I ask that you delay this ordinance and review it let us be involved with a co-op study to do it together so we can call this a unique situation for Santa Barbara County where you could be one of the leaders in how we do sustainable oil and drill the right way so thank you for letting me speak thank you mr dunlap we will now go to claire weinman to be followed by tara renhefo claire good morning my name is claire i'm the president at the grocery association santa barbara in san luis obispo counties and we submitted written comments on friday

Both personally and professionally, this is not the right thing to do. We urge you to vote no on the proposed prohibition and the fatally flawed findings of approval. If we look around this room at county facilities and its vendors, or go to the corner of Main and Broadway, the answer is clear. Our reality is that right now, with the technology available, our communities need oil, gas, and their derivatives as essential inputs. This is true for the county, for agriculture, our residents, and many key employment sectors. Feasible alternatives are not currently available. They say if you like foreign oil, then you'll love foreign food. I don't want either. I want for our county to be autonomous in both respects and to take responsibility for providing for its own instead of shipping problems elsewhere in the world. Prohibiting a problem doesn't make it go away. Leadership is not canceling something because we wish our community's needs and realities were different. Let's meet our community where it's at and bring us forward together to advance solutions, not prohibitions. Thank you.

We will now go to Tara Ranjifo to be followed by Edward Hazard. Tara.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Tara Ranjifo. I'm a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Center. I urge you to adopt the staff recommended ordinance amendments to ban new oil and gas drilling in the county. This action is lawful, defensible, and a necessary first step to achieving the goals set out in your climate action plan. Your authority here is clear. The California constitution gives counties the police power to enact land use ordinances to protect public health and safety and public resources code section 3106.1 expressly authorizes the county to prohibit new oil and gas development within its boundaries. Prohibiting new oil drilling will reduce air pollution, protect our drinking water, safeguard our health, and help meet our county's plan to cut GHG pollution. For years, residents throughout the county and local groups have called for no new oil drilling and a transition to renewable energy. Yet the oil industry continued to push riskier extraction techniques and dirtier projects. Over the past several years, these projects have been defeated one by one, but now the county is empowered is empowered by the enhanced regulatory authority granted to local governments by AB 3233 to prohibit new oil and gas drilling for good. These ordinance amendments will align the county with the broader state legislative trends to prioritize public health and environmental justice over oil development. Please adopt the ordinance to amend the LUDC and CZO to prohibit new oil drilling in Santa Barbara County. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now go to Edward Hazard, and after Edward, we will take a break. Edward?

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Ed Hazard. I'm with the California chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners. My family and I are Santa Barbara County mineral and royalty owners. NARO California advocates for an estimated 600,000 oil and gas mineral and royalty owners throughout California. including owners directly affected by the ordinances before you today these royalty owners include families who have lived in santa bar county for generations they're retirees farmers ranchers non-profits and small business owners we strongly urge the board to reject this ordinance First, mineral rights are property rights. Unlike an ordinary business affected by a zoning change, a mineral owner cannot relocate his property. An oil or gas deposit exists where nature placed it. Its economic value depends upon the ability to access and responsibly produce that resource. If government prohibits production, the oil does not disappear. It remains underground while the owner's ability to realize the value of his property was taken. There is another consequence worth considering. For some agricultural families, royalty income helps keep farms and ranches economically viable and in family ownership. Eliminating that income can put additional financial pressure on families trying to keep agricultural land intact for future generations. Second, these ordinance raise serious constitutional takings questions. NARO has been through this before. NARO pursue, participated in the successful challenge to Monterey County's Measure Z. In that case, the trial court concluded in its intended decision that, quote, consequently, should it take effect, Measure Z would affect a facial regulatory taking of CRCs and some members of NARO's property, end quote. The court further stated that, quote, the remaining petitioners would have the option of proceeding with as applied taking claim, end quote. Measure Z was ultimately invalidated with the judgment unanimously upheld through the California appellate courts and the California Supreme Court. An amortization does not cure the constitutional problem. You cannot amortize a mineral right the way you might ordinary non-conforming business. A business may eventually recover its investment and relocate. The mineral cannot relocate. Giving an owner an arbitrary number of years before government requires production to cease does not compensate that owner for valuable resources left underground. Extending the deprivation over a longer period does not make the owner whole. Third, we have serious concerns about CEQA. Phase one prohibits future drilling while phase two contemplates this.

That is your time. Thank you, Ed.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. all right we're going to go ahead and take about a 10 minute break we'll be back at 10 45 for the conclusion of public comment thank you All right, welcome back to September 15th meeting the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Maria. We're on Department item number one. Just for a point of Agenda management. We did get started a little earlier on this item and I think some people were told that wasn't going to start till 10. So I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment back out for the next two speakers. So those of you who may have gotten here late will get a chance to still make public comment after two speakers. I'll go ahead and close it again. So I'm going to go ahead and reopen that at this time and we'll get back to our speakers. We're about a third of the way through our speakers at this point. um barring a couple of additions to that but that's how we will proceed from here so with that um madam clerk who's our next speaker chair nelson members of the board yes we will remain here in santa maria and we will begin with ken huff to be followed by ben oakley ken good afternoon chair nelson and supervisors

I'm Ken Huff, a resident of Santa Maria Valley and retired SBCAN staff member. You've heard a number of good reasons to approve this item and you'll hear a bunch more in other comments that I know are going to be made. But I have a personal story. In 2014, soon after I moved to Santa Maria, I wanted to learn about the city. And I decided to walk every street in the city limits. And I found out that from Public Works there's about 250 centerline miles. And I decided I'll do this in one year. And I'm not going to drive my car to get to a starting point. I use my bike and the public transit. And I did it in one year exactly. And I learned a few things. So it wasn't a physical challenge, 300 miles in 365 days, but I wore out a city map and a yellow highlighter, keeping track of it. That was the hard part, making sure I didn't miss something. When I walked through Sunrise Hills, a relatively new neighborhood of single family homes in the southern part of Santa Maria, I was surprised to find about three dozen empty lots that were surrounded by temporary fencing. And a lot of people don't know what that was all about. Chair Nelson probably knows a lot more than I know, but I know there were three dozen of them. I took pictures and I was puzzled. Why is this happening? So the follow-up research, such as it was for me, indicated that the lots were purchased by an oil company and that all of the owners had signed nondisclosure agreements. Those agreements, it seems to me, limited the amount of public information about the causes of these demolitions. The impact on these three dozen families and their neighbors and the potential for this to happen again is one other good reason for you to approve the action before you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Huff.

We will now go to Ben Oakley to be followed by Pasha Maravi. Ben.

Good morning, board. My name is Ben Oakley. I'm with the Western States Petroleum Association. I'll just note that this is not a small housekeeping ordinance amendment. It is the first binding chapter of a shutdown the board ordered last May. Freeze new wells now, phase out existing operations later. Staff split the single program so phase one could move under a CEQA exemption. The law does not allow that. You have to review the whole action, including the second half you already directed. California is an oil island. We import most of our crude by tanker, cut Santa Barbara production, and those barrels do not disappear. They arrive by ship with more emissions, more spill risk, and more pressure on strain ports and refineries. You are required to study this first half of a single programmatic action. Operators and royalty owners also invested under permits the county already approved. The draft says vested rights are protected, but it never defines them or how disputes will be decided before activity is banned. AB 3233 does not wipe these problems away. It does not excuse CEQA. It does not erase vested rights. HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT WE NEED TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE FOR AIR QUALITY ISSUES. I'M ON THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL AND AT OUR LAST MEETING WE JUST LOOKED AT THE DRAFT OZONE PLAN WHERE WE ARE MOVING INTO NONATTAINMENT TRANSITIONAL WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP TO GO TOWARDS FULL ATTAINMENT. AND I'LL NOTE THAT WE WERE ALSO IN ATTAINMENT couple years ago and then slipped back Slightly and so actually the air quality story for Santa Barbara County is actually a success story. This is done You know with with the industry in production There's been a lot of emission reductions required by APCD rules that have cut emissions at those production facilities. So I just wanted to note that the draft ozone plan does undercut those arguments we've been hearing in support of the ordinance. Please vote no today or hold this item. Thank you, Mr. Oakley. Study the full shutdown plan before you lock in the first step. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Oakley.

We will now go to Pasha Maravi to be followed by Marie Dawson. Pasha?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Pasha Madhavi. I'm a resident of Santa Barbara in District 1 and a professor at UCSB, where I teach statistics and energy policy. My research team, in conjunction with the Community Labor Center at UCSB, led by Carmen Rhodes, conducted a 10-month research study on the demographics of the oil and gas workforce, the economic impacts of a prohibition on new oil and gas drilling, and phase out of existing oil and gas operations, and public attitudes on these issues. That report is submitted as public comment. I'll give one top line result here from our public opinion survey of roughly 3,000 residents across the county, where we found that 65% of all county residents support an ordinance to prohibit new onshore oil and gas drilling in the county, which is the measure before us today recommended by county staff. That is nearly two out of every three county residents support this, and it's not just a north versus south county story. We find majority support in four of five districts. In a previous report, we modeled the economic and health impacts of a phase out to find that phasing out oil and gas operations in the county would significantly improve public health, by reducing exposure to harmful pollutants such as PM2.5 and VOCs. We found that a phase-out policy could prevent an estimated 54 to 81 million dollars in mortality-related costs by 2045. And lastly, I want to say there is no relationship between oil production extracted here and gasoline prices, as has been noted before. I just got back from leading a convening in Sacramento, where at our keynote, Vice Chair of the CEC Sivagunda remarked that even if California has full in-state crude oil production or full refining sufficiency, it does not matter for gasoline prices, as these are set by global markets. By banning new oil drilling, Santa Barbara has the opportunity to be the light of the world, to show the rest of the country how to transition into the future. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on approving the recommendations from Planning and Development Department to prohibit new oil and gas developments in the county. Thank you. Thank you.

We will now go to Murray Dawson to be followed by Eric Vasquez. Murray.

Chair, board, staff, my name is Murray Dawson, the South County Director for SBCAN. I'm here to speak on behalf of our organization alongside the 60% of county residents demanding more climate protection in support of approving the proposed amendments prohibiting the drilling of new oil and gas wells in order to protect our community's health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important moment. an opportunity for our leadership to make a strategic decision about our county's future, bringing us closer to the economic benefits of a clean energy economy and creating opportunities for alternative uses of the land now dedicated to oil production. In the short term, a phase-out policy could prevent the release of approximately 344 metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2045 and avoid climate damages valued at $21.8 million. I appreciate your disciplined stewardship of this county and please approve the amendments proposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dawson.

We will now go to Eric Vasquez to be followed by Mike Stoker. Eric.

Good morning, Chair Nielsen, members of the board. My name is Eric Vasquez and I'm here representing Asphalta LLC. We are a longtime producer of oil in Santa Barbara County with the majority of our oil being used for asphalt. I think you've all heard this before. We've submitted several letters and we've had that stance since we started producing here in 2010. My company did submit a letter opposing the proposed changes. that you're considering today to the code. And we asked in that letter for consideration of a way to continue producing asphalt products here in the County, whether that's through an exemption, a study, I really leave that up to you, but we're asking for your consideration for that. Our stance remains the same. Please do not vote on today's ordinance changes. And I'm here to answer any questions that you might have on our products and the way we do our business. Thank you.

We will now go to Mike Stoker to be followed by Tia Cordell.

Actually, before Mr. Stoker comes to the mic, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment again. So it's now closed. Thank you, Mr. Stoker.

honorable chairman, honorable members of the board. Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, resigned from Greenpeace in 1986 because he said the organization was a bunch of hypocrites and he couldn't be a part of an organization that wasn't true to the cause because they didn't support nuclear energy. Because it had the lowest carbon footprint of all the energies available. And I only bring that up today because I think if we're going to be intellectually honest, picking up what Andy said earlier, we really have two policies here. We get 62% of our oil from foreign sources, 20% from Iraq, 19% from Brazil. That gentleman said earlier, what happens in Brazil? They cut down the rainforest to get it in Brazil. 62%. 10 to 20 times the carbon footprint because it's what they're coming from the oil tankers. Then if we have it from California with California refineries that have much more stringent labor, occupational safety, environmental standards. In Iraq, by the way, they have no air quality emissions. And they have very little standards when it comes to occupational safety, labor, and environment. So what you have here is a policy choice. Now, it's great when most of your constituents say, we're for the environment. We're going to stop oil and this and that. But every time you vote on a policy like this, it's a de facto vote for foreign oil. That's a fact. That's if you're going to be intellectually honest. And I don't care. You can talk about CO2 emissions. You want to talk about what's better for the environment. California oil that's produced in our refineries with the highest standards in terms of environmentally, in terms of labor, transported by pipeline versus foreign oil. So you're voting for foreign oil. You're voting for rainforest being cut down. So be intellectually honest in that. At least acknowledge that fact because that's what's before you today. They say if we unleash California's energy, we can cut it from 62% to less than 10%. So what you have here is California oil from these folks or foreign oil from outside this country transported by oil tanker.

Thank you, Mike. That is your time. We will now go to Tia Cordell to be followed by Amir Salazar. Tia?

My name is Tia Cordell, and I am the Director of Communications for the Community Environmental Council. First, I want to thank you, the county staff, and elected officials for working hard over the years to advance strong climate policies that protect our health and home. I'm asking you to take the next step forward and approve the opposed amendments prohibiting the drilling of new oil and gas wells, a decision that will help us advance toward the county's climate goals and protect community health. Over my three years with CEC, I have had the great fortune of talking with many of our community members about what matters most to them. Time and time again, people express they want clean air, clean water, and a livable climate future. a future that is still within reach, according to a new UN environmental program report. It's also clear what our community doesn't want. We hear it all the time, no more fossil fuels, no more dirty oil extraction that causes air pollution, risks the health of our community and wildlife, and pumps carbon emissions into our atmosphere. To show just how prevalent this sentiment is, CEC and our partner organizations have circulated postcards over the last few months asking folks to sign if they support No New Wells. I'm here to deliver nearly 800 postcards, all signed all signed by residents who support the ban on new oil and gas extraction when i hold this box i imagine each person who signed a postcard standing here with us today asking for an end to new oil drilling this room would be overflowing with people people all hoping you'll take this step to protect our home health and future we're immensely grateful for the progress we've made please continue toward the clean future that santa barbara community wants and needs please vote to prohibit new oil and gas wells in our county thank you we will now go to amir salazar to be followed by ethan madej amir

Good morning, chairs and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Amory Salazar and I'm a UCSB student. I grew up in the 805 and I'm here today to strongly support Santa Barbara County's proposed oil and gas phase out ordinance. For me, this issue is personal. I grew up in the 805 in a community where working class families, immigrant families and communities of color are deeply connected to the land and to industries like agriculture. I've seen how environmental issues are never just environmental issues. They affect our health, our jobs, our families, and our ability to feel safe in our own communities. And we already know that oil and gas production comes with real public health costs. According to California Air Resources Board data, oil production has been the largest stationary facility source of several harmful polluters in Santa Barbara County. and there's a very real economic cost to those health impacts. Research from UCSB estimates that phasing out oil and gas operations in Santa Barbara County could prevent between $54 and $81 million in mortality-related costs by 2045, in addition to avoiding an estimated $21.8 million in climate damages. That matters to me because I grew up here. I remember the Thomas fire in 2017. I remember watching the smoke cover Oxnard and seeing how quickly a disaster can disrupt people's lives. And then just weeks later, the Montecito debris took 23 lives. I don't bring this up to say that old production caused those disasters. I bring it up because living through events like that changes the way you think about risk. Santa Barbara County already faces serious wildfire, flooding and other climate related issues and hazards. And the county itself recognizes that climate change is making these disasters more intense and frequent. So when we have an opportunity to stop expanding an industry that contributes to climate change and exposes our communities to harmful pollution, I believe you have a responsibility to take it. And I also want to emphasize that this is not about turning our backs on our workers. Irresponsible transition should include workers, communities and a plan for what comes next. We should be investing in clean energy, good jobs and a transition that makes sure working people are not left behind. Santa Barbara has the opportunity to show what responsible climate leadership looks like. We can acknowledge the role oil has played in our region's history while also recognizing that our future does not have to depend on it. I urge you to approve the proposed amendments.

Thank you. Thank you. We will now go to Ethan Madej to be followed by Haley Evers. Ethan.

Hello. I am Ethan Madej. I'm a high school student at Santa Barbara High School, and I'm the president of 805 Action, a youth advocacy group in Santa Barbara. Everyone in this room is here fighting for what we think is a better future. Mine doesn't involve fossil fuels. And I know it doesn't just, there's not just a valve you can close. You need to slowly start phasing out fossil fuels. that starts today we need to make leaps and bounds we are leaps and bounds farther along in this process than so many places in the world i'm grateful for this county's leadership in this issue thank you for getting us this far and thank you for protecting our future i urge you to vote yes on this proposal because it's just common sense. We need to start phasing out the fossil fuel industry. That starts with no new wells. That just makes sense. Why keep drilling for something we have enough of? We import enough oil, and we have enough oil. All around the world, in California, in the US, we have enough oil. for all of the different products that need oil and we have enough electricity from wind and solar which you guys have led on too we have the resources we need and we can move forward without oil you will hear in a few minutes from some of our youth who couldn't make it out today, obviously. But we want to include youth voices in this conversation. So we made a video with some of our 805 Action youth who will be speaking in a little while. Keep an eye out for that. Thank you for leading in this, and I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Ethan.

We will now go to Haley Evers to be followed by Drake House.

Hello. My name is Haley Ehlers, Executive Director at Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas, or CFROG, a grassroots advocacy organization leading a just transition away from fossil fuels to protect our health, economy, and climate here on the Central Coast. We urge the Board of Supervisors to approve staff recommendations on the simple but incredibly important ordinance amendments to prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells. I'd like to emphasize the legality of this narrow policy. First, state law reaffirmed by AB 3233 grants local governments the explicit authority to, quote, prohibit oil and gas operations or development within their jurisdictions. Second, the ordinance would not impermissibly impair vested rights as there is an exemption for such cases and it is narrowly concerned with infrastructure that does not yet exist. Similarly, takings claims are irrelevant here as prohibition on new wells is not a deprivation of all economic value of an oil and gas operation. Expecting or hoping to make a profit is not enough to weigh in favor of a regulatory's takings because there is no absolute property right in theoretical profits. This is particularly true for heavily regulated industries, which property owners are expected to reasonably anticipate new and restrictive regulations through land use policy. Lastly, moving forward with this ordinance to prohibit new oil and gas wells is essential to fulfilling the county's mandated service delivery promise of a safe, healthy, and prosperous life for all Santa Barbara County residents. There are over 30,000 residents who live within an unsafe distance to a polluting oil and gas well, over 60% of whom are people of color. The documented negative health impacts they experience and the compounding health and safety threats to all Santa Barbara residents that all santa barbara residents face as a result of fossil fuel fossil-fueled climate catastrophe are evident enough to support an end to new oil and gastro new oil and gas wells from being drilled which is all that's in front of you today thank you thank you we will now go to drake house to be followed by bruce haas drake

HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS DRAKE HOUSE. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF SIERRA RESOURCES, A LOCAL OPERATOR. AND I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I'VE GOT A WIFE AND FIVE KIDS ALL UNDER THE AGE OF 10. LOOKS LIKE FOR MY WIFE, ACTUALLY. SHE'S CLOSER TO MY AGE, OF COURSE. And I came from humble beginnings. I grew up in Taft, California, and a small house, no AC, and the only one in my family to get a college degree. And I've kind of put all my eggs in this basket. And so here I am in this county, operating here and so approving this will absolutely harmfully impact me and my family. So I do want you to know that. And then I also think that splitting this ordinance into two phases is irresponsible because we're phasing out oil and gas if that's the plan and it can be split One of those things doesn't require an environmental impact report, but the other one does. It doesn't seem to make sense. And so I would ask that you do not adopt this today. Thank you.

We will now go to Bruce Haas to be followed by Anne Marie. Bruce.

Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board. My name is Bruce Haas, and I'm the director of the Sierra Club Santa Barbara Ventura Chapter. I'm here today in support of this ordinance change. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the 5,000 members in this county, as well as the thousands of members in North County, where oil and gas extraction has continued to scar our landscape, spew toxic methane gas into our air, and pollute the groundwater, particularly in the Santa Maria River Basin. october 2025 your staff heard from your board heard from staff on the status of orphan idle wells in santa barbara county that that report over 1200 idle wells over 1 000 active wells i think was an important show of display of the amount of methane that comes from idle wells overall The California Energy Commission found that 65% of idle wells and 67% of active wells are leaking methane across our state. This using EPA data and based on the research that is done from California Energy Commission equates to about 125,000 pounds of carbon per day that is emitted from our wells in this county. That's about a million pounds a week. This is a human health, environmental, and economic crisis for our citizens. As you know, the county has no legal mechanism or funding to plug and abandon orphan or idle wells. We're at the whims of CalGEM state funding, prioritization, and recommendation timeline. Considering the average cost to plug idle and abandoned wells in this county is over $200,000, our county would need hundreds of millions of dollars to be able to address this issue today. What is before you today is to do something or to do nothing. Doing nothing has led us down this course where we have leaking methane all over our communities. I urge you to vote yes on this amendment and thank you for your time.

We will now go to Anne Myrie to be followed by Charlie Catherman. Anne.

thank you good morning members of the board and chair um for nearly 90 years my family has operated a cattle ranch in quiama my name is anne myrie along with my sisters and my cousin four women we the third generation continue to operate this ranch as calianti ranch quiama llc In addition to grazing ground, we have developed some irrigated farmland and we have exercised our mineral rights through oil and gas exploration. While we own the surface, many of our cousins have benefited and continue to benefit from the mineral rights. Today I ask this board to please protect our ability to exercise our minimum rights by rejecting the oil and gas prohibition ordinance before you. Further, this not in my backyard policy is baffling. In my view, it is anti-environmental on a global level and elitist on the local level. It doesn't recognize the needs of the average resident in this county. And I can say this, I'm also a graduate of UCSB, as some of your other speakers. Furthermore, locally sourced energy production is a matter of economic and national security. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now go to Charlie Catherman, then we are going to Zoom with Brooke Balthazar. Charlie?

Good. Is it morning still? Yeah. My name is Chair Nelson, members of the board. My name is Charlie Catherman. I'm a small business owner in Santa Barbara County that is involved in oil and gas, but also in groundwater. I've been in front of your board numerous times. One of the drawbacks of going last in the speaker is everybody's already hit all of your points. So I'm gonna take a different approach as a business owner. And there are business owners in this room, including some of you on the board. 35 years I've been building this company, supporting families, 10 families, 10 partners, a lot of service companies, they depend on this work and this is their livelihoods, this is my livelihood. If you can imagine as a small business owner standing up in front of this board and hearing, we don't like you so we're gonna regulate you right out of business. Where is the compromise? Where is the cooperating? Gentleman over here said, oh, we have methane spewing out of all these wells. APCD would roll me over on the ground and threaten lawsuit if my wells leaked methane. I have to check them all the time, constantly, daily, weekly, monthly. It's a bunch of crap. My 40 years in groundwater tells me there's not oil contamination in our groundwater in Santa Maria. I don't know where this stuff comes from, but I'm directly involved in knowing the answers to those questions. I appreciate your time. I hope that we can cooperate going forward to find a compromise. If South County doesn't want drilling, ban it there.

Thank you, Charlie. That is your time.

Thank you all.

We will now go to Zoom with Brooke Balthazar to be followed by Lauren Tatarski. Brooke?

Hi, can you hear me?

If you can speak just a little bit louder, that would be greatly appreciated.

Is this better?

You're still a little quiet.

Okay, I'm going to take my headphones out here. Is this better?

Yes, thank you.

Brooke Balthasar I believe the clerk has a video that I'd like to play for my comment. But before we play that, good morning. My name is Brooke Balthasar and I'm the Community Organizing Manager at CFROG or Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas. Through my role, I have the privilege of working with young leaders in Santa Barbara County. leaders that wanted to be here today to share their voice but cannot due to being in school. Because of this, I would like to share a video that these leaders made so that their voices can still be heard today and urge you to take their perspective seriously. You all have an opportunity today to help create a future in which the young people you serve can not only survive, but thrive. I hope you take advantage of it. If you could play the video now, that would be great.

Hi there, I'm Ethan Madej.

Hi, my name is Lauren Folletti.

I'm Ezra Manriquez.

Hi, my name is Jade Garcia. I'm a sophomore at Santa Barbara High School. I'm Bella Pena. I'm a freshman at Santa Barbara City College. My name is Iris Heckes. I'm an 11th grader at Santa Barbara High School. Hi, my name is Sophia Azam. Hi, I'm Nanami Fuller. I support the oil phase out just because I'm very concerned about my future. I support the No New Well policy because I think we have enough fossil fuels in our ecosystem. I'm 16 and I don't think that fossil fuels need to be part of my future.

We don't need to continue investing in a dead industry. We have the solutions to replace oil and gas and I'm grateful that the county is taking the first steps to do so.

I really just hope that you guys vote yes so that Santa Barbara can stay healthy. Vote yes on the oil phase out. Vote yes. Vote yes. Vote yes.

No new wells. Vote yes.

I urge the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed amendments to prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells to protect community health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you.

We will now go to Lauren Tatarski to be followed by Mary Ellen Brooks. Lauren?

Hello. Hello, everyone. My name is Lauren Tatarski. You can hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Yes, my family owns oil and gas mineral rights. I'm a member of NARO and also the co-coordinator of the Mineral Rights Action Network, which is a nationwide alliance of oil and gas mineral rights owners who are directing our legacy and resources to environmental protection, community well-being and industry accountability. My grandfather moved to Colorado in the 50s to follow the booming oil industry and bought oil and gas mineral rights across this region as investment opportunities. These assets have been passed down to my mother and my aunt, and I am preparing along with my sister and cousin to inherit them in the years to come. I loved my grandfather very much. We were very close, and I am grateful for his legacy. Myself and fellow owners at the Mineral Rights Action Network support the phase-out plan. We analyzed data from over half a million individual mineral rights owners in the state of Texas where this data is easily accessible. We discovered that 70% of oil and gas mineral rights owners are either likely or highly likely to care about the environmental impacts of the oil and gas industry and to support the climate movement. We also sent a survey to over 70,000 of these owners and got the same results, around 70%. I am here today to speak on behalf of oil and gas mineral owners who understand that our continued reliance on fossil fuels is polluting our air and water and causing the climate crisis. The adverse community environmental impacts of fossil fuel extraction extend far beyond the boundaries of individually owned private property. The members of our network strive to be responsible stewards of our assets, and we support regulations like the phase out, an action that is consistent with the dire urgency of our crisis after decades of compromising with the interests of the oil industry. The mineral rights owners at the Mineral Rights Action Network want to invest collectively in a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren rather than fight over private property ownership and short term profit. we know how expensive climate chaos is and will continue to be in the end we will all profit if we can prevent further damage to our planet thank you we will now go to m mary ellen brooks to be followed by emily engel mary ellen uh yes good morning

My name is Mary Ellen Brooks and I'm speaking right now as president of Citizens Planning Association. I would like to voice our support of the adoption of phase one, which would prohibit new oil development. CPA has followed oil and gas activity in Santa Barbara County since we were formed in 1960. We have supported the county's efforts to provide for safe and clean oil production. And yes, we have also come before you to voice our concerns over multiple oil disasters. We were here in 1969 for that oil spill. And that oil spill and the reaction from the public did really begin the environmental movement, not only in Santa Barbara County, but in the United States. We have also voiced concerns in front of you about the Refugio oil spill. We've also voiced our concerns about problem companies such as FRECA. Today at long last, we're here to commend the board for researching and proposing phase one of this ordinance. On a personal level, I live in Vanderburgh Village, which is adjacent to a very active oil field. Everyone in Vandenberg Village needs a voice when it comes to issues of oil development and even the existing oil industry. We live in the fourth district, all of us, and probably half of us, you know, feel that we're not getting the voice that we need today. So just in closing, I would like to say that we encourage the board to support and enact phase one. And it is a good start. Thank you very much.

We will now go to Emily Angle to be followed by Mike McClellan. Emily.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my comment. My name is Emily Engel. I'm chair of the Santa Barbara Sierra Club Group. I'm speaking on behalf of our over 8,000 local members and supporters, including families with young children who could not be here today. As you all know, I am an advocate for this work that you're doing. I think what you are Working toward in our county is the future for our children, and it's working toward keeping all of us safe and giving us access to protected wild lands and wild spaces. I commend your work and I encourage you to support this measure. I also would like to emphasize, as Professor Mondavi spoke in his study, the $54 million plus of associated health risks are disproportionately felt by women and girls and our grandmothers, all members of our group who are seeking your protection as our community leaders. We know that you are committed to working on behalf of all of us, and we truly appreciate your service and all that you do for our community. Thank you for all that you do and for all the work you do to protect our local communities.

Thank you We will now go to Mike McLellan to be followed by Michael Malhart Mike And Mike we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments and Mike McLellan. Alrighty, we will now go to Michael Malhart to be followed by Nicole Marvis. Michael.

OK, just unmuted. OK, my name is Michael Malhart. I'm a private property mineral rights owner in Ventura County. I'm here today as a member of NARO to support my colleagues in Santa Barbara County. My family has owned our small farm since 1886 east of Oxnard and our oil production since 1957. We're also proud of our operator and the care he takes of our oil field and the support and positive testimony from the Ventura County APCD on the operation of our oil. of Conservation using state regulations has blocked oil drilling permits for at least the past five years. My family had 30 permits approved that were canceled by Newsom. And as you know, there are legal cases now in the courts to reverse Sacramento oil policies that are designed to cause the death spiral of petroleum in California. Supervisory environmental virtue to take a constitutional right is a violation of trust. Confiscation of the right to explore and produce California petroleum is a taking under the state and constitutional rights, my opinion. Based on knowledge of my family's oil lease, the financial damages caused by a Santa Barbara-type taxpayer ordinance are both unconstitutional and easily create a liability for taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Do not allow members of the Board of Supervisors to use their will to revoke the constitutional rights of private property and mineral owners. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We will now go to Nicole Marvis to be followed by Jeff Jennings. Nicole.

Good morning, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. My name is Nicole Mervis. I am a member of the environmental group within WAVE, Women for American Values and Ethics. I'm here today to ask you to exercise your authority to not allow new oil wells and to phase out oil and gas operations. Oil from Santa Barbara is expensive and energy intensive. By reducing oil production, you can more easily meet your climate goals. Although I'm not a resident, what you do in your city does have an impact in mine. Your leadership in this area will set an example for other California communities. With the Trump administration moving forward with plans to open 850,000 acres of BLM land to new oil leases, we need action from Santa Barbara to protect against more drilling. Please phase out oil and gas operations. Thank you so much for your time.

We will now go to Jeff Jennings to be followed by Maureen Allenberger. Jeff.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and supervisors. I'm an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. PLF is a national public interest law firm that defends Americans from government overreach and abuse. We're one of the premier law firms that protects private property rights. Regarding this oil phase-out ordinance, it creates many constitutional concerns. PLF is actually litigating two cases on behalf of mineral owners right now in federal court. They're members of NARO. They've had their mineral rights rendered worthless by restrictions on oil and gas drilling. As the board knows, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court has been very clear on multiple occasions that preventing the use of minerals rights can rise to the level of the Fifth Amendment taking. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, for practical purposes, the right to coal consists in the right to mine it with profit. So in other words, being able to actually use the minerals is the property right. That logic applies to oil and gas rights as well. PLF is very concerned about this ordinance. It has many of the same characteristics of the laws that we've challenged in federal court. Specifically, its potential to render certain mineral rights inaccessible. From what I've seen in the drafts, there's no provision for compensation for property owners in that situation. It's also unclear whether the definition of drilling a new well also prohibits reworking or re-perforating existing idle wells. So I think this clarification should be made just given the potential impact on private property rights. But more fundamentally, given the Fifth Amendment implications of this decision, I would urge the board to vote no. Thank you.

We will now go to Maureen Ellenberger to be followed by Pedro Matias. Maureen.

Good morning, Supervisor Nelson and other supervisors. My name is Maureen Ellenberger. I am a grandmother, but today I want to speak about something that I think we can all agree on. I'd love to just have a few minutes to chat about why Santa Barbara County is already a dumping ground for over 1,400 abandoned wells. When oil companies go bankrupt, they leave contaminated sites, leaching toxins into groundwater. That groundwater supplies drinking water to 200,000 county residents. We still haven't figured out how to clean up that mess, and that's already what's left behind. We can't afford to add more wells to that burden. and here's another thing that troubles me the most the oil we're extracting from onshore oil wells today doesn't even stay here it's piped out of santa barbara county or trucked out of santa barbara county through san luis obispo and kern counties to refineries elsewhere we bear all the environmental costs the abandoned wells the contaminated groundwater water the risk of another oil spill and Santa Barbara County residents get none of the benefit. Yesterday, Lee Zeldin from the EPA announced that the federal government is terminating clean air laws. But this is more than just about air quality. This is about water quality, about groundwater protection. about the aquifer that supplies drinking water. The Trump administration is taking environmental protection and water quality decisions out of the hands of states and counties, out of your hands. Your job is to represent Santa Barbara County residents, to protect us, to fight for our rights to self-govern and protect our water. This ordinance is how you do that. We're already living with 1,400 abandoned wells poisoning our groundwater. We can't afford to add more. We have to stop the bleeding before we can figure out to heal. Please vote for this ordinance. Please do your jobs. And please be responsible so that we can maintain control of our own land and county. Thank you.

We will now go to Pedro Matias to be followed by Candace Meneghan. Pedro?

Okay. Can you hear me?

You're a little quiet. If you can speak a little louder, get a little bit closer to your microphone, that would be much appreciated.

Okay. Good morning to the Board of Supervisors and community members who have gathered here today. My name is Pedro Matias. I'm a fourth year ES student at UCSB and advocacy chair for the UCSB's Environmental Affairs Board. To me, this is an environmental justice issue. The consequences of oil production, polluted air and water, wildfire risks, and damage to ecosystems are not just numbers in a report. They affect real communities and will continue to affect future generations long after the oil is gone. Santa Barbara County has already committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that commitment requires us to move away from oil and gas production. We cannot say that we are serious about addressing climate change while continuing to allow new oil wells. Today, I am a student, but I won't always be, and I do not want those that come after me to inherit a community where protecting public health comes second to fossil fuel extraction. We have the opportunity to make a choice, and so I urge the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed amendments to the Land Use and Development Code and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance prohibiting new oil and gas wells to protect our communities, our environment, and our futures. Thank you for your time.

We will now go to Candice Minigan to be followed by Sneha Nambari-Dhuri. Candice.

good morning um chair nelson and members of the board my name is candace minigan and i'm the executive director of coastal raunches conservancy a local environmental non-profit dedicated to supporting conservation restoration and education along the 76 miles of the gaviota coast I'm speaking today in support of the phase one oil and gas prohibition ordinance. I'm speaking not only about climate change, but about something much more immediate and local, protecting the extraordinary biological richness of the Gaviota Coast and Santa Barbara County. Our Central Coast Mediterranean ecosystem is a global biodiversity hotspot. It supports rare, endemic, sensitive and federally protected species. These are not replaceable resources. Once habitat is damaged, wildlife populations are disrupted, or water reaches our creeks and watersheds, we cannot simply nor quickly restore what was lost. The reports presented to you and the numerous comments before you make clear that oil development carries real risks to these resources. Oil production has harmed sensitive plants and animals, whilst bulls have contaminated waterways. Oil facilities also increase wildfire risk in areas already threatened by drought and extreme fire conditions. Wastewater injection carries additional environmental risk. And these risks are not offset by meaningful economic benefits. Oil extraction and drilling account for fewer than 100 jobs in the county, while a broader oil support sector represents only a small fraction of our workforce. Yet oil operators impose costs on public resources, including roads, emergency response, regulation and cleanup. Oil property taxes provide only less than a percent of the county's revenues. And meanwhile, the public health benefits of moving away from oil are significant. Oil operations produce volatile organic compounds, including carcinogenic pollutants. It is for these reasons I championed a buffer from sensitive receptors during my tenure at County of Ventura. Research cited in the Santa Barbara County materials estimates that a phase-out could avoid a 54 to 81 million in mortality. Thank you, Candice.

That is your time. We will now go to Sneha Nambodiri to be followed by Dwight Belden. Sneha? Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Sneha Nambudiri and I am a third year student at UCSB where I serve as an advocacy chair with the Environmental Affairs Board. I'm speaking today in strong support of the oil and gas phase out policy. While the county adopted a climate action plan to reduce emissions by 2030, without action, it currently leaves out local oil and gas facilities. As youth who will inherit the long term economic and environmental consequences of today's policy decisions, we need our local government to take comprehensive action. A just transition to clean energy starts here with phase one. Phasing out these operations is a clear step for our public health, our coastal safety, our unique and sensitive ecosystem, and our overall climate future our county deserves your protection i urge the board to close the gaps in our climate planning and to approve the proposed amendments prohibiting the drilling of new oil and gas wells to protect community health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions thank you for your time we will now go to dwight belden to be followed by kathleen belden dwight

Good morning, this is Dwight Belden as a county taxpayer and the manager of our family ranch comprising 12 square miles in the Kiwama Valley that has extensive agriculture and grazing acreage for livestock and continuous oil production since 1949. This ranch has conducted continuous grazing and farming operations for nearly 135 years by my family. We are a member of NARO California. We request that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors reject any ordinance intended to phase out oil and gas production in Santa Barbara County and to respect and protect the constitutional and vested property rights of mineral and royalty owners who recognize the continuing importance of petroleum to California's economy, its public services, its daily life, and to support safe, responsible local energy production instead of increasing California's dependence upon foreign oil. We urge the board to reject phase one onshore oil and gas prohibition amendments as locally produced oil and gas supports our labor force, our workers' families. The argument that this ban on future production ignores the economic and national security of the nation and overbakes the greenhouse gas impacts. You can't move water without energy. You can't stock the shelves in a grocery store without energy. You can't grow food without energy. There is no ample supply of alternative energy that would support a ban on oil at this time in the United States. Thank you for your time.

We will now go to Kathleen Belden to be followed by Michael Chiocas. Kathleen.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Thank you. I'm a long time property owner in Santa Barbara County. and a taxpayer in Santa Barbara County. I agree with all the statements already made to oppose the proposed ban on all oil and gas production in Santa Barbara County. Most importantly, this proposal does require CEQA evaluation. And therefore your board should at least postpone this proposal. Clearly more work needs to be done as is shown by all the testimony that has been presented to you this morning. It would be premature and wrong to pass this proposal. Thank you.

We will now go to Michael Chiakos to be followed by Dr. Lee Heller. Michael?

Good morning. My name is Michael Chiakos representing Community Environmental Council. And CEC is strongly in favor of passing this ordinance. California has a carbon neutrality by 2045 target codified into law by AB 1279. And more oil extraction is completely at odds to the state law. Many of Santa Barbara County's oil fields peaked in the 1950s, and it's clear oil production here is ending. The question is whether we phase it out responsibly or let the decline happen chaotically. Our oil reserves are old and tired. Oil companies are now using massive amounts of natural gas to heat up the last dregs of oil in an extremely greenhouse gas and costly process known as cyclic steaming. Cat Canyon and Orca oil fields rate among the highest across the state in terms of greenhouse gases emitted to produce one barrel, almost twice the GHG intensity of foreign oil, inclusive of shipping. The oil industry is notorious for privatizing the benefits and externalizing the cost to all of us. Local oil production gives our county just $1.7 million in property taxes. Compare that to the $36 million it costs taxpayers to plug 171 orphan wells left behind by GRECA after they went bankrupt, or Venoco's cleanup costs estimated at $348 million. California is quickly transitioning away from oil into electric vehicles. California oil usage peaked in 2006 and has been declining. Recent quarters have seen 20% to 29% of new vehicle sales being EVs. And while we lead our nation, China just hit 65% EV market share, Europe is at 35%, Ethiopia is at 60%, Nepal is at 75%, and Norway is 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.

We will now go to Dr. Lee Heller to be followed by Thomas Becker. Lee.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. It's always convenient to follow speakers who make my points better than I ever could. In this case, UCSB gets double credit. Professor Mondavi's expertise covers the points I would have made about the police power of the state under the 10th Amendment to regulate in order to protect public health and safety, as well as the fact that oil prices are set by the global market, not by local production. In other words, producing more oil locally will not reduce our costs. student ann marie addressed the community impacts of oil and gas development and the right that we all have to be safe from those impacts as being more important than the individual ownership rights of property owners like her i'm concerned for the economic impacts on those rights holders as well as employees in the industry but not the expense of public health and the health of the global ecosystem instead we need to focus on industrial scale solar wind and the jobs that clean energy sector can provide Maureen Ellenberger addressed the consequences of abandoning or leaking wells, which I lived with for 18 years as a Summerlin resident, and which that community continues to struggle with. Time stopped adding to the inventory of things that the state pays to repair and abandoned, imposing those externalized costs that Michael Tsiakos just referenced. So here are the two reasons we ask you to adopt this ordinance. First, to protect this community and its abundant natural resources, not the natural resources that is oil and gas and other minerals, but the more important universal resource that is our local ecosystem and the global ecosystem and all the beings living in it. And then to do locally what is not happening nationally due to lack of political courage or climate denial, which is to take action to protect and defend us from the devastating impacts of burning fossil fuels. Here's the reality. We can reduce fossil fuel demand. I drive my highly affordable used Chevy Bolt past gas stations daily, and I never have to stop for fuel because I charge at home using either my solar panel generated electricity or the 100% green energy provided by my city's community choice aggregator. That future is in reach while oil and gas development threatens all of our futures. Thank you.

We will now go to Thomas Becker to be followed by John Harris, who is our final speaker. Thomas.

Yeah, thank you. I submitted written comments asking for Supervisor Joan Hartman to recuse from this item. Hartman has an acknowledged conflict of interest involving the Lost Forest Pipeline. The Lost Forest Pipeline is a common carrier pipeline. It is reasonable and foreseeable to assume that future oil production, onshore oil production, may use the Los Flores pipeline to transport oil to market. The banning of new oil production may impact the financial value of the Lost Forest Pipeline, which may cause a financial impact on Hartman's property. Hartman has a foreseeable financial conflict of interest. In fact, this is a textbook example of a conflict of financial conflict of interest, if I've ever seen one. A corrupt procedure will produce a corrupt result. And this having Hartman sit in this item today and participate may very well be a procedural due process violation. Hartman was asked to recuse, she refused. And just to let people know that Hartman and County Council have a history of submitting false documents to state agencies to get around recusal requirements. And you can read my letter that I submitted that details how they submitted that false document, knowing that the false document was contradicted by official County documents. Thank you very much.

We will now go to John Harris, who is our final speaker on this item, John.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Great. Well, good morning, supervisors, chair, and staff. My name is John Harris. I work at Merrick Solutions in Ventura. I have 30 years in petroleum geoscience working both domestically and internationally. Started working in Santa Barbara County in 1998 when I moved to California. And I've been engaged by NARO to look at the the the mineral estate and royalty estate value in Santa Barbara County. We started with publicly available data that anyone can download from CalGEM and other sources provided by the state and nationally. Our assessment was based on industry standards and methodologies. We have a value of those minerals in the hundreds of millions to multiple billion. VALUATION BASED ON CURRENT OIL PRICE AND COST ANALYSES. SO WE RECOMMEND PLANNING STAFF TO CAREFULLY REVIEW THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THIS PROPOSED PROHIBITION PHASE OUT. THANK YOU.

AND THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEPARTMENTAL ITEM NUMBER ONE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. At this time, we'll have questions of the board. Any board members have any questions that came up during public comment? I want to have questions first before deliberations. Any other questions? Supervisor Hartman, you have a question?

I do have a question for staff and that is this ordinance doesn't really address slant or horizontal drilling or approved oil drilling production plans or bested LUPs. Is that correct?

Supervisor Hartman through the chair, that's correct.

Okay. So there's still lots of opportunity out there, even if this phase out were implemented or this ban.

So yeah, existing wells and plans and permits will still be valid.

Thank you.

All right. Supervisor Capps, did you have any questions for staff before we go into deliberations?

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, Supervisor Hartman, back to you.

I would like our County Council to respond to Mr. Becker's claim that I should be recused.

members of the board and supervisor hartman i'm happy to address that um so this item is a legislative item um it's not involving one particular property um and so the we do not have any concerns about supervisor hartman participating all right thank you um i have a couple questions about um mental rights that that kind of came up here today and um i know that there's been letters submitted in the record that

You know, there's there's proven no reserves, especially in the Santa Maria Valley. I think the the letter from Asfalto goes over some USGS studies. Is staff aware of? Any type of mental reserves that are. In the Santa Maria Valley or here in the county in general, in terms of their.

Volume or their extent or their location?

No, OK, but we do. understand that there are mineral rights out there and quite a bit of oil still under the Santa Maria Valley and throughout some of these different oil fields throughout the Santa Barbara County?

Chair Nielsen, yes. I mean, we understand that minerals continue to exist in all the areas where they've been produced before.

Okay. And this board may or may not have the legal ability based on state law to prohibit, but prohibiting oil operations doesn't make the county compensation proof for potential takings, right?

Um? Mr. Chair, I those issues are going to be studied when the amortization analysis is going to be completed. I can't make a determination about whether or not. There are going to be potential takings at this point.

OK, so the study will look into potential takings of areas that are no longer accessible because of a ban.

Mr. Chair, the study is looking at what the investment-backed expectations were, and then there is a component that's going to be looking at the issue of mineral rights and what the impact of this program would have on those.

The amortization or the ban?

The amortization.

Okay. So there's no assessment on what the ban might have as an impact on mineral rights owners? not to my knowledge okay so those that own an asset that's specifically to mineral rights would not be able so we're not looking at that at all that's correct mr chair do we acknowledge that that has any value are we operating under the assumption it has no value

Mr. Chair, I don't think I can opine on what the value of it is, but I understand that the mineral rights exist and that there may be minerals subsurface that exist.

Okay. And our actions today would potentially make some of those unretrievable because we can't hit them all with the slant drilling that we mentioned, right?

I imagine that's possible, sir.

Okay, great. Thank you. I think that is my questions at this time.

so like yeah um if there are no other questions for the board there's a couple of um comments that staff would like to make about and provide information regarding some of the questions that had been asked earlier so there's a question about um sort of the breadth of sequa in terms of the alleged impacts of the ordinance And under California Environmental Quality Act law, it doesn't require an exhaustive analysis of all conceivable impacts that might be associated with the project, particularly impacts that are outside the county's boundaries. And that's because those impacts are indirect and difficult to predict. And so it was determined based on information that we had about the impacts caused by oil and gas operations that the CEQA exemption was the correct CEQA document for this particular action. There is some question about the projects of phase one and phase two, whether they're dependent on one or one another or independent of one another. and in this case while they are called phase and one one and two they are actually independent of one another um and these independent projects can undergo different sequa analysis In fact, we will be in the next fiscal year looking at budgeting funds for the environmental document to be prepared as part of the amortization study. And so it's really unknown at this time and too premature to speculate and undertake any sequel review that would cover those impacts that are going to be analyzed. There was a question about Appendix G and some comments that were made as part of the public comment regarding mineral resources. The sample questions in Appendix G are intended to encourage assessment of impacts. They don't represent thresholds necessarily of significance. um additionally we don't consider this future looking ordinance to cause significant loss of mineral rights at this time extraction of mineral resources in the county is still ongoing and as noted earlier in the presentations the county has not been receiving applications for new wells for quite some time And then lastly, the documents referenced in the board letter, the notice of exemption and findings support the adoption of the ordinance. And amendments to the coastal land use plan, which is part of our comprehensive plan, are being made to ensure consistency with our zoning ordinance and the coastal land use plan. And I think that covers the remarks that I wanted to make.

All right, I think since those are responses to my questions, I have a couple of follow-up questions for that, specifically around the mineral resources. Do we have any idea the percentage of mineral resources that will still be accessible versus those will not be based on this action?

We did not analyze that.

So we don't know. Mr.

Chair, we do not know.

Okay, so when you say there's still a significant amount, we just don't know? IN ANY TYPE OF RELATION? I DON'T HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. I DO NOT HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. IT COULD BE AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT IN COMPARISON.

ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE, SIR.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO EVALUATE IMPACTS THAT HAPPEN OUTSIDE THE THINGS LIKE ACCELERATED SCHEDULES OR INVESTMENTS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO WELL ABANDONMENT OR CHANGES ON THE PRODUCTION, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS IN COUNTY. AND WE HAVEN'T EVALUATED THAT, RIGHT?

I'M SORRY, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT?

YEAH, SO MY QUESTION PREVIOUSLY WAS ABOUT WHETHER a ban that would lead to less investment into oil and gas operations how that might impact potential capping of wells other environmental impacts at well sites and in oil fields and we said we had not evaluated that previously no and i

I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW WE WOULD DO THAT, TO BE QUITE HONEST. HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT.

OKAY. BUT WE DIDN'T LOOK INTO THAT, THOUGH, EITHER?

WE DID NOT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD TRADITIONALLY BE IDENTIFIED IN THE CEQA CHECKLIST AS POTENTIAL IMPACTS, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT COULD BE A FORESEEABLE IMPACT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS...

I THINK IT MIGHT BE SPECULATIVE IS WHAT I WOULD SAY.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DELIBERATIONS.

THIS IS JUST ON PHASE ONE. THIS IS JUST ON PHASE ONE. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION IN THE COMMENTS. CONFUSION IN THE COMMENTS.

YES, ALTHOUGH YES, TODAY'S YES, TODAY'S DECISION IS ON PHASE ONE.

DECISION IS ON PHASE ONE. JUST DEALING WITH PHASE ONE.

JUST DEALING WITH PHASE ONE. GREAT.

Yeah, before we actually get to deliberations, I was intrigued by some of the calls for a conversation. I don't believe that that would have been raised if we weren't where we are today. But I think that that is something I don't want to ignore. I think it may be more appropriate as it relates to phase two, And we're not really agendized to talk about phase two today, but I would like to just set out where I would like to see things head. I would very much like to see an analysis of different amortization periods for different types of wells. And I would like to see that come prior to our budget workshops. I think idle wells, wells over health protection zones, wells over aquifers and perhaps locally produced and processed and applied asphalt that would actually sequester. I would like to see an analysis of that. So we can't really give direction, but I'm just putting my thoughts out there, something I'd like to see. And so I don't know if anybody else has thoughts they'd like to put out there. I have a statement about where I'm coming down today. I don't know when that's appropriate to make it.

Supervisor Lavagnino?

Well, I appreciate... the words there. I think as we move to phase two that there's that's part of we're talking about a three-year study but definitely you know I appreciate that all not not all wells and all production is the same so that's definitely a move in the right direction is to let's talk about it. It's interesting that there are, you know, such polar opposites as far as views go on this. But there's always nuance to everything. And bans, just they have shown that they really don't work anywhere. Anytime you're banning something means, to me, that you're not willing to do the hard work. Because as some people stated... There are compromises that can be made. There are things that just make common sense, even if you're anti-oil. For example, I mean, to me, just reading from a phone or a computer at public comment that says no fossil fuels, it just to me indicates the complete disconnect the public has between the petroleum and oil industry and life in the real world, because that computer, that phone you're reading from was made from the product that you want to ban. So I think there's some conversation that needs to happen. I think it could be a long conversation. I mean, it's supposed to be a three year study, but I think the industry would welcome that. I think some cooler heads or uh even bringing students in bringing everybody together to try to figure out a path forward of what phase two would look like so i would love to say i would love to be a part of that but might might might need a public member um but uh i i appreciate the olive branch that's out there

Thank you, Supervisor Levin. If I speak to Supervisor Hartman here for a moment, I appreciate the asphalt idea. I mean, I think that's a great idea to have that conversation. You know, I was trying to kind of kick off that conversation also with a well abandonment strategy was something I was trying to bring to this board previously, because I do think that we can be working with the oil and gas industry. And so I think you're right. We're not agendized on that today, but I do think we probably should come back with another item in the future to talk about what are the things that we can do with the oil and gas industry that are environmentally um you know justify or progress you know looking at the local versus imported life cycle analysis you know all those types of things that we should be evaluating so that we can truly say you know yes or no that this is environmentally superior our actions here today and in the future could be moving in the wrong direction and that may seem counterintuitive for some people because they're caught up on national headlines but i think it's beyond the ground that we need to be looking at so i'm if we can do it this year actually steve is while i'm still chair i'd love to bring back an item where we at least talk about what those future conversation looks like but i mean that isn't what we're talking about today um i thank you supervisor hartman for bringing up the issue because i think it's an important one um any additional comments on supervisor hartman's okay Now back to deliberations on today's item. Supervisor Lee.

So are we giving direction about what we want to see in phase two right now?

No, no, no, we can't. We can't do that today. So we're going to bring back.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Supervisor Levine, you know, kind of got my interest there. And I just if there is a conversation, I appreciate that. the notion of involving younger people and because they really have been a a true um gift of this conversation and the ways that they've showed up uh engaged in their government i mean showing up to county supervisor meetings is pretty admirable and i i don't want to get into it with you but like i mean having to use a phone what other options do they have and i think that they're saying exactly that is my point it is it is indispensable so what you're saying is the petroleum industry we couldn't live without it but they don't want to live that way

but they're they are living that but they want a different this is reality all right what you want and what real thank you let's get back let's get back see i i knew i knew i couldn't get away with a comment without a rebuttal but but anyway well one at a time supervisor caps okay i'm done where's yours all right we're good okay um and i might as well kick off because i think it's going to get rebutted a lot today okay so 16 years I've been trying to bring north and south county together and why does it not work because of this issue this is what is the dividing issue in this county and the reality is we're not talking about offshore oil in Santa Barbara which is your backyard We are talking about our backyard. And I understand why you would want to ban offshore oil or pipelines or anything in southern Santa Barbara County. I get that. But we are two different economies. We have two industries here that are supposed to support the economy for all of North County. It is ag and it is oil. And that's the way it's always been. In South County, you have tech and you have tourism. Now, both economies supply the majority of the jobs and the revenue, but both also have impacts. But we don't talk about, we never study the impacts of what South County industry is. If we really believe that GHGs are the existential threat to mankind, why do we allow over 7 million visitors to come visit Santa Barbara every year? We don't allow it, we encourage it. We subsidize it, we celebrate it. And what are we celebrating? 20,000 people a day are coming here. How do they get here? 38 commercial flights a day land at Santa Barbara Airport, burning GHGs. Or they drive here from southern or northern California. They drive on the 101, increased vehicle miles traveled. Or they show up on a cruise ship burning bunker fuel in the channel. There's 81 hotels in Santa Barbara County, 5,000 rooms, most of them air conditioned. Nowhere in my 16 years on this board have we ever had a study about what's the overall environmental impact from tourism. And why not? It's because on the South County, that's where people go to have their jobs. That's where they have their jobs. That's what creates revenue for this county. So why is it different for us in North County? The Environmental Defense Center speaker spoke about environmental justice. Well, if it's environmental justice from what I understand about environmental justice, you have to ask the question, why are we targeting the industry that helps disadvantaged communities pull their people out of poverty? This went on the ballot. in 2014 and 62% of people sided with the oil industry. Now I know you guys said, well, I sent out 800 cards or I called 3000 people. 69,000 people voted for Measure P. Let's go to another thing here is this fear, because I think fear is a great motivator. It really is. It motivates people to do a lot of things. And during campaigns, what do we always hear? It's scare tactics all the time. It's, hey, they're going to cut your Medicare. Both sides do this. They're going to cut your... You know, they're going to cut social security. It gets people motivated to vote. So what I constantly hear that needs to be corrected is that the oil and gas industry in Santa Barbara County is polluting our water and our air. Let's talk about that. Because this is good news we all should be celebrating, and we never do. We never do. Our local water quality meets or exceeds all state and federal regulations outside of a few very few problem areas like solving has nothing to do with oil and gas. And let's talk about air quality, Santa Barbara County. There are one, two, three, four, five, six levels of air quality. You know how many hazardous days in 2026 we had in Santa Barbara County? Zero. How many severe air quality days we had in Santa Barbara County? Zero. You know how many unhealthy days we had in Santa Barbara County? Zero. You know how many poor quality days we had? zero you know how many moderate days we had 10 and we had 244 days of green air quality we're doing the job you guys are doing the job you're doing the job you're holding government's feet to the fire you want better quality water you want better quality air and we're responding and you're getting that if you go back and look at the charts from when we were kids In the 70s and 80s, I don't know how we're still alive breathing the air we did. It's terrible. But it has been cleaned up, and it's much better. I support the transfer to green technology. I have voted for all of our solar projects. I voted to electrify the fleet, the county fleet. I voted for battery storage. I'm proud of the fact that Santa Barbara County is producing most of its energy from green sources. That's the wave of the future. When the technology is there, we will switch. The majority of people will switch. I just recently bought a hybrid. Why? Because now the technology has been available for a while. I wasn't comfortable with it. I didn't think it was as good. It's now better. I get better gas mileage than I do with my other car. I love it. But we don't have a lot of options in North County. Our oil patch offers head of household jobs to many that live in the most disadvantaged community. That's why our local trades always support the industry. So many union members support our industry. You just have to come to terms with the fact that in life there are trade-offs. Oil production has its impact, but so does tourism. So does any industry that you bring in is gonna have impacts. So why are we trying to kill off one while we're celebrating the other? So it's been a long haul up here for me whenever this issue comes up because it's so limited up here. And I don't think South County understands that, how limited our opportunities are here for people. there's not a lot of places to go. If you wanna stay here and raise a family and buy a house, you got two choices basically. And so eliminating one is just doesn't make sense to me. I really appreciate Supervisor Hartman's comments that I think cooler heads can prevail. This is what our community is built on. Ripping the stool away from people is not a way to success. So if we're all going to move forward and be successful, we all got to sit down and face the real facts. Our air quality is not being compromised. Our water, we're drinking clean water. Let's really get to the root cause of this. Otherwise, all we're really doing, as somebody said, we want to be the light, the example, so that others can follow. Well, not really. We don't want everybody to follow what we're doing or there'll be no production and we won't have any energy at all. What we really want to do is we want other people, we don't want to do it, but we want you to do it somewhere else. And that is the definition of elitism. That is the definition of limousine liberalism. It's okay as long as I don't see it or I don't hear it or it's not going to happen in my backyard. So I know this is going to be toxic topic and i'm sorry that i'm so passionate about it but when i see people like pacific petroleum who in this community there is not an event for kids for veterans for people that are struggling that isn't supported by our local oil companies. They're the first ones out there to write a check to the Boys and Girls Club, to the YMCA that keeps this community moving. And until government's gonna do that, We got to have these folks doing that. So like I said, I'm sorry that I'm passionate about this. I know that there's a huge argument on the other side of it, but the reality is you could bust up 500 people here from Santa Barbara and they wouldn't be able to find Cat Canyon. Don't even know where it is. It's not in your face. It's not the problem. So I hope cooler heads prevail. I probably shouldn't be involved in this discussion because I'm too passionate about this one, but I appreciate Supervisor Hartman wanting to get people around the table and it should include young voices. It should have people that disagree with me because what I've found on my time up here is that hearing opposing viewpoints and i know people i see people out there shaking their head and and giving me the the side eye you got to hear this i hear your i listen to what you're saying and you got to hear the other side as well so when we all are listening to each other hopefully we get to a place that's a little bit better off thank you suarez labanino supervisor hartman

Well, let me start by saying I think your characterization of North County is changing radically with the Space Force Base and all that's predicted to happen there. There's new aeronautic ag tech, low altitude flight. I mean, North County is projected to really grow in terms of jobs and opportunities. So it's not an either or choice anymore. There's a lot that's happening. I think, too, it's a false choice to say it's oil from here or oil from elsewhere. We do have substitutes. We have most of our electricity in California in the daytime is generated now by solar. We haven't had blackouts and brownouts because we've got the battery storage. Fuel pumps can heat and cool. We have EVs. Every new well we approved today is a bet that the market will still want oil in the 2040s and the 2050s. I believe that's no longer a safe bet. Solar and battery storage costs have hit record lows. Renewables now generate more of the world's electricity than coal. for the first time in the history of the modern grid. New gas plants cost more to build than they have in a decade, while new solar and wind routinely undercut them. A quarter of the cars worldwide now last year were electric. In California, we have more charging stations than nozzles. So the shift away from oil is not a policy aspiration anymore. It's a market fact happening faster, much faster than anyone predicted even five years ago. So when we're told that blocking new wells takes something of value, consider the reverse. What does it mean for this county to help someone lock in 30 more years of a business the rest of the world is already leaving? If we approve new wells and the industry contracts faster than expected, and that's what every serious economic forecast says, this county doesn't walk away clean. We inherit idle wells, the plugging costs, the boom and bust budget holds. Saying no to new wells isn't this board interfering in a free market. It's declining to co-sign a bet that the market is already backing away from. And there's a pattern that I think is worth naming. Exxon's own scientists predicted global warming with remarkable accuracy back in the 70s. The company's response wasn't to warn us, it was to spend decades funding doubt so it could keep selling more oil, not less. The plastics industry is now running the same playbook, promoting recycling when they knew over 90% of the plastics would enter the waste stream. It worked. Production is on track to triple by mid-century, even though it contaminates human blood, brains, children, and has now been linked to stroke and dementia. Risking a decline in fuel demand, those same companies are pouring billions into new plastic plants, manufacturing a new addiction to supplement the old one. This is the business model. Know the harm, deny the harm, manufacture more demand anyway. That is the model that we need to break. It's manufacturing an addiction. And the same logic animates federal energy policy. This administration has moved to open more than a million acres of public land in California to new oil and gas leasing, while separately trying to freeze offshore wind and solar development nationwide. It ended federal incentives for electric vehicles just as they were gaining ground. They blocked California emission standards and pulled solar funding from communities like Puerto Rico that fought hard to build energy independence. This isn't a hands-off approach to energy. It's a thumb actively on the scale against renewables and to push the same manufactured fossil fuel addiction I just described. Santa Barbara County cannot set federal policy, but we can set a different course. Beneath this discussion is a much simpler question the county cannot look away from. We know exactly what a warming world looks like because we've already lived through it. We watched the Thomas fire burn nearly 282,000 acres, the largest fire at the time in California history. Three weeks later, on a January morning, we were coming in and we learned a mountain of mud and boulders came down onto a Montecito community 20 miles an hour, and by sunrise, 23 of our neighbors were dead. Highway 101 was buried closed for 13 days. That's not a statistic here. Many of us know people who didn't come home that morning. Our own county fire department has the numbers on what's happened since. From the 1950s on, this county averaged roughly one large fire per decade. That was the pace of disaster we built our lives around. In the eight years since Thomas Fire, we've had four major fires, the Holiday Fire tearing through Goleta neighborhoods in 2018, the Cave Fire in 2019, which pushed 6,000 people out of their homes above Santa Barbara and left a fresh burn scar now that we're bracing for floods, the Alisal Fire in 2021, and the Gifford Fire, which burned more than 130,000 acres and became the largest fire in California. One fire a decade has become one major fire every two years. That is not a changing climate we can adapt our way out of. This is a different county than most of us grew up in. And it's not just fire anymore. Two years running, we've had our roads and hillsides torn apart by something that I'd never heard of until then, atmospheric river. That cost us millions of dollars that we may not get back given changes at FEMA. So we're the ones paying for this in fire, in mud, in dying wildlife, in our own health and the exorbitant costs of trying to adapt and mitigate. I'll say plainly what I believe. There's no version of the Earth's future that gets fixed by leaving it. There's no Mars for the rest of us. This is the only planet for most of us. And everyone we love, everyone we ever will love, it's precious and finite here. And it's already telling us in fire, in flood, in the animals washing up on our shores, it cannot keep absorbing decisions made as if this were business as usual. we won't undo the last 150 years of fossil fuel dependence with just one vote but every era has a moment when it stops digging a hole deeper and starts climbing out and for this county on this question that moment is now thank you supervisor hartman supervisor caps

Thank you. Well, I don't have too much more to add to Supervisor Hartman. I'm just proud to be on this board at this moment in history. I do believe it is a historic moment and I'm glad that she referenced the mudslide because as Supervisor Lavagnino pointed out, there are differences that I in North and South, and I respect your attention to the differences. But one thing that definitely does unite us is these crises, these fires, all of the extreme weather events that we go through. And it unites us in a good way. We all come together in a beautiful way. Our first responders respond, and we all, as five supervisors, put any ounce of difference aside to support our number one goal, which is keeping this county safe when we do. But there is a direct connection between what we're doing here today because of the the marker in the sand uh we it's been noted we haven't approved new walls so this is about laying a marker this is about historic moment this is about um saying who we are what our values are going forward in the future and just to add some a few more numbers to supervisor hartman's list of good uh context here um In the past five years in this county, oil companies extracted $512 million in profits. Yet because of these climate related events, we've had to deal with a lot of damages related to climate. Obviously there's not, I'm not making a direct connection between the drilling here and climate all over the planet, but I'm just making a climate crisis point that we spend a ton of money that could be going elsewhere regularly, and that is a climate crisis. $2.2 billion in damages on that Montecito debris flow. That was the total cost. The 215 refugio oil spill was $330 million. 150 million on public infrastructure damages these are not isolated things this is just now a way of life so we we all there's so many things that we can attack and talk about of how this afflicts everybody but weather and fire and the fear of living in this climate crisis that is just normal to these students this is what is their norm just to wake up and know that there could be a mudslide, that there could be a fire, that we're now have 95 degrees. There's classrooms don't have AC. They don't have heat pumps. We have a responsibility to change course. And I feel it very profoundly to be immensely proud to be at this moment of history. I know it's hard. I'm sorry for that. I hear the pain. I hear the disappointment. I hear the disgust and some people's voices when they look at us. and they don't feel as though we can relate. I appreciate the effort. More talking is always good. More listening is always important. I will always do that for you all, and I'm happy to support staff recommendation.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Lee.

Thank you. First, I want to say, Thank you for staff for working on this. It's been challenging and difficult. So we appreciate your work on this. So of all the districts, my district is probably the one that cares the most deeply about this issue. And they have the media voices heard. They do support banning of new wells and the transition to renewable energy. My district feels the most effect from fire and flood. Just yesterday we had a meeting to talk about the flood in Montecito because it's so severe and scary that the community came out, hundreds of them, because they are that concerned. They still remember what happened years ago. so i'll keep it short i do support this moving forward steve i understand your point you see how north county was and is but i say county that can be it can't be that focus on renewable energy and focus on creating new jobs because i don't want to make it seem like it's not important because it is i see a lot of jobs that will be lost and i want to make sure that we do focus on that because it's affecting families and we have to make that priority going forward that people are able to provide for their families. So that is very important to me, but I'm going to support the staff recommendation.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. I'll wrap up here. exhibited by the questions i asked initially that i am concerned that we can't make the sequel exemptions here that um this uh staff is trying to um i think that that is obvious um it's obviously piecemealing even by the conversations that we're having up here that we're talking about phase two at the same time we're talking about phase one to me is evidence that this is one big project um and so um no matter what we do today i suspect um that may be overturned A couple of conversations that were happening over here, we talked about, especially the Thomas fire and debris flow, which was actually not started by climate change, it was started by an electric fire and a lack of force management. And so that led to that. And I know that there's other things climatically that were contributing factors, but there's a whole story here and a whole picture that we should be looking at here. Supervisor Hartman, you mentioned that there are other job opportunities besides just oil and gas in northern Santa Barbara County, and you're absolutely right, there are. But something that we have a struggle with up here in the north county is many of those jobs you talked about need a bachelor's degree. And so, you know, 62 and a half percent of the people in Santa Barbara County have high school degrees, or sorry, in northern Santa Barbara County have high school degrees. Only about 15.7 actually have bachelor's degrees. And we're doing a lot of good work up here to try to close that gap. But that does kind of feed into a point I want to make, and I actually want to borrow on I think there's some really good data in here, actually. It actually fueled me reading some of this information here. And it says that generally most field and support roles require no more than a high school diploma, just like we're talking about, and limited prior experience, yet pay well above what workers with those credentials typically earn. The premium effect reflects the high-risk nature of oil and gas work, which we all understand. Preliminary analysis of census data subsets to the Santa Maria, Santa Barbara metro area suggests an oil extraction workforce that is disproportionately male and Hispanic in the field and support occupations, a pattern consistent with broader demographics of oil field labor in California. And when workers do leave the local industry, separation data suggests that they tend to leave the region. So we're gonna lose our local workers when we go ahead and people that grew up here. A lot of the jobs that we're getting with the Air Force Base are actually we're importing jobs. And I'm really concerned about some of my neighbors and my friends, people I grew up with that are in this room that are impacted by what we're doing here. Going deeper into Pasha's work. I originally was a little critical of some of his statistical data, but actually looked a little bit deeper, and I saw in there in almost every category where you look at where the opposition is to oil and gas bans. Over and over again here, the majority opposition can be seen in southern portions of Santa Maria or Quijama. If you look at where the wells are in Santa Barbara County, they're exactly there. The people who live in these areas have counted the costs, they know the impacts, and they've decided that despite those that you guys are all concerned about, that they do still support this industry. And this report also talks about the county's obligation before we do any of this work is we should have thought ahead of them and their workforce and what that looks like in the future. And again, I think this report actually says that we're pitting the cart before the horse by beginning this process today without actually addressing the future for them. So that kind of leads me to my closing comments, which is, what disappoints me most is that we often talk about one county, one future, but this policy does not fall evenly across one county. The wells are overwhelmingly in one part of this county. The workers are concentrated in one part of this county. The mineral owners, service businesses, and families who will bear the economic consequences are concentrated in one part of this county. And the polling submitted by the proponents tell us that the community most directly affected views this policy differently than the rest of the county. One county, one feature cannot mean one part of the county decides that another part will bear the cost of its policy choices. If we are going to make decisions of consequential, we owe those people who have more than good intentions, we owe them a complete environmental analysis, an honest accounting of our legal exposure, an inventory of property rights, and a serious examination of the alternatives. I will not be supporting the staff recommendation. Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Hartman.

Well, I just want to say that in South County there have been tremendous impacts from offshore oil and a lot of workers who work in that area, and I've spoken with them. So I think that's not quite the characterization you have, that it's only North County. It's onshore North County, offshore South County. I'm prepared to move staff recommendation.

And I'll second.

Any further discussion on the motion? Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and do a roll call vote.

Supervisor Hartman? Aye. Supervisor Lavagnino? No. Supervisor Lee?

Aye.

Supervisor Capps? Aye. Chair Nelson?

No.

Motion passes three to two.

All right. Thank you guys all for being here and participating. that concludes department item number one at this time we will go to closed session so if you guys could be all be quiet for a moment we're going to go ahead and read the items that we discussed in closed session there will be no additional business public business after closed session so that will conclude our meeting after we conclude closed session madam county council

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. In closed session today, the board will consider anticipated litigation, deciding whether to initiate civil litigation in one case, as well as existing litigations, Sable Offshore versus the county, which is a U.S. district court in the Central District of California. and Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Employee Organization of Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Managers Association, and the agency designated representatives are CEO Jana Peterson and Human Resources Director Christine Schmidt. The time estimate is 45 minutes, but of course it's possible we may come back sooner.

All right, so we're going to go ahead and move to closed session. It is 1230 right now, 1239. We'll be back no earlier than 115. Welcome back to the September 15, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in Santa Maria. We are just coming back from closed session and so Madam County Council can you please report out on what we discussed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item of anticipated litigation on deciding whether to initiate litigation, existing litigation, Sable Offshore Corp versus the county, and conference with labor negotiators for Santa Barbara County Sheriff Managers Association, and the board took no reportable action.

All right, thank you. That concludes our business for today. We will be now adjourned to September 22nd, 2026 in Santa Barbara. See you then.