Pipelines & Supes’ Salaries: Community and Organizations Flock to BOS Meeting

Hundreds gathered outside the Santa Barbara County Administration Building on the morning of Tuesday, February 25th. 

The focus of the day was the Board of Supervisors meeting, where they were to consider the appeals to the County Planning Commission’s (CPC) approval of Sable Offshore Corporation’s application for a change in owner, operator, and guarantor for the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU), the Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company (POPCO) gas plant, and the Las Flores Pipeline system.

Two years ago, Sable, an independent oil and gas company based in Houston, Texas, purchased the SYU from oil and gas goliath ExxonMobil with the help of a $622 million loan from ExxonMobil. 

Some people arrived as early as 7 am to attend the 8 am press conference hosted by the Environmental Defense Center, one of the appellants. Attendees held up signs protesting Sable’s takeover, reading “Drilling Is Killing” and “Don’t Enable Sable.” Passersby honked their horns in support, followed by cheers of approval from the crowd. At the building’s other entrance, Sable employees and executives gathered wearing Sable Offshore hats. 

Sable wants to reopen facilities, including the pipeline responsible for the 2015 Refugio oil spill, one of the worst in California’s history. Over 100,000 pounds of crude oil pooled onto the beaches and seeped into the ocean after an underground oil pipeline near Refugio State Beach ruptured. 

Plains All American Pipeline operated the facilities at the time of the spill, which killed hundreds of animals along the coast. “I watched as dead dolphins washed up on shore covered in oil,” reflected Brady Bradshaw, a Senior Oceans Campaigner for The Center for Biological Diversity, during the press conference. 

“I think it’s just important to keep in mind that it’s not just the pipeline,” said Linda Krop, Chief Council at the Environmental Defense Center, over the phone before Tuesday’s hearing. “The pipeline is scary enough, but it’s the pipeline, it’s two processing plants, it’s three platforms.” 

The SYU includes Harmony, Heritage, and Hondo platforms. Sable also wants permits transferred to them for the Las Flores Canyon Processing Facility, the POPCO Gas Plant, and the 125-foot pipeline. “There’s a lot to maintain and a lot that can go wrong, and it’s really important to have a company that has the assets to deal with that,” continued Krop. 

The appellants expressed concern about the safety of re-opening the SYU plant and the likelihood of another spill. In a letter to the Board, the Environmental Defense Center stated that Sable’s onshore pipelines lack protection from corrosion and states that because of this, a pipeline spill is “five times as likely.”

The county staff said they had received Sable’s $101 million insurance certificate but had not seen its insurance policy. At the hearing, Chair Laura Capps asked if they would be willing to provide the actual policy, but they were nonresponsive about whether they would provide proof beyond the certificate. 

Before the Tuesday BOS meeting, Capps said that when it comes to the permit transfer of the SYU, her number one priority is safety, and her number two priority is financial accountability. “So the last thing we want is for there to be a spill and then for the county to be holding the bag,” said Capps over the phone. 

The appellants expressed concerns over Sable’s finances and ability to cover the consequences of a worst-case oil spill. The Environmental Defense Center has said that Sable is $814 million in debt and would need $197 million in remaining start-up expenses. However, Sable assured supervisors that it currently has $363 million in unrestricted cash. 

According to representatives from the Environmental Defense Center, settlements, legal fees, cleanup, and other financial costs may have cost Plains All American $870 million for the 2015 spill. 

Supervisor Roy Lee asked perhaps the most burning question: Who would cover the costs of an oil spill if Sable could not? He inquired if the taxpayers would pay. County staff said they would take from “pool funds,” which all oil companies pay into, acting as a form of self-insurance within the oil industry. These funds can be used if insurance cannot cover the total cost of an oil spill. 

By reopening the Santa Ynez unit, Sable hopes California won’t be as reliant on overseas oil. “When SYU is operational, it will replace 1 million barrels of import oil per month,” they said at the BOS hearing. They also stated that the restart is good for the local economy. They said it would create good-paying jobs and tax revenue for the county. 

However, Krop said that Sable’s claims about California oil demand are misleading. A report by pipeline safety expert Paasha Mahdavi, submitted by the Environmental Defense Council, claims that the pause of the SYU had “no statistical effect” on foreign oil imports and that crude oil demand has “noticeably declined” since 2018. “Reflective not just of the pandemic shock in 2020,” the report read, “but a reduction in consumer demand for petroleum products.”

The study claims that emissions are the biggest threat to the SYU unit’s reopening, aside from the inevitability of another spill. Mahdavi found that reopening the plant could increase greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 million tons of CO2. 

Speakers also accused Sable of ignoring multiple cease-and-desist orders from the California Coastal Commission. In November 2024, the Commission issued Sable a cease-and-desist order on any pipeline construction, including repair work. When that letter expired in February, the Commission issued a second order on February 18th, only to have Sable Offshore sue them on the same day. In the complaint, Sable claims that the “anomaly repair work” they were conducting was within the scope of their already permitted work, as previously approved by the county. 

Over one hundred members of the public stepped up to the mic at public comment, expressing concerns about the permit transfer. They urged the board to deny the permit transfer. Ethan Mayday, a 9th grader at Santa Barbara Middle School, said he organized 50 students to email supervisors saying they are against the permit transfer. “The youth population is saying no to this,” he said.

Nathan Irwin, a Policy Associate at Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, urged the denial of permit transfers. “This is now your moment to break the cycle, to choose a future where the Gaviota Coast remains wild and unspoiled,” he said. “Where the channel is protected, where our children inherit clean waters instead of oil-soaked beaches, where we honor the vision of the newly designated Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary – not undermine it with more drilling.”

Sable employees praised the company for providing them with jobs and fully supported the permit transfer. “One of the biggest duties of my job is to keep my people working and keep their families fed,” said Steve Balkam with construction engineering company ARB, the senior vice president of the underground pipeline group.

“But we aren’t just simply construction workers with hard hats,” said Steve Coldiron, with the operating engineers at local union number 12. “We are the men and women who are raising families in these communities. We are the families that frequent your beaches.”

During their rebuttal period, Sable stressed that while they are a new company, their management team has 25+ years of operating experience. They believe they have provided the county with the proper documentation for the permit transfer. “There is no legal basis for any additional requirements,” they said. 

After almost eight hours, it finally came time for the supervisors to vote. “My job today is to determine whether this applicant meets the requirements of 25B,” said Supervisor Lavagnino, who voted to deny the appeals. Ordinance 25B is a section of the Santa Barbara County Code related to transferring permits for oil and gas facilities. “We have to stand by the law.” Supervisor Nelson also voted to deny it. 

Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Roy Lee voted to uphold the appeals. Capps described the permit transfer as “fishy” and not passing her “smell test.” “If they had wanted to show the insurance policy, they could have,” she said. Supervisor Hartmann recused herself ahead of the Sable item, stating that the pipeline runs through her property. 

Following the vote, Sable released a statement to the media: “Sable is pleased the appeals failed and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Santa Ynez Unit permit transfer to Sable stands. We look forward to continuing to work with the County to finalize the permit transfer, and to safely restarting production as soon as possible.”

The Environmental Defense Center also released a statement: “The Board’s 2-2 vote means the company’s application was not approved and the transfer of permits will not happen. Without permits, Sable cannot operate the facilities unless it works out an agreement with ExxonMobil – plus the company still needs approvals from multiple state agencies.”

Certainly, this issue is still flowing.

Supervisors’ Salary Vote Heats Up

Following the heated vote on the Sable appeal, the Santa Barbara County Supervisors considered amendments to the Compensation Ordinance and Resolution for Elected Officials. The county’s Human Resources Director compared the supervisors’ duties to those of other elected officials in the management labor market across several counties, including Marin, Monterey, Orange, San Luis Obispo, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and Ventura.

Supervisors received pushback from the public regarding their role in determining their own salary increases. “It is obscene to suggest such a raise to public servants,” wrote Susan M. Connors to the Board. However, the supervisors emphasized that such situations are rare and not something they hope to repeat.

A detailed staff presentation showed that supervisors currently earn about $115,000 per year – roughly 33% below the market median of around $171,000 and only 47% of the benchmark based on California Superior Court judges’ salaries. The proposal would raise their wages to 70% of a judge’s salary, a figure that adjusts annually, thereby removing the need for future self-determination of their compensation.

In 2015, an ad hoc committee recommended that supervisors be paid at the market median – just over $125,000 at that time – based on a detailed review of duties and comparable salaries in similar counties. Proponents noted that if these recommendations had been fully implemented and adjusted for inflation, today’s salaries would have already reached the levels now being proposed.

Other supporters of the salary increase highlighted the demanding workload of the supervisors. “I can already hear the howls of outrage about the proposed pay hike for our Board of Supervisors,” wrote Lee Heller to the Board. “What I don’t hear is an understanding of how hard they work and how grossly underpaid they have been for far too long.”

During deliberations, supervisors shared that they had received numerous emails disapproving of the pay increase. Supervisor Steve Lavagnino clarified that the supervisory role is not a “part-time” job, adding that he had received many hurtful messages about the pay increase in the past two weeks. 

“People have said, ‘Man, it must be nice to increase your own salary.’ I promise you, it is not,” he assured. He expressed his support for the recommendations of the 2015 Citizens Commission despite describing the recent period as particularly challenging.

“This job will eat you up and spit you out, and I don’t know what salary that equates to, but I’m gonna support the recommendations of the 2015 Citizens Commission,” he said. “I’m just really disappointed. This wasn’t a great two-week period in my life.” 

Other supervisors echoed these sentiments. Supervisor Chair Laura Capps reported receiving loads of mail before the meeting, including one email where someone even resorted to calling her “the c-word.” 

Meanwhile, Supervisor Roy Lee abstained from voting, noting that he had only been in the position for a few months. The motion ultimately passed 3-1-1, with supervisors Joan Hartmann, Capps, and Lavagnino voting yes, while Supervisor Bob Nelson voted no. Supervisor Roy Lee recused himself.