CITY OF BUELLTON
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting of February 13, 2025 – 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 140 West Highway 246
Buellton, California
Council meetings will be conducted in person and the public is welcome to attend.
Written comments will not be read aloud but can be sent to the City Council via email at [email protected] (please reference agenda item number/subject matter, and include your name and address). The public can observe Council meetings via City TV Live Stream at:
http://www.cityofbuellton.com/government/cityTV.php
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor David Silva
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Council Members Hudson Hornick and John Sanchez, Vice Mayor Elysia Lewis and Mayor David Silva
REORDERING OF AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Speaker Slip to be completed and turned in to the City Clerk prior to commencement of meeting. Any person may address the Council on any subject pertaining to City business, including all items on the agenda not listed as a Public Hearing, including the Consent Agenda and Closed Session. Limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. By law, no action may be taken at this meeting on matters raised during Public Comments not included on this agenda. Public Speakers using a translator are allotted a total of six (6) minutes to speak, unless simultaneous translation equipment is used.
CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
The following items are considered routine and non-controversial and are scheduled for consideration as a group. Any Council Member, the City Attorney, or the City Manager may request that an item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to allow for full discussion. Members of the Public may speak on Consent Agenda items during the Public Comment period.
1. Minutes of January 23, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting
2. List of Claims to be Approved and Ratified for Payment to Date for Fiscal Year 2024/2025
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 February 13, 2025
3. Resolutions Pertaining to Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held Tuesday, August 26, 2025
(Staff Contact: City Clerk Linda Reid)
Resolution No. 25-03 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities”
Resolution No. 25-04 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara to Consolidate a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 with the Santa Barbara County Elections Office”
Resolution No. 25-05 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Adopting Regulations for Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidate’s Statements, Materials Submitted to the Electorate, and the Cost Thereof, Submitted to the Voters at a Mail-in Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025”
4. Allocation of Funds from 2023 State Earmark for SYV River Trail (Staff Contact: City Manager Scott Wolfe)
5. Six-Month Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25 from the Buellton Visitors Bureau (Staff Contact: Finance Director Shannel Zamora)
PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS/ITEMS
This Agenda listing allows Council Members to provide comments regarding recent events, contributions made or received, and future requests from City Council Members to staff.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Written communications are included in the agenda packets. Any Council Member, the City Manager, or City Attorney may request that a written communication be read into the record.
COMMITTEE REPORTS This Agenda listing is the opportunity for Council Members to give verbal Committee Reports on any meetings recently held for which the Council Members are the City representatives thereto.
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 February 13, 2025
BUSINESS ITEMS (POSSIBLE ACTION)
6. Consideration of Stating a Formal City Position on the Appeal of the Transfer of Pipeline Permits for the Petroleum Pipeline Traversing the City of Buellton to Sable Offshore
(Staff Contact: City Manager Scott Wolfe)
7. Discussion for Strategic Goals and Objectives for Biennial Budget FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27
(Staff Contact: Finance Director Shannel Zamora)
8. Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
A. County Library Advisory Committee
B. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
C. League of California Cities (LOCC) – Voting Delegate D. Buellton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors (Ex Officio Member) E. Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group
F. Economic Development Task Force
G. City/School District Joint Use Committee
H. Joint Cities-County Affordable Housing Task Group
I. Association of California Water Agencies/Joint Powers Insurance Authority J. Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) – (Policy Board/Operations Board)
K. Arts & Culture Committee
L. Other Committees Per Council Direction
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT (POSSIBLE ACTION)
9. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Conference with Real Property Negotiator
Property: 202 Dairyland Road, Buellton, CA (APN: 099-66-032, -033, -034) Agency Negotiator: Scott Wolfe, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Horatio Partners, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the City Council will be held on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 1
CITY OF BUELLTON
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 23, 2025
City Council Chambers, 140 West Highway 246
Buellton, California
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members Hudson Hornick, Council Member John Sanchez, and Vice Mayor Elysia Lewis
Via Zoom: Mayor David Silva
Staff: City Manager Scott Wolfe (Via Zoom), City Attorney Greg Murphy (Via Zoom), Public Works Director Rose Hess, Finance Director Shannel Zamora, Planning Director Andrea Keefer, and City Clerk Linda Reid
REORDERING OF AGENDA
City Manager Wolfe recommended and the Council agreed by consensus to add Agenda Items 10 and 11 to the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Len Fleckenstein and Larry Bishop, Buellton, requested the City Council send a letter to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors by February 21, requesting the Board deny transfer of ownership of the gas pipeline that currently runs through the City of Buellton until the new owner (Sable Offshore Corporation) agrees to relocate the pipeline outside the City limits.
Theresa Reilly, Buellton, expressed her concern regarding the gas pipeline running through the City of Buellton. Ms. Reilly also provided comments regarding the vacant District 4 Council seat.
Frank Ostini and Brit Zotovich spoke in support of the Santa Barbara County Wine Business Improvement District.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 January 23, 2025
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of January 9, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting
2. List of Claims to be Approved and Ratified for Payment to Date for Fiscal Year 2024/2025
3. Monthly Treasurer’s Report – December 31, 2024
4. Ordinance No. 25-01 – “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, to Increase the Buellton Transient Occupancy Tax Rate” (Second Reading)
5. Receive Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 Biennial Budget Process Schedule
6. Identification of 2025 Recognitions and Cultural Heritage Observances
10. Resolution No. 25-01 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Consenting to the Creation of the Santa Barbara County Wine Business Improvement District”
11. Resolution No. 25-02 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, in Support of the Santa Ynez Valley Community Aquatics Complex” MOTION:
Motion by Council Member Sanchez, seconded by Mayor Silva, approving Consent Calendar Items 1 through 6, 10, and 11 as listed.
VOTE:
Motion passed by a roll call vote of 4-0.
Council Member Hornick – Yes
Council Member Sanchez – Yes
Vice Mayor Lewis – Yes
Mayor Silva – Yes
PRESENTATIONS
7. Proclamation Recognizing International Holocaust Remembrance Day Vice Mayor Lewis read the proclamation recognizing International Holocaust Remembrance Day and stated that staff will deliver the proclamation to the Santa Ynez Valley Jewish Community.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 January 23, 2025
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS/ITEMS
Council Member Hornick requested and the Council agreed by consensus to agendize support for addressing the gas pipeline that runs through the City of Buellton.
Council Member Hornick requested and the Council agreed by consensus to agendize discussion of creating a 501(c)(3) organization to partner with a local non-profit organization to fund the 1,000 trees program.
Council Member Hornick requested and the Council agreed by consensus to agendize discussion of creating an electronic newsletter to keep the public informed of what is happening in Buellton.
Council Member Sanchez thanked the Arts & Culture Committee and Council Members for attending the Poppy Project Mosaic reveal at Buellton’s Post Office.
Vice Mayor Lewis thanked all residents and business owners for getting involved in local political issues and taking the time to attend Council meetings and email Council Members with their comments and suggestions.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Member Sanchez announced that he attended the Buellton Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau Board meeting and provided an oral report regarding the meeting.
Council Member Sanchez announced that he attended the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) Board meeting and provided an oral report regarding the meeting.
Mayor Silva announced that he attended board meetings for Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and provided oral reports regarding the meetings.
BUSINESS ITEMS
8. CalPERS Pension Funding Update and Discussion and Direction on Options for Reducing the City’s CalPERS Pension Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council consider paying an additional discretionary payment of $175,000 during FY 2025-26 and include the payment in the FY 2025-26 budget.
STAFF REPORT:
Finance Director Zamora presented the staff report.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 January 23, 2025
SPEAKERS/DISCUSSION:
Derek Lee with GovInvest discussed the CalPERS Pension Unfunded Accrued Liability and provided a presentation representing the City’s UAL.
The City Council discussed how employee cost of living adjustments may affect the UAL.
DOCUMENTS:
Staff report with attachments as listed in the staff report.
MOTION:
Motion by Mayor Silva, seconded by Council Member Hornick, approving staff’s recommendation of paying an additional discretionary payment of $175,000 during FY 2025-26 and include the payment in the FY 2025-26 budget.
VOTE:
Motion passed by a roll call vote of 4-0.
Council Member Hornick – Yes
Council Member Sanchez – Yes
Vice Mayor Lewis – Yes
Mayor Silva – Yes
9. Consider Appointment to Vacant City Council Seat – District 4 RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council consider appointment to the vacant two-year District 4 Council seat.
DOCUMENTS:
Staff report with attachments as listed in the staff report.
SPEAKERS/DISCUSSION:
Correspondence regarding this item was received and made part of the record from the following individuals:
• Kristina Vail
• Holly Sierra
• Victoria Pointer
• Sean Newton
• Ines Jones
• Imelda Martinez
• Amy Wolfslau
• Ninni Lemus
• Stuart Warren
• Sarah Dasko
• Debbie Pearson
• Lisa Newton
• Christine Herman
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 January 23, 2025
• Seth Hudson
• Larry Bishop
• Monique Bloedau
• Mayra Henson
• Linda Ryles
Carla Mead, Buellton, discussed her desire and qualifications for filling the two-year District 4 seat on the City Council.
Jon Mead, Buellton, spoke in support of Carla Mead filling the two-year District 4 term.
Lianne Hutton, Buellton, spoke in support of Carla Mead to fill the two-year District 4 term.
Randall Lamb, Buellton, requested the two-year District 4 seat be filled by conducting a Special Election.
Eddie Hsueh, Solvang, spoke in support of Dave King to fill the two-year District 4 term.
Victoria Pointer, Buellton, discussed her desire and qualifications for filling the two-year District 4 seat on the City Council.
Ben Forsyth, Buellton, discussed his support for Dave King to fill the two-year District 4 term.
Tanasha Vernstrum, Buellton, discussed her support for Dave King to fill the two-year District 4 term.
Nancy Dorwin, Buellton, spoke in support of Carla Mead to fill the two-year District 4 term, rather than going to a Special Election.
Sean Newton, Buellton, spoke in support of Carla Mead to fill the two-year District 4 term.
The City Council discussed making an appointment to the vacant District 4 seat and then discussed a possible date for a Special Election and how an election may be the best way to hear from voters, versus appointing a resident to fill the vacant seat.
MOTION:
Motion by Council Member Hornick, seconded by Vice Mayor Lewis directing staff to conduct a Special Election in August 2025.
VOTE:
Motion passed by a roll-call vote of 3-1, with Mayor Silva voting no.
Council Member Hornick – Yes
Council Member Sanchez – Yes
Vice Mayor Lewis – Yes
Mayor Silva – No
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 January 23, 2025
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Wolfe provided an informational report for the record.
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
12. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Conference with Real Property Negotiator
Property: 202 Dairyland Road, Buellton, CA (APN: 099-66-032, -033, -034) Agency Negotiator: Scott Wolfe, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Horatio Partners, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
The City Council met in closed session to discuss Item 12. No reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Lewis adjourned the regular meeting at 8:26 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. ____________________________
Elysia Lewis
Vice Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Reid
City Clerk
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 2
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shannel Zamora, Finance Director
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: List of Claims to be Approved and Ratified for Payment to Date for Fiscal Year 2024/2025
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Staff is required to submit a check register to the City Council for approval every Council meeting for the most recently completed check register (Attachment 1).
The check register for the period 01/11/2025 through 01/31/2025 has been prepared in accordance to Government Code section 37202 and Buellton Municipal Code section
3.08.070. The check register lists all vendor payments for the specified period above, along with claimant’s name, a brief description of the goods or service purchased, amount of demand, check number, check date and the account number(s) associated with each payment.
The total amount of checks and electronic fund transfers issued for the period of 01/11/2025 through 01/31/2025 was $486,755.18.
FISCAL IMPACT
Payments made to the various vendors were consistent with the approved City’s Budget for 01/11/2025 through 01/31/2025. Cash is available for the payment disbursements of the above liabilities.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review and accept the check register for the period 01/11/2025 through 01/31/2025.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Claims
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 3
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Linda Reid, City Clerk
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: Resolutions Pertaining to Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held Tuesday, August 26, 2025
Resolution No. 25-03 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities”
Resolution No. 25-04 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara to Consolidate a Main-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 with the Santa Barbara County Elections Office”
Resolution No. 25-05 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Adopting Regulations for Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidate’s Statements, Materials Submitted to the Electorate, and the Cost Thereof, Submitted to the Voters at a Main-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025”
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In the past, the City has requested that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara consolidate the City of Buellton’s Elections. This consolidation has been shown to be an economic and efficient method to conduct the election. Buellton’s City Council has requested a Main-In Ballot Special Election for the purpose of electing one (1) Member of the City Council to represent District 4, for the partial term of two-years.
Resolution Nos. 25-03, 25-04, & 25-05 Page 2 February 13, 2025
In order to consolidate the election and to implement the election process, several procedural resolutions need to be adopted and approved by the City Council. These resolutions will officially give notice of the Special Election for the District 4 City Council seat, consolidate the City’s Special Election with the Santa Barbara County Election’s Office, and designate regulations pertaining to candidate statements. Attached for review and consideration are the necessary resolutions to initiate the Special Election process:
Resolution No. 25-03 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities” Resolution No. 25-04 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara to Consolidate a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 with the Santa Barbara County Elections Office”
Resolution No. 25-05 – “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Buellton, California, Adopting Regulations for Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidate’s Statements, Materials Submitted to the Electorate, and the Cost Thereof, Submitted to the Voters at a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025”
FISCAL IMPACT
Santa Barbara County Elections has estimated the City’s Main-In- Ballot Special Election may cost up to $35,000. If approved, staff requests the Finance Department initiate a budget adjustment in the amount of $38,000 to cover election fees and other associated election costs pertaining to the Special Election scheduled for August 26, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider adoption of Resolution Nos. 25-03, 25-04, 25-05, all pertaining to the Mail-In Ballot Special Election scheduled for August 26, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 25-03
Resolution No. 25-04
Resolution No. 25-05
RESOLUTION NO. 25-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BUELLTON, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A MAIL-IN BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
AUGUST 26, 2025 FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN
OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO
GENERAL LAW CITIES
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to General Law Cities in the State of California, a Special Election shall be held by mail-in ballot only on August 26, 2025 for the election of a Municipal Officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Buellton, California, on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, a Special Election for the purpose of electing one (1) Member of the City Council, to represent District 4 and serve a partial term of two years.
SECTION 2. That the mail-in ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.
SECTION 3. The Special Election will be conducted by using all mail-in ballots.
SECTION 4. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 5. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form, and manner as required by law.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
Resolution No. 25-03 Page 2 February 13, 2025
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2025. ___________________________________
David Silva
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Linda Reid
City Clerk, Elections Official
RESOLUTION NO. 25-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BUELLTON, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA TO
CONSOLIDATE A MAIL-IN BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2025 WITH THE
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to General Law Cities in the State of California, a Special Election shall be held on August 26, 2025 for the election of a Municipal Officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a Mail-In Ballot Special Election on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, for the purpose of electing one (1) Member of the City Council from District 4 for the partial term of twoyears.
SECTION 2. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Buellton, California, on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, a Special Election for the purposes of electing one (1) Member of the City Council from District 4 for the partial term of two-years.
SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to direct the County Elections Division to take any and all steps necessary for the conducting of the consolidated election.
SECTION 4. That the City Council recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees pursuant to Section 10002 of the Elections Code to reimburse the County in full for the cost of services performed upon presentation of a bill.
SECTION 5. That the City will be providing the following services:
(a) Notice of election will be published, in time, form and manner required by law.
(b) Accept and process official candidate nomination papers, which include verification as to whether candidate statements and ballot designations meet all legal requirements.
(c) Upon certification by the County Elections Division, issue certificates of election.
(d) Take any other action necessary that is not the responsibility of the County Elections Official.
Resolution No. 25-04 Page 2 February 13, 2025
SECTION 6. That the City Council recognizes that the County Elections Official will be providing the following services:
(a) Verify nomination petitions as requested.
(b) Furnish any and all official mail-in ballots, sample ballots, notices, and printed material.
(c) Provide and process absentee voter requests.
(d) Ensure that the ballots used at the election are in the proper form and content required by law.
(e) Count ballots and canvass the returns.
(f) Declare results and certify election.
(g) Take any other action necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
(h) Prepare and mail all invoices regarding election costs.
SECTION 7. The City acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Election Code Section 10418.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2025. __________________________________
David Silva
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Linda Reid
City Clerk, Elections Official
RESOLUTION NO. 25-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BUELLTON, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR
CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO
CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO
THE ELECTORATE AND THE COST THEREOF,
REGARDING A MAIL-IN BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2025
WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidate’s statement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at a Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be held in the City of Buellton on August 26, 2025, may prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period.
SECTION 2. That the candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in English and any other language requested by the candidate.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate’s representative a copy of this resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.
SECTION 4. That all previous resolutions establishing council policy of payment for candidate’s statements are repealed.
SECTION 5. That this resolution shall apply only to the Mail-In Ballot Special Election to be held on August 26, 2025 and shall then be repealed.
Resolution No. 25-05 Page 2 February 13, 2025
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2025. ___________________________________
David Silva
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Linda Reid
City Clerk, Elections Official
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 4
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Wolfe, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: Allocation of Funds from 2023 State Earmark for SYV River Trail ______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In June of 2023, the City of Buellton – due to the legislative efforts of Assembly Member Hart and Senator Limón – was awarded a State budget earmark grant in the amount of $425,000, for assistance with the development of the Santa Ynez River Trail. While there are very few requirements for the expenditure of funds other than that they be spent in support of the Trail’s development, the amount of the grant is such that it would need to supplement other funding to ensure the development of this multi-million dollar trail that will traverse multiple jurisdictions, including the Cities of Buellton and Solvang, unincorporated areas of the County of Santa Barbara, and Chumash Tribal lands.
These jurisdictions have been working collaboratively for the past year to achieve funding for trail planning and development. Several applications have been filed for large grants by this River Trail coalition, with the Chumash taking the role of lead applicant – as they have preference in many grant award processes – with each jurisdiction paying a pro-rata share of the costs of the work needed to file the applications. The latest application filed by the Chumash is the Federal Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP). Unlike recent applications for state grants, this grant application was successful, resulting in an award of $1,426,000. As is the case with many grant programs, this award requires a match of funds from the awardees. In this case, there is a match of 30% of the funds ($611,000) which must be non-federal money.
The City of Buellton has not yet allocated the $425,000 earmark grant for expenses related to grant application preparation for the prior state grant applications of the Chumash. The County is pursuing a grant that might help to raise the non-federal match requirement, but in the event that this application is not successful, use of the City’s earmark funds would be beneficial to the effort and would cover nearly 2/3 of the required match.
State Earmark Grant Allocation Page 2 February 13, 2025 The jurisdictions have agreed to a pro-rata cost sharing approach, and so the expectation is that Buellton’s funds from the earmark grant will go toward satisfying the City’s portion of the overall cost of the trail development and construction.
Staff is requesting the City Council’s authorization to allocate the earmark grant funds to the ATIIP Grant’s (or another subsequent grant’s) matching requirement, up to the full grant amount not already allocated. This allocation will be done with the understanding and agreement that these funds will be credited toward the City of Buellton’s pro-rata share of the trail projects costs. Use of these funds in this manner will help to leverage additional funding needed to bring this project to fruition.
FISCAL IMPACT
This action would result in an impact of up to $425,000 of restricted funds, which must be spent in support of the planning and development of the SYV River Trail. No General Fund impact is anticipated as a result of this action.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to allocate the earmark grant funds to the ATIIP Grant’s (or another subsequent grant’s) matching requirement, up to the full grant amount not already allocated.
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 5
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shannel Zamora, Finance Director
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: Six-Month Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25 from the Buellton Visitors Bureau
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Attachment 1 is the Six-Month Report from the Visitors Bureau for activities from July 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024, as required by the City’s contract with the Chamber of Commerce for operation of the Visitors Bureau. The Six-Month report will be posted on the City’s website.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive the Six-Month Report from the Buellton Visitors Bureau.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – 2024-25 Buellton Visitors Bureau Six-Month Report
Buellton Visitors Bureau 6-month report (July 2024 – December 2024) The following report is of the activities that have occurred in the first 6 months of the fiscal year July 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024.
The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for Buellton in the first six months is averaging 72%. This is typical for this time of year as we see summer travel come to an end and then pick up through the holidays.
The Visitors Bureau continues to work with Solutions on 2nd who assists with our digital marketing strategy and implementation. We also worked closely with Madden Media on our Search Engine Marketing strategy. We began working with Adara, which is a data measurement application that enables us to analyze and optimize our marketing strategy using confirmed travel transaction data.
Solutions on 2nd continues to provide content for our social media accounts, produce blogs and create content for our website. We continue to see an uptick in our following and we strive to get organic followers since they have a higher engagement rate. We have kept our audience interested and informed with our monthly newsletters, which go out to those who have opted in from our website and contain content such as: stories, images, articles, and travel ideas with the readers so they may keep Buellton top of mind. The following is an overview of our Marketing & Advertising programs we’ve implemented or continued to implement in the first half of the fiscal year.
1. Central Coast Tourism Council (CCTC) Co-op
We partnered with CCTC on a regional, cooperative opportunity in the Road Trips magazine that is published by Visit California. Staff also attended the CCTC Fall Forum and continue to stay involved on the Board of the CCTC.
2. Promotion of Buellton Events - We continue to promote our local events to our visitors. ● Buellton Fall Fest (November)
● Taste of the Valley (September/October)
● Buellton Winter Fest (December)
● Holiday Lights, Botanic Garden Tour (December)
● Cowboy Christmas (December)
360 View PR continues to be our public relations partner who reaches out to travel writers and media through leads and story pitches that are relevant to Buellton. With their help we’ve been able to:
Secure 53 stories that were about Buellton or included Buellton. A few of the top national outlets that coverage was secured in were AARP, Los Angeles Times, Forbes, Conde Nast Traveler, Islands, NBC Los
Angeles and more. The combined total of publication-wide audience figures for all the outlets that featured these stories is 7.8 billion.
A few of the top headlines:
● 5 Great Destinations for a Fall RV Road Trip – AARP
● Horses, vineyards and a charming petrol museum: 13 reasons why Buellton is worth a stop – Los Angeles Times
● California Wine Country Is the Star At 20th Anniversary Of ‘Sideways’ – Forbes ● A Trip to Santa Barbara Wine Country, 20 Years After ‘Sideways’ - Conde Nast Traveler ● Find America’s Best-Hidden Artisanal Eateries at An Unsung California City with Year-Round Sunshine – Islands
● Happy 20th, ‘Sideways’: Toast to the beloved film at a sparkling fest – NBC Los Angeles We also had the opportunity to host a variety of travel writers who stayed at Sideways Inn and enjoyed wine tasting, dining, and celebrating the 20th Anniversary of ‘Sideways” by partaking in the various tasting and screening events around the movie and as part of Taste of the Valley.
We continue to work with Madden Media on our Search Engine Marketing (SEM) strategy. With a focus on the shoulder seasons and peak seasons as well as a small portion supporting our annual events.
Since we began working with Adara and contracted to do a strategic plan, we had to cut back on our spend with Madden Media.
We also started working with Adara, which allows us to tap into real-time travel data to track travelrelated consumer behavior and identify key trends. This data allows us to make informed decisions with our marketing strategies based on the consumer travel activities.
Some of the data we can track with the assistance of Adara are as follows:
214 Total Bookings, 75 which were flight bookings and 139 hotel bookings. The revenue from hotel bookings was $22,663. The top market for hotel bookings is LA at 66%; top market for flights is San Francisco at 20.7%.
This program has been a great way to track the digital footprint of our visitors.
Income / Expenses
Income received from July – December was $225,000.
Expenses incurred from July 1 – December 31 were $234,273.96.
Print / Digital
We continue to place print and digital ads where it makes sense and is relevant. Ad placements reach domestic and international markets, highlighting all there is to do and see in Buellton. We also maintain our co-op marketing with the Central Coast Tourism Council, which allows us to be a part of a larger voice and showcase our location amongst the other Central Coast communities.
Visit Santa Ynez Valley – We purchased a full-page ad in the Santa Ynez Valley Visitor Guide which carried a message of, “Explore the unexpected”. We also added a QR code which directs readers to our Discover Buellton website to inspire and plan their next trip to Buellton.
Certified Folder Display Rack – We work with Certified Folder on two items. One is by placing our rack cards in various display racks in areas such as the Santa Barbara Airport, California visitor centers and welcome centers to name a few. We also work with Certified Folder on the Central Coast Tourism Council map. Next, we are working with Certified Folder on the Central Coast Tourism Council (CCTC) Map. We purchase a regional listing as well as a hidden gem on the map. This is the only piece produced by CCTC and we feel it is important to be a part of this well received map.
Yosemite Journal – We purchased a ¼ page ad as a co-op with CCTC and focused on outdoor adventure.
This purchase comes with print and digital across various platforms through National Parks & Yosemite Journal, and we receive leads from those wanting more information.
California Road Trips – This is a piece done by Visit CA, our state tourism organization. It identifies various road trips in California. Buellton participates with the Central Coast Tourism Council and their partners on a co-op piece within the guide.
Social Media / E Marketing
Visit Widget – This is a trip planning tool that operates in harmony with our website. Visit Widget also has an app that we promote and invite people to download so they may begin planning their next trip to Buellton. As an in-market tool, it allows our visitors to create and map out itineraries during their visit.
These itineraries may then be shared or printed.
Facebook and Instagram - We work with Solutions on 2nd to oversee and execute our social media strategy and implementation. These platforms allow us a way to communicate with our audience at any time of the day in different ways. Instagram is more visual, and image driven whereas Facebook is more information driven to support an image we may share.
Web
Our web developer, Park Central Webs, assists with our website development, hosting and maintenance of the site. Park Central is a local company who works closely with our team on troubleshooting and strategizing so our site reaches its fullest potential.
Graphic Design
UVA Design Studios continues to be our partner with graphic work whether it be for our print ads, billboard displays, web graphics, Winter Fest postcards and posters.
Economic Development
Strategic Plan – Since we completed our first 5-year strategic plan, the Board of Directors, with the help of a facilitator, worked on the next 5-year strategic plan. With this roadmap for the future, the Visitors Bureau will be looking to continue to market and promote Buellton and build upon the accomplishments from the past 5 years.
Billboard wrap – We continue to change out the billboard on McMurray Rd which welcomes our visitors to Buellton and showcases events taking place in Buellton. We change this sign out about 4 times a year.
REACH – We continue to have a seat at the table with this regional economic development coalition.
The goal is to drive action and economic planning across industry sectors, county lines and political aisles.
Traffic Counts
Walk-ins – We continue to welcome visitors into our center. Most come in looking for information, maps, wine tasting coupons, and general information.
Calls & Mailing – We receive a variety of calls asking about events and other things to do in our area.
We also receive requests for information to be mailed to our visitors who want to do some research prior to their visit.
Visitor Welcome Bags – We’ve been able to prepare welcome bags for groups coming in and staying in our lodging properties. Whether for weddings, family reunions, or groups, we appreciate the opportunity to put these together and provide information and a little Buellton swag for our visitors so they may have the information they need to enjoy their stay in Buellton.
Sponsorships & Donations
Buellton Fall Fest – We continue to support this great event. The Fall Fest brings in thousands of people onto the Avenue of Flags to enjoy the carnival, live music, food and much more. This event has proven to be a big success and showcases our city to the surrounding communities and visitors as well.
Discover Buellton was a presenting sponsor and received a great deal of exposure throughout the event.
Holiday Lights Garden Tour – This event returned this year and continues to be a highlight for our community during the holidays. Discover Buellton was an ornament sponsor and provided a great deal of advertising through our PR and marketing team to bring people to the garden. Visitors from near and far came to stroll through the garden, get a photo with Santa, feed live reindeer, and enjoy all the festivities that took place.
Santa Barbara County Vintner’s Festival – This event returned to Vega Vineyard & Farm for the second year and drew visitors from near and far. Our hotels, restaurants, and attractions all benefit from this event as people spend the weekend in our area. We feel our sponsorship of this event is important as we gain exposure from the attendees and highlight Buellton and the Sta. Rita Hills as a great wine region and destination.
Events
Buellton Winter Fest – This signature event continues to grow and draw attention across the valley and region. This year we moved the event to River View Park in collaboration with Holiday Lights and it proved to be a great move. We brought back the snow, vendors, live performances, and the tree lighting. We partnered with EnFuego Events and the Botanic Garden to share some expenses and enhance both events to attract more people. We had a great turnout with no issues reported.
Organizations & Meetings
Central Coast Tourism Council (CCTC) – The Buellton Visitors Bureau continues to be a member of the Central Coast Tourism Council. Kathy serves as the Treasurer on the Board of Directors and has a seat on the Rural Region Committee with Visit California. This organization represents the regions from Monterey/Santa Cruz area to Ventura/Oxnard and the Channel Islands. It is considered a rural region of California, and we work in collaboration with all the members to promote this region and do together what we cannot do on our own.
CCTC Fall Forum – The Central Coast Tourism Council hosted an in person Fall Forum this year which allowed us to not only network but also plan for next stages of marketing and what our goals are moving forward. This is a great group of tourism professionals who come together to market the Central Coast Region and bring awareness of the space between the gateway cities (SF and LA).
Board Retreat – The Visitors Bureau held a board retreat where we worked with a facilitator to develop a 5-year strategic plan. The board discussed the accomplishments from the previous plan and looked ahead to the future to develop the next steps and come up with an action plan. We look forward to carrying out the next steps that include destination development, refining our brand positioning, strengthening tourism partnerships and community relationships, and expanding our marketing reach in existing and new markets.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Buellton Visitors Bureau continues to market Buellton as a destination. Whether it be print or digital or in person. We strive to reach our audience and continue to inspire them to book their vacation to Buellton.
We’ve renewed contracts with our partners, continued and initiated marketing campaigns. We’ve furthered our relationships and collaboration with the Central Coast Tourism Council, Visit the Santa Ynez Valley and the regional economic development coalition called REACH. All these partnerships make it possible to share in a louder voice, reach new markets, and have a voice at the table.
Our PR firm continues to do outreach on our behalf, pitching stories, setting up itineraries for visiting travel writers, and promoting our destination and events to travel media. This places Buellton in front of the readers and allows them to learn more about our destination.
As we came out of the pandemic, we saw a significant increase in our occupancy and TOT as people began to travel domestically. This past year we saw a bit of a decrease in the occupancy and TOT as many people chose to travel abroad. We will keep our eye on the trends and watch the international markets as they begin to come back. We also stay informed by our state tourism office as to what market trends show.
The Buellton Visitors Bureau appreciates the opportunity to promote Buellton as a destination and work alongside the City of Buellton to enhance our community.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathy Vreeland
Kathy Vreeland, Executive Director
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 6
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Wolfe, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: Consideration of Stating a Formal City Position on the Appeal of the Transfer of Pipeline Permits for the Petroleum Pipeline Traversing the City of Buellton to Sable Offshore
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
At the January 23, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council heard public comments from Len Fleckenstein and Larry Bishop requesting the City Council take a formal position and support the appeal of the pipeline permits granted to Sable Offshore by the County Planning Commission. These permits allowed the transfer of ownership of the existing petroleum pipeline running through the City of Buellton from Exxon Mobil to Sable Offshore. Staff was directed by the City Council to return with an agenda item for the matter to be discussed.
As noted, the County Planning Commission granted the pipeline permits allowing the transfer of the pipeline from Exxon Mobil to Sable Offshore. This would allow Sable to re-activate the pipeline running through the City, subject to other approvals from state agencies. A significant question that remains unanswered is what, if any, testing, repair, or re-alignment of the existing pipeline will need to be completed to ensure the safety of the pipeline. This question is a central point of the appeal to the Board of Supervisors. It should also be noted that the ultimate determination of approval is also dependent upon the findings of various state agencies, including the State Fire Marshal and the California Coastal Commission.
The operation of an oil drilling platform and an oil pipeline is a complex matter, and the permitting requirements are likewise quite complex, involving the County and a number of state agencies. As staff does not have the relevant expertise to opine on the specifics of the approval granted by the County Planning Commission, it does not recommend submitting a comment to the Board of Supervisors that questions or criticizes the appropriateness of the Planning Commission’s decision. That decision is rightly a decision of the County, and according the City policy found in the Buellton City Council Manual (Section 3.4 Positions on Regional, State, and Federal Issues), the City Council should only take positions on matters directly involving the City.
Statement of Position on Pipeline Appeal Page 2 February 13, 2025 In this regard, the comments by Mr. Fleckenstein are largely appropriate, as they focus upon the potential safety impacts to the City should the pipeline operation resume.
Therefore, staff would recommend that if the City Council decides that taking a formal position on the pending appeal of the pipeline permit approvals is desirable, that the position focus only on the potential safety concerns that directly impact the City. Such concerns might include:
• Questions regarding the safety of the pipeline, to include the inspection for and mitigation of corrosion within the pipeline that currently runs through the City. • The alleged and apparent lack of environmental documentation relating to the reactivation of the pipeline, to include an Oil Spill Contingency Plan to be prepared by Sable Offshore.
• Risks associated with the pipeline running through the City, and a formal request to see the pipeline re-routed to bypass the City.
• The alleged and apparent lack of financial guarantees in the form of a performance bond for the abandonment of the pipeline through the City.
Issues brought up in the appeal which do not appear to meet the criteria for taking a formal position by the City, and/or for which staff does not have sufficient expertise to determine, include:
• Objections to the transfer of ownership to Sable Offshore based upon determination of operational capability of Sable.
• Assertions of error and abuse of discretion on the part of the County Planning Commission.
The authority to take a position on this matter lies with the City Council. The points above are presented for the City Council’s consideration in light of apparent community sentiment, established City policy, and the record of the appeal that has been filed with the County. With these items in mind, there are several options available to the City Council at this time, which include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. Decide to take a formal position on the appeal, highlighting those issues which directly impact the City as noted above and others as noted by the Council and the public.
2. Decide to take a formal position on the appeal, and determine that this matter justifies deviation from established City policy by commenting on matters beyond those which directly impact the City.
3. Decide to withhold a formal position until the Board of Supervisors makes its decision. Should the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal, then consider stating the City’s position to the various state agencies with jurisdiction in the matter.
4. Take no position on the appeal at this time.
Statement of Position on Pipeline Appeal Page 3 February 13, 2025 Should the City Council take a formal position on the pipeline project appeal, staff will prepare a letter which states the preferred position of the City Council for the Mayor’s signature, and transmit it to the County immediately for the consideration of the Board of Supervisors during its consideration of the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACT
Statement of a formal position as contemplated in this report would result in no significant fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report, discuss the matter, and direct staff as appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Appeal Application from Environmental Defense Center, et al.
Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Appeal Application
STEP 1: SUBJECT PROPERTY
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER(S)
PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF APPLICABLE)
BUSINESS/ESTABLISHMENT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
STEP 2: PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT TITLE
CASE NO(S).
DECISION MAKER DATE OF ACTION
Is the appeal related to cannabis activities? Yes No
STEP 3: APPEAL CONTACTS
APPELLANT
NAME (if LLC or other legal entity, must provide documentation)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP
_________________ __________________________ PHONE EMAIL AGENT
NAME (if LLC or other legal entity, must provide documentation)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP
_________________ __________________________ PHONE EMAIL
ATTORNEY
NAME (if LLC or other legal entity, must provide documentation)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP
_________________ __________________________ PHONE EMAIL STEP 4: APPEAL DETAILS
Is the Appellant the project Applicant? Yes No
If not, please provide an explanation of how you are an “aggrieved party”, as defined in Step 5 on page 2 of this application form:
Please provide a clear, complete, and concise statement of the reasons or ground for appeal:
Why the decision or determination is consistent/inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of the County’s Zoning Ordinances or other applicable law;
There was error or abuse of discretion;
The decision is not supported by the evidence presented for consideration;
There was a lack of a fair and impartial hearing; or
There is significant new evidence relevant to the decision which could not have been presented at the time the decision was made.
County Use Only Appeal Case No.:
STEP 5: APPELLANT, AGENT, AND ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I have read the information below and that:
1. I have carefully reviewed and prepared the appeal application in accordance with the instructions; and
2. I provided information in this appeal application, including all attachments, which are accurate and correct; and
3. I understand that the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information or plans, or failure to comply with the instructions may result in processing delays and/or denial of my application; and
4. I understand that it is the responsibility of the
applicant/appellant to substantiate the request through the requirements of the appeal application; and
5. I understand that upon further evaluation, additional information/documents/reports/entitlements may be required; and
6. I understand that all materials submitted in connection with this appeal application shall become public record subject to inspection by the public. I acknowledge and understand that the public may inspect these materials and that some or all of the materials may be posted on the Department’s website; and
7. I understand that denials will result in no refunds; and
8. I understand that Department staff is not permitted to assist the applicant, appellant, or proponents and opponents of a project in preparing arguments for or against the project; and
9. I understand that there is no guarantee – expressed or implied – that an approval will be granted. I understand that such application must be carefully evaluated and after the evaluation has been conducted, that staff’s recommendation or decision may change during the course of the review based on the information presented; and
10. I understand an aggrieved party is defined as any person who in person, or through a representative, appears at a public hearing in connection with the decision or action appealed, or who, by the other nature of his concerns or who for good cause was unable to do either; and
11. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1633.5(b), the parties hereby agree that where this Agreement requires a party signature, an electronic signature, as that term is defined at California Civil Code Section 1633.2(h), shall have the full force and effect of an original (“wet”) signature. A responsible officer of each party has read and understands the contents of this Agreement and is empowered and duly authorized on behalf of that party to execute it; and
12. I understand that applicants, appellants, contractors, agents or any financially interested participant who actively oppose this project who have made campaign contributions totaling more than $250 to a member of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors since January 1, 2023, are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceeding. Disclosures must include the amount and date of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient Board member and may be made either in writing as part of this appeal, in writing to the Clerk of the legislative body before the hearing, or by verbal disclosure at the time of the hearing; and
13. If the approval of a Land Use Permit required by a previously approved discretionary permit is appealed, the applicant shall identify:
How the Land Use Permit is inconsistent with the previously approved discretionary permit;
How the discretionary permit’s conditions of approval that are required to be completed prior to the approval of a Land Use Permit have not been completed;
How the approval is inconsistent with Section 35.106 (Noticing). : All aggrieved parties must sign the appeal application prior to the appeal deadline in order to be considered an aggrieved party. Please attach additional signature pages, as needed.
I have read and understand the above acknowledgements and consent to the submittal of this application.
SIGNATURE – APPELLENT PRINT NAME DATE
SIGNATURE – AGENT PRINT NAME DATE
SIGNATURE – ATTORNEY PRINT NAME DATE
Appeals to the Planning Commission. Appeals to the Planning Commission must be filed with Planning and Development no later than 10 days following the date of the decision, along with the appropriate fees. Please contact P&D staff below for submittal instructions and to determine the appropriate fee.
South County projects: [email protected] or (805) 568-2090 North County projects: [email protected] or (805) 934-6251 Appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Appeals to the Board of Supervisors must be filed with the Clerk of the Board and must be filed no later than 10 days following the date of the decision, along with the appropriate fees. Appeal instructions are located online at the Clerk of the Board website: https://www.countyofsb.org/2837/Filing-Land-Use-Appeals-Claims
November 7, 2024
Mr. Steve Lavagnino, Chair
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Via email to: [email protected]
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 30, 2024 Approval of Change of Owner, Operator, and Guarantor for the Santa Ynez Unit, POPCO Gas Plant, and Las Flores Pipeline System Final Development Plan Permits Dear Chair Lavanigno and Honorable Supervisors:
The Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”), Get Oil Out! (“GOO!”), and Santa Barbara County Action Network (“SBCAN,” and together with EDC and GOO!, “Appellants”) appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of Sable Offshore Corp.’s (“Sable”) applications for Change in Owner, Operator, and Guarantor of the Final Development Plan Permits (“FDPs”) for the Santa Ynez Unit (the “SYU”), Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company (“POPCO”) Gas Plant, and the Las Flores Pipeline System.
In approving Sable’s applications, the Planning Commission misconstrued the purpose of Chapter 25B of the County Code and the scope of its review thereunder, leading to a decision that was replete with errors. Most notably, at the behest of staff, the Commission ignored or misinterpreted several findings of approval required by Chapter 25B, including those related to financial capability and compliance plans; ignored or misinterpreted several conditions of the FDPs, which the Commission was required to review for compliance; and improperly excluded relevant evidence in the record concerning the risks of operating the facilities at issue. In light of these errors, the Commission ultimately made a number of findings that were unsupported by evidence, plainly controverted by evidence in the record, and/or inconsistent with Chapter 25B.
Accordingly, Appellants offer the following concise summary of their grounds for appeal:
November 7, 2024
Appeal of Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
• The Planning Commission’s approval was inconsistent with the provisions and purpose of Chapter 25B of the County Code;
• The decision was made in error;
• The decision constituted an abuse of discretion; and
• The decision and findings were not supported by sufficient evidence. (See County Code, § 25B-12(b)(2).)
I. Interest of Appellants
These applications are part of Sable’s broader effort to restart the SYU and the corroded onshore pipelines that caused the 2015 oil spill at Refugio State Beach Park (the “Refugio Oil Spill”). Appellants were involved in the immediate response to the spill, and they remain concerned about the risks of operating the SYU and its attendant infrastructure. As to Sable in particular, they have well-founded concerns that this speculative company will not be able to safely restart these facilities, responsibly operate them, or fulfill its remediation obligations when another spill occurs.
On October 28, 2024, Appellants submitted a written comment letter (the “Comment Letter”) to the Planning Commission outlining why the Commission was unable to make many of the findings of approval required by Chapter 25B, including those related to Sable’s financial stability, operational capacity, and compliance with existing permit conditions. Appellants’ Comment Letter is attached to this appeal and incorporated herein by this reference.
At the October 30, 2024, Planning Commission hearing on this matter, each of the Appellants gave public comment opposing Sable’s applications and highlighting the concerns raised in their Comment Letter.
Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, Appellants are interested persons adversely affected by the Planning Commission’s decision. (See County Code, § 25B-12(b)(1).) II. Grounds for Appeal
The following tables outline Appellants’ specific grounds for appeal. Note that the tables reference and incorporate the arguments raised in Appellants’ Comment Letter. Appellants reserve the right to supplement this appeal with further issues, evidence, and argument. * * *
November 7, 2024
Appeal of Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
A. SYU Permit: Application of Change for Owner, Operator, and Guarantor
Required Chapter 25B Findings Grounds for Appeal
Financial Guarantees: Sections 25B-9(a)(2),
25B-9(e)(1), and 25B-10(a)(2)
“All necessary instruments or methods of
financial responsibility approved by the
county and necessary to comply with the
permit and any county ordinance have been
updated, if necessary, to reflect the new
owner(s) or operator and will remain in full
effect following the ownership or operator
change.”
1. Sable has not obtained a final Certificate of
Financial Responsibility (“CFR”) for its
facilities, as required by Condition XI-2.w.
(See Part II.B of Comment Letter.)
2. Sable has not posted a performance bond
for the abandonment of these facilities, which
can — and should — be required under
Condition XIX-1. (See Part II.C of Comment
Letter.)
Compliance Plans: Section 25B-10(a)(6)
“The current owner and proposed operator
have updated, where applicable, any . . . oil
spill contingency plan, or equivalent approved
plans, with current emergency contact
information pertaining to the new operator.”
1. Sable has not submitted an adequate or
approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan for these
facilities. (See Part IV of Comment Letter.)
Operator Capability: Section 25B-10(a)(9)
“The proposed operator has the skills,
training, and resources necessary to operate
the permitted facility in compliance with the
permit and all applicable county codes and
has demonstrated the ability to comply with
compliance plans listed in section 25B10.1.f.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
resources necessary to operate these facilities,
as it may run out of capital prior to restart.
(See Part II.A of Comment Letter.)
2. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
financial capacity to remediate a worst-case
spill from these facilities, as required by
Condition XI-2.w. (See Part II.A of Comment
Letter.)
3. Sable has not demonstrated that it can
comply with an Oil Spill Contingency Plan,
as it failed to submit an adequate or approved
plan, and it lacks the financial resources to
comply with such a plan. (See Part II.A and
Part IV of Comment Letter.)
4. Sable has not shown that it can be trusted
to reliably operate these facilities. (See Part V
of Comment Letter.)
November 7, 2024
Appeal of Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
B. POPCO Permit: Application for Change of Operator and Guarantor Required Chapter 25B Findings Grounds for Appeal
Financial Guarantees: Sections 25B-9(e)(1)
and 25B-10(a)(2)
“All necessary instruments or methods of
financial responsibility approved by the
county and necessary to comply with the
permit and any county ordinance have been
updated, if necessary, to reflect the new
owner(s) or operator and will remain in full
effect following the ownership or operator
change.”
1. Sable has not posted a performance bond
for the abandonment of this facility, as
required by Condition Q-2. (See Part II.C of
Comment Letter.)
Operator Capability: Section 25B-10(a)(9)
“The proposed operator has the skills,
training, and resources necessary to operate
the permitted facility in compliance with the
permit and all applicable county codes and
has demonstrated the ability to comply with
compliance plans listed in section 25B10.1.f.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
resources necessary to operate this facility, as
it may run out of capital prior to restart. (See
Part II.A of Comment Letter.)
2. Sable has not shown that it can be trusted
to reliably operate this facility. (See Part IV of
Comment Letter.)
C. Las Flores Pipeline System Permit: Application for Change of Operator and Guarantor
Required Chapter 25B Findings Grounds for Appeal
Financial Guarantees: Sections 25B-9(e)(1)
and 25B-10(a)(2)
“All necessary instruments or methods of
financial responsibility approved by the
county and necessary to comply with the
permit and any county ordinance have been
updated, if necessary, to reflect the new
owner(s) or operator and will remain in full
effect following the ownership or operator
change.”
1. Sable has not obtained final CFRs for the
Las Flores Pipeline System, which the County
can — and should — require pursuant to
Section 25B-10(b). (See Part II.B of
Comment Letter.)
2. Sable has not posted a performance bond
for the abandonment of these facilities, which
can — and should — be required under
Condition O-1. (See Part II.C of Comment
Letter.)
November 7, 2024
Appeal of Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Compliance with Existing Requirements:
Section 25B-10(a)(5)
“As of the date that the application is deemed
complete, the current operator is in
compliance with all requirements of the
permit . . . .”
1. The current owner/operator is not in
compliance with Condition A-7, as the Las
Flores Pipeline System lacks effective
cathodic protection. (See Part III of Comment
Letter.)
Compliance Plans: Section 25B-10(a)(6)
“The current owner and proposed operator
have updated, where applicable, any . . . oil
spill contingency plan, or equivalent approved
plans, with current emergency contact
information pertaining to the new operator.”
1. Sable has not submitted an adequate or
approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan for the
Las Flores Pipeline System. (See Part IV of
Comment Letter.)
Operator Capability: Section 25B-10(a)(9)
“The proposed operator has the skills,
training, and resources necessary to operate
the permitted facility in compliance with the
permit and all applicable county codes and
has demonstrated the ability to comply with
compliance plans listed in section 25B10.1.f.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
resources necessary to operate the facilities,
as it may run out of capital prior to restart.
(See Part II.A of Comment Letter.)
2. Sable has not demonstrated that it can
comply with an Oil Spill Contingency Plan,
as it failed to submit an approved or adequate
plan for these facilities, and it lacks the
financial resources to comply with such a
plan. (See Part II.A and Part IV of Comment
Letter.)
3. Sable has not shown that it can be trusted
to reliably operate these facilities. (See Part V
of Comment Letter.)
III. Request
For the above reasons, and the reasons Appellants raised to the Planning Commission, Appellants ask that the Board of Supervisors grant Appellants’ appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, and deny de novo Sable’s applications for Change of Owner, Operator, and Guarantor.
November 7, 2024
Appeal of Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Linda Krop,
Chief Counsel
Jeremy Frankel,
Staff Attorney
Att: EDC letter to Planning Commission, 10/28/24
October 28, 2024
Mr. Vincent Martinez, Chair
Planning Commission
123 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Change of Owner, Operator, and Guarantor for the Santa Ynez Unit, POPCO Gas Plant, and Las Flores Pipeline System — OPPOSE Dear Chair Martinez and Honorable Commissioners:
On behalf of Get Oil Out! (“GOO!”), Santa Barbara County Action Network (“SBCAN”), and the Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”),1 we urge the County to deny Sable Offshore Corp.’s (“Sable”) applications for Change in Owner, Operator, and Guarantor of the Santa Ynez Unit (the “SYU”) and related infrastructure.
These applications are part of Sable’s broader effort to restart the SYU and the corroded onshore pipelines that caused the 2015 oil spill at Refugio State Beach Park (the “Refugio Oil Spill”). Our clients were involved in the immediate response to the spill, and they remain concerned about the risks of operating the SYU and its attendant infrastructure. As to Sable in particular, they have well-founded concerns that this speculative company will not be able to safely restart these facilities, responsibly operate them, or fulfill its remediation obligations when another spill occurs.
To approve Sable’s applications, Chapter 25B of the County Code requires that the County consider, among other things, Sable’s financial stability, operational capacity, and compliance with existing permit conditions. As explained further below, the County cannot make many of the necessary findings to approve the applications. 1 GOO! was formed in the wake of the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill and continues to work to protect California from further oil and gas development and exploitation. SBCAN is a countywide grassroots organization that works to promote social and economic justice, to preserve our environmental and agricultural resources, and to create sustainable communities. EDC is a nonprofit public interest law firm that defends nature and advances environmental justice on California’s Central Coast through advocacy and legal action.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Indeed, Sable is uniquely vulnerable to financial insolvency, and it has not provided the financial assurances necessary to satisfy Chapter 25B. Sable is saddled with a $790M debt, lacks a revenue stream, and is severely undercapitalized. If a spill were to occur during or soon after restart of the SYU — before Sable is profitable — it would not have the financial resources to respond to the spill, which could cost upwards of $750M. Nor has Sable submitted necessary compliance plans to ensure it properly remediates a spill.
Compounding that concern is not only the likelihood of another spill occurring, but Sable’s track record as an operator. In the short time since it has acquired the SYU, Sable has already demonstrated a lack of diligence, an aversion to regulatory compliance, and a propensity to cut corners, all of which call its reliability as an operator into question.
Moreover, Sable is not in compliance with at least one of the permits that it is asking to be transferred, namely because its onshore pipelines lack effective protection from corrosion.
Accordingly, approval of Sable’s applications would not only be inconsistent with Chapter 25B, but a grave dereliction of the County’s duty to protect the public and ensure oil and gas facilities are responsibly operated. Thus, we urge the County to deny the transfers.
I. Background
A. The Facilities and Permits at Issue
The SYU is a long-dormant oil and gas production unit located on the Gaviota Coast. It consists of three offshore platforms and an onshore oil processing facility in Las Flores Canyon.2 The SYU is permitted under Final Development Plan (“FDP”) Permit No. 87-DP-032cz (RV06) (the “SYU Permit”).
Once processed, crude oil from the SYU travels from Las Flores Canyon inland through CA-324 and CA-325 (the “Las Flores Pipeline System”), two aged, corroded pipelines that traverse sensitive coastal lowlands, perennial streams, and other sensitive habitat.3 The Las Flores Pipeline System is permitted under an FDP permit approved in 1986, and revised in 1988 and 2003 (the “LFP Permit”).
Natural gas produced in the SYU is processed at the Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company (“POPCO”) Gas Plant, which is also located in Las Flores Canyon.4 The POPCO Gas Plant is permitted under FDP Permit No. 93-FDP-015 and 74-CP-11(RV1) (the “POPCO Permit,” and together with the SYU and LFP Permits, the “Permits”).
2 SYU, POPCO Gas Plant & Las Flores Pipelines Permit Transfer, Santa Barbara County, https://www.countyofsb.org/4189/SYU-POPCO-Gas-Plant-Las-Flores-Pipelines (last visited Oct. 18, 2024). 3 See id. 4 Id.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
The Permits, which are subject to Chapter 25B of the County Code,5 currently list ExxonMobil Corporation (“Exxon”) as owner, operator, and guarantor. Per Chapter 25B, any owner, operator, or guarantor of the above-referenced facilities (the “Facilities”) must be listed on the applicable facility permit.6 The Permits are not transferable, and the owner, operator, or guarantor listed on the Permits cannot be changed, except in accordance with Chapter 25B.7 B. The Refugio Oil Spill and SYU Shut-In
On May 19, 2015, CA-324 ruptured at Refugio State Beach Park, releasing more than 120,000 gallons of heavy crude oil into the surrounding environment.8 The spill devastated approximately 150 miles of the California coast.9
Thousands of acres of shoreline and subtidal
habitat were destroyed, and an untold number of animals — including marine mammals — were injured or killed.10 The spill also forced the closure of fisheries and beaches, which jeopardized local businesses and caused an estimated 140,000 lost recreational user days between Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.11
Upon investigation, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) determined that the rupture in CA-324 was a result of “progressive external corrosion,” and that the pipeline’s cathodic protection system — intended to prevent such corrosion — had failed.12 Ultimately, PHMSA found pervasive metal loss throughout the entirety of the Las Flores Pipeline System, and it concluded that cathodic protection is ineffective in buried, insulated pipelines like CA-324 and CA-325.13 Following the spill, the Las Flores Pipeline System was emptied, purged, and idled, and it remains idle to date.14 Due to the unavailability of the system, the SYU was shut in, and production at the unit was suspended indefinitely.15 The SYU has not been operated for almost ten years.16
5 See County Code, § 25B-2. 6 Id. at § 25B-4(a). 7 Id. at 25B-4(c), (e)-(g). 8 California Department of Fish and Wildlife et al., Refugio Beach Oil Spill Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment, p. 4 (June 2021) [hereinafter “NRDA”], available at: https://nrm.dfg. ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=193144&inline. 9 Id. at 18. 10 Id. at 3-9. 11 Id. at 3. 12 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Failure Investigation Report, Plains Pipeline, LP, Line 901, Crude Oil Release, May 19, 2015, Santa Barbara County, California, pp. 3, 14 (May 2016) [hereinafter “PHMSA Report”], available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/PHMSA _Failure_Investigation_Report_Plains_Pipeline_LP_Line_901_Public.pdf 13 Id. at 14. 14 Id. at 3, 9. 15 History, ExxonMobil Santa Ynez Unit, https://www.syu.exxonmobil.com/history (last visited Oct. 18, 2024). 16 See id.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
C. Sable’s Dubious Origins and Plans to Restart the SYU Having failed in its attempts to restart the SYU, Exxon recently looked to cut its losses and offload its SYU assets. Enter Sable, an entity specifically formed to chance the regulatory hurdles facing restart of these compromised facilities.
1. Sable’s Origins
Sable began in 2020 as several special purpose entities, which were organized to evaluate and facilitate a potential acquisition of the SYU assets.17 The corporations were formed by current Sable CEO Jim Flores — a figure with a checkered history in the oil and gas industry.18 Flores first became familiar with Exxon’s operations in the early 2000s, when he was running an upstream affiliate of the company responsible for the Refugio Oil Spill.19 In 2013, that affiliate was acquired by Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, which retained Flores and appointed him co-chairman of its oil and gas division.20 Freeport would part ways with Flores in just three years after suffering billions of dollars of losses under Flores’ leadership.21 Shortly thereafter, Flores pivoted to Sable Permian Resources, which he and two private equity firms formed to acquire debt-laden oil and gas assets.22 It bankrupted in three years.23 As the company floundered, Flores unsuccessfully attempted to secure a high pay-out for himself.24 Flores has now cooked up Sable, setting his sights on yet another troubled oil and gas operation. And he has staffed his infant company with the same cast of executives that led Sable Permian to bankruptcy.25
17 Flame Acquisition Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Schedule 14A Proxy Statement, pp. 36-37, 174 (January 31, 2024), available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1831481/000119312524020916/ d377586ddefm14a.htm#toc377586_5 18 Id. at 174. 19 Id. 20 See id.; Michael Erman and Julie Gordon, Freeport makes $9 billion energy bet; Wall Street pans deal, Reuters (December 5, 2012), https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B40MY. 21 Olivia Pushnelli, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas cuts jobs, eliminates executive positions, Houston Business Journal (April 26, 2016), https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2016/04/26/freeport-mcmoran-oil-gas-tocutjobs-eliminates.html; Asjylyn Loder, $6.5 Billion in Energy Writedowns and We’re Just Getting Started, Bloomberg (October 22, 2015), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/-6-5-billion-in-energywritedowns-andwe-re-just-getting-started. 22 See Permian Resources, LLC, Permian Resources Announces Consensual And Transformational Restructuring Transaction, PR Newswire (May 1, 2017), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/permian-resources announces-consensual-and-transformational-restructuring-transaction-300449054.html. 23 Sable Permian Resources files for bankruptcy, Reuters (June 26, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/% 20idUSL4N2E31TQ/. 24 Peg Brickley, Sable Permian Heads off Fight Over Executive Bonuses, Wall Street Journal (December 10, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/sable-permian-heads-off-fight-over-executive-bonuses-11607639171. 25 Executive Management, Sable Offshore Corp., https://sableoffshore.com/governance/executivemanagement/default.aspx (last visited Oct. 18, 2024).
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
2. Acquisition of the SYU and Sable’s Financial Vulnerability On February 14, 2024, Sable acquired the SYU from Exxon, including all its associated assets: the three offshore platforms, the subsea pipelines and infrastructure, the Las Flores Canyon processing facility, and the POPCO Gas Plant.26 Sable also acquired Pacific Pipeline Co., and with it, the defunct Las Flores Pipeline System. 27 However, Sable, being undercapitalized, lacked the financial resources to fund the $625 million deal with Exxon.28 Thus, Sable was forced to secure a $622 million loan from Exxon — a whopping 99% of the purchase price — just to finance it.29 In exchange, Sable agreed that the SYU assets and their liabilities may revert to Exxon if the SYU is not back online by early 2026.30
The SYU assets — which have not been operational for nearly ten years — remain Sable’s only assets, leaving Sable without a reliable or predictable source of revenue.31 Sable is currently operating at an astounding $426M deficit, and it will continue operating at a deficit until it restarts the SYU.
32 It is unknown when a restart will occur, if at all.
Notably, Sable reports that restarting the SYU “will require significant capital expenditures in excess of current operational cash flow,” leaving it uniquely vulnerable to financial insolvency.33 Thus, according to Sable itself, “substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue,” and it “may have insufficient funds available to operate its business prior to first production.”34
Moreover, even if restart occurs, Sable must repay Exxon’s loan before it can begin comfortably generating profits. Sable currently owes Exxon $790M on the loan, and the principal is rapidly accruing interest at 10 percent a year.35 Significantly, the loan will mature 26 Sable Offshore Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K, p. 2 (February 14, 2024), available at:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1831481/000119312524036506/d737623d8k.htm; Purchase and Sale Agreement between Exxon Mobil Corporation, Mobil Pacific Pipeline Company, and Sable Offshore Corp., §
2.2 [hereinafter “Purchase Sale Agreement”], available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1831481/ 000119312524036506/d737623dex1027.htm. 27 Purchase Sale Agreement, supra note 26, at § 2.2. 28 Id. at § 3.1. 29 Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement between Sable Offshore Corp. (f//k/a Flame Acquisition Corp.) as Borrower, Exxon Mobil Corporation as Lender, and Alter Domus Products Corp. as Administrative Agent, § 2.01, available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1831481/000119312524036506/d737623dex101.htm. 30 Purchase Sale Agreement, supra note 26, at § 7.3(c). 31 Sable Offshore Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, p. 20 (March 28, 2024) (“Until we restart production of the SYU Assets, we will not generate any revenue or cash flows from operations.”), available at:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1831481/000119312524080879/d11434d10k.htm. 32 Sable Offshore Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q, p. 1 (August 13, 2024) [hereinafter “Q2 Report”], available at: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001831481/c153b62c-fae0-466b-bba5- 0ecabd862d71.pdf 33 Id. at 31. 34 Id. at 6. 35 Id. at 16-17.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
just ninety days after the restart of the SYU, at which point the entire principal is due.36 Based on historical production rates of the SYU, Sable will not yet have the revenue to meet that obligation, likely leading to default and possible bankruptcy.37
3. Sable’s Dangerous Gambit to Restart the SYU
With the clock ticking on Sable’s window to restart the SYU, Sable is, predictably, trying to cut any regulatory corners it can.
Being vulnerable to pervasive corrosion, few suspected that an operator would attempt to bring the Las Flores Pipeline System back online. In fact, Plains Pipeline L.P. (“Plains”), a previous owner, actually sought to replace the compromised pipelines, ostensibly due to their obvious safety defects.38 However, as Plains’ application to replace the pipelines was pending, Plains sold the Las Flores Pipeline System to Pacific Pipeline Co. (“PPC”), then a whollyowned subsidiary of Exxon.39 PPC later reneged on the plan to replace the pipelines, citing, in part, “a high degree of local permitting and business uncertainty . . . that has impacted investment commitment . . . .”40
Following in Exxon’s footsteps, Sable plans on restarting, rather than replacing, the existing Las Flores Pipeline System. In fact, pursuant to a recent settlement agreement that Sable reached with affected landowners, it is prohibited from replacing the Las Flores Pipeline System with safer, upgraded pipelines.41
Equally troubling is the waiver that Sable is seeking from the Office of the State Fire Marshal (“OSFM”), which assumed regulatory oversight of the Las Flores Pipeline System after the Refugio Oil Spill.
42 Instead of remediating the underlying cause of the Refugio Oil Spill, Sable is seeking a waiver “for the limited effectiveness of cathodic protection” on the 36 Id.; Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement, supra note 29, at 4. 37 See Sable Offshore Corporation, Investor Presentation, p. 4 (September 20, 2024), available at:
https://sableoffshore.com/events-and-presentations/default.aspx. 38 See 901/903 Replacement Pipeline Project, County of Santa Barbara, https://www.countyofsb.org/3801/901903- Replacement-Pipeline-Project (last visited May 17, 2024). 39 See Plains GP Holdings, L.P., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q, p. 27 (August 8, 2023), available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1581990/000158199023000017/pagp-20230630.htm#i830e23a965c44 a22b0562866c5a10bf5_139; see also Joshua Molina, ExxonMobil Acquires Troubled Crude Oil Pipelines from Plains All American, Noozhawk (October 17, 2022), https://www.noozhawk.com/exxonmobil_acquires_plains_all _american_crude_oil_pipelines/. 40 Withdrawal Letter from Pacific Pipeline Company to County Department of Planning and Development (October 24, 2023), available at: https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/3gvdwbzta1l19ss9r7cpkuvinte1byuv/file/134328122 0509. 41 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement at § 1.8, Grey Fox, LLC et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., No. CV 16-0317 (C.D. Cal April 9, 2024), available at: https://www.lasflorespipelinesystemsettlement.com/ admin/api/connectedapps.cms.extensions/asset?id=a117f30d-1e80-46f4-b704-8cb47a4bddc3&language Id=1033&inline=true. 42 See Memorandum of Understanding between PHMSA and OSFM (May 18, 2016), attached hereto as “Attachment A.”
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
pipelines.43 According to a recent analysis conducted by the County, operating the Las Flores Pipeline System without effective cathodic protection increases the likelihood of an oil spill by five times.
44 Should Sable proceed in this fashion, another spill is not a matter of if, but when.
According to the County, restarting the Las Flores Pipeline System could result in a spill every year, and a rupture every four years.
45 The County estimates that another spill in the coastal zone could be nearly twice the size of the 2015 spill — even with Sable’s valve installations.46 So, in sum, Sable intends to restart the Las Flores Pipeline System — and the SYU — without correcting the issues that led to the Refugio Oil Spill, and indeed, seeking a waiver to operate the pipelines despite those issues. All the while, Sable is rushing to complete repairs, largely in sensitive coastal habitat, while improperly circumventing state and local authority, as discussed further below.47
Sable’s dangerous restart scheme, however, ultimately hinges on the transfer of the Permits from Exxon to Sable.
II. The County Must Deny Sable’s Applications because It Cannot Make the Requisite Financial Assurance Findings under Chapter 25B.
Sable is not the blue-chip company that Exxon is. It is a debt-laden, speculative company with no operational assets and no current revenue stream. It is severely undercapitalized, and its limited cash flow will continue to diminish unless and until the SYU is restarted. In Sable’s own words, “substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue.”48 As it relates to financial assurances, Chapter 25B requires that Sable show it is financially capable of operating the Facilities in compliance with their respective permits, and that it has secured all financial guarantees required by the Permits.49 Unsurprisingly, Sable is unable to do so, specifically because it:
(1) has not demonstrated that it has the financial capacity to remediate a worst-case spill from its facilities;
(2) has not obtained final Certificates of Financial Responsibility (“CFRs”) for its facilities, which are required by at least one of the Permits; and 43 See Consent Decree, at Appendix B, Art. 1, § 1(A), U.S. v. Plains All American Pipeline, Civil Action No. 2:20- cv-02415 (March 13, 2020) [hereinafter “Consent Decree”], available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 2020-03/documents/plainsallamericanpipelinelp.pdf. 44 Santa Barbara County, Administrative Draft of Draft EIR for Plains Pipeline Replacement Project, Section 5.6, p. 78 [hereinafter “County Draft EIR”], an excerpt of which is attached hereto as “Attachment B.” 45 Id at 79. 46 Id. 47 California Coastal Commission, Notice of Violation, pp. 2-3 (Sept. 27, 2024), attached hereto as “Attachment C.” 48 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at p. 6. 49 County Code, §§ 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), 25B-10(a)(2), and 25B-10(a)(9).
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
(3) has not posted any performance bonds for the abandonment of its facilities, which are also required under the Permits here.
Accordingly, the County cannot make the necessary findings for approval in Sections 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), 25B-10(a)(2), or 25B-10(a)(9).
A. Sable Has Not Shown that It Has Adequate Financial Resources to Remediate a Potential Spill, as Required by Chapter 25B.
As explained below, to approve the transfers, the County must find that Sable is financially capable of responding to a worst-case spill from its facilities. However, the worstcase spill volumes that Sable has provided have not been verified by the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (“OSPR”), rendering it impossible for the County to make this finding.
In any event, we know from the Refugio Oil Spill that responding to a worst-case spill would cost a minimum of $750M. Thus, if a spill were to occur during Sable’s restart of the Facilities, or shortly thereafter, Sable would not have sufficient financial resources to remediate the spill. Accordingly, the County cannot make the findings in Sections 25B-9(a)(2), 25B9(e)(1), 25B-10(a)(2), or 25B-10(a)(9).
1. Required Evidence of Financial Responsibility to Remediate Spills under Chapter 25B
While an application to transfer a permit under 25B contains different requirements depending on whether the transfer is a change of owner, operator, or guarantor, there is one requirement that remains consistent: financial guarantees.50 Financial guarantees refer to “[a]ll necessary insurance, bonds or other instruments or methods of financial responsibility approved by the county and necessary to comply with the permit and any county ordinance.”51 As relevant here, SYU Permit Condition XI-2.w states that, in the event of an oil spill, the permittee “shall be responsible for the cleanup of all affected coastal and onshore resources, and for the successful restoration of all affected areas and resources to prespill conditions.” According to County staff, to satisfy Chapter 25B’s “financial guarantees” requirement, Sable must “demonstrate financial capability for this condition.”52 Similarly, Section 25B-10(a)(9) requires that Sable demonstrate it has the “resources necessary to operate the [Facilities] in compliance with the [Permits].” That includes SYU Permit Condition X.I-2.w, which, again, mandates that the permittee clean and remediate any oil spills. Likewise, Sable must “demonstrate[] the ability to comply with compliance plans listed in section 25B-10.1.f,” including Oil Spill Contingency Plans that outline spill response and 50 Id. at §§ 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), and 25B-10(a)(2). 51 Id. 52 Staff Report for a Change of Owner, Guarantor, and Operator for the Santa Ynez Unit, POPCO Gas Plant, and Las Flores Pipeline System Final Development Permits, pp. 10 [hereinafter “Staff Report”].
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
remediation methods.53 Both Sable’s onshore and offshore facilities require Oil Spill Contingency Plans.54
Collectively, then, Sable must show that it is financially capable of responsibly operating the Facilities and responding to an oil spill. That inquiry necessarily requires the County to determine whether Sable can bear the costs of a “worst-case” spill from its facilities.
Unfortunately, the worst-case spill volumes that Sable has disclosed for its facilities have not been verified — as discussed infra Part II.B — making it impossible for the County to make a finding that it can remediate a worst-case spill. For that reason alone, the County simply cannot make the financial capability findings required by Sections 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), 25B-10(a)(2), and 25B-10(a)(9).
2. The $750M Cost to Respond to the Refugio Oil Spill Establishes a Baseline for Financial Assurances.
Again, Sable’s failure to provide sufficient information about a worst-case spill is fatal to its applications. However, should the County see fit to further evaluate Sable’s capacity to respond to a spill, the Refugio Oil Spill offers a baseline for determining the financial resources necessary to do so.
Indeed, unlike many facilities, the County has unequivocal evidence of the potential damage that a spill at Sable’s facilities can cause. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, when CA-324 ruptured in 2015, it released more than 120,000 gallons of crude oil into the surrounding environment.55 Some estimates put the number as high as 450,000 gallons.56
Just six weeks after the spill, Plains estimated that it had already spent nearly $100M in clean-up costs.57 In the years that followed, Plains would go on to spend hundreds of millions more dollars for further clean-up, natural resource damage assessments, civil penalties, and settlements with affected business and property owners.58 As of December 31, 2023, Plains “estimate[d] that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to the [Refugio Oil Spill] will be approximately $750 million.”59 53 County Code, § 25B-10(a)(6), (9); see also SYU Permit, Condition IV-E.2; LFC Permit, Condition P-5. 54 See County Code, § 25B-10(a)(6, (9); SYU Permit, Conditions IV-E.2; LFP Permit, Condition P-5, 55 NRDA, supra note 8, at 4. 56 Expert Report of Igor Mezic, Ph.D., Andrews v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP, October 21, 2019, pp. 16-17. 57 Refugio oil spill cleanup costs near $100 million, Pacific Coast Business Times (June 27, 2015), https://www.pacbiztimes.com/2015/06/27/refugio-oil-spill-cleanup-costs-near-100-million/ 58 See, e.g., Settlement Agreement at Art. 3, Andrews et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., No. 2:15-cv04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2022), available at: https://www.plainsoilspillsettlement.com/admin/api/ connectedapps.cms.extensions/asset?id=028b30fd-95e1-4e64-a236-2d84bb1b6907&languageId=1033&inline=true; Consent Decree, supra note 43; Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Valuation of Crude Oil Spills in Transportation Incidents, p. 78 (April 2023) 2016), available at:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2023-10/PHMSA-OilSpillCosts-Report-Final.pdf 59 Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, p. F-56 (Feb. 28, 2024), available at: https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NYSE_PAA_2023.pdf.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
The Refugio Oil Spill gives us invaluable information about what a spill could look like at Sable’s facilities, and the cost of restoring affected areas to pre-spill condition. But it is only one scenario, not the worst-case scenario. It is easy to see how a spill could be far more catastrophic, especially if a rupture were to occur in Sable’s subsea pipelines. Even another spill from its onshore pipelines could be twice the size of the Refugio spill, says the County.60 In other words, we know that the volume of a worst-case spill can only be higher, not lower, than what we saw in the Refugio Oil Spill. Thus, the figures associated with the Refugio Oil Spill (totaling $750M) represent the absolute floor for evaluating the financial resources necessary to respond to a spill.
3. Sable Lacks Sufficient Capital and Insurance Coverage to Remediate a Spill.
Sable is currently operating at a $426M deficit, and it will not have a revenue stream unless and until it restarts the SYU. Without any reliable income, Sable itself acknowledges that it could have little to no capital on hand at the time it resumes production, which would leave it incapable of remediating a spill.
61 In its most recent quarterly report, Sable reported that it has just $112M in cash or cash equivalents.62 Yet it estimates that its remaining start-up expenses — which are “expected to [be paid] from cash on hand” — amount to approximately $197M.63 Thus, as Sable acknowledges, “[its] plans for restarting production, including restarting the existing wells and facilities and recommencing transportation through the Pipelines, will require significant capital expenditures in excess of current operational cash flow.”64
Moreover, Sable notes that its remaining expenditures “will primarily be directed toward obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals and completing the pipeline repairs and bringing the shut-in assets back online . . . .” But Sable neglects to account for additional financial burdens, such as ongoing litigation that may be an impediment to restart. Despite its recent settlement with the County, it is incurring attorney fees in litigation with private landowners65 and in federal litigation regarding lease extensions for its offshore platforms.66 It was also recently notified by CalGEM that it may have to post a bond for the decommissioning of some of its “production facilities.”67 Thus, Sable’s $197M estimate for additional costs may be well undervalued.
60 County Draft EIR, supra note 44, at 79. 61 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at 6. 62 Id. at 1. 63 Id. at 31. 64 Id. 65 See Complaint, Zaca Preserve, LLC v. Sable Offshore Corp. et al., Santa Barbara County Case No. 24CV05483. 66 See Sable Offshore Corp.’s Motion to Intervene, Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Debra Haaland et al., No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2022), Case No. 2:24-cv-05459, Central District, Motion to Intervene. 67 See CalGEM letter to Sable (Sept. 26, 2024), attached hereto as “Attachment D.”
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
And, even after restart, Sable would likely struggle to replenish its cash on hand in the face of its $790M debt to Exxon.68 Sable will be incentivized to pay down its debt to Exxon as soon as possible to reduce the size of its interest payments, dramatically extending the period in which Sable is operating at a deficit. Not to mention, the entire $790M debt comes due just ninety days after restart.
69 Of course, all of this begs the question: how much capital will Sable actually have on hand when it resumes operations and in the months following? Even Sable acknowledges the possibility that it will exhaust its remaining capital before it restarts the SYU.70 County staff do not account for this scenario, which is a very real possibility for which the County must be prepared.71 Indeed, according to Sable itself, “substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue.”72
Consider what would happen if Sable diminishes its $112M in cash — as it expects to — and a worst-case spill occurs during or shortly after Sable’s restart of the SYU. The SYU would once again become a crippling economic burden, and Sable would not have the financial resources to clean up the spill, compensate affected property owners, or pay for natural resources damages and restoration. Even the $112M in cash that Sable has on hand today would cover only a fraction of its financial obligations, which, as discussed, would start at around $750M. And that does not even account for Sable’s $790M debt to Exxon, for which Sable would still be on the hook, and which raises its total possible liabilities to around $1.5B.
Nor would Sable’s insurance coverage be sufficient to cover the costs. Sable submitted one Certificate of Liability Insurance to the County, which applies only to its offshore facilities.
While the coverage appears to be for $401M, that would be insufficient to fully respond to a worst-case spill, as explained above.
Notably, Sable has not submitted a Certificate of Insurance for its onshore facilities. It is unclear if Sable has liability coverage for its processing plants, but we are aware that it may have coverage of up to $100M for the Las Flores Pipeline System. However, recall that, in the wake of the Refugio spill, Plains spent $100M in clean-up costs in just a few weeks.
Nonetheless, County staff suggest that Sable’s insurance coverage is adequate for purposes of Chapter 25B.73 That may have been true of Exxon, whose capitalization was never in question. But with Sable, it is distinctly possible that it has little to no capital on hand at the time it actually restarts the SYU, as explained above. Thus, even if Sable’s insurer approves a claim, Sable could still potentially face a deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars — especially if a spill were to occur from its onshore facilities. In this likely scenario, Sable would be unable to complete clean-up and restoration, compensate affected landowners and businesses, and pay required civil penalties.
68 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at 17. 69 Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement, supra note 29, at 4. 70 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at 6. 71 See Staff Report, supra note 52, at 10, 24, and 29. 72 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at 31 (emphasis added). 73 Staff Report, supra note 52, at 10, 24, and 29.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Additionally, the scope of Sable’s insurance coverage is unclear from the Certificate of Insurance that it submitted. For example, does the insurance only apply to “wells,” which are specifically referenced, or does it extend to subsea pipeline ruptures? Does it cover negligent behavior, similar to what we saw with Plains? Without the actual policy, the County simply cannot assess the possible limitations on Sable’s coverage, and thus the adequacy of its insurance.
Again, under Chapter 25B, the County must find that Sable is financially capable of remediating a worst-case spill, the total cost of which could be upwards of $750M. Because Sable cannot assure the County that it will be able to bear that financial burden, the County cannot make the findings in Sections 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), 25B-10(a)(2), or 25B-10(a)(9), and it must therefore deny Sable’s applications.
B. Sable’s Lack of Final CFRs is Disqualifying.
Tellingly, Sable has yet to complete its financial responsibility review with OSPR, which requires showing that it is financially capable of remediating a worst-case spill.74 While Sable has apparently obtained preliminary CFRs from OSPR, they are based on spill estimates that have not yet been verified by OSPR, and thus are subject to modification or revocation. As explained below, Sable must obtain final CFRs before the County can approve a transfer.
1. Sable’s CFRs are Preliminary and Inadequate for Purposes of Chapter 25B.
To operate its facilities, Sable must obtain CFRs from OSPR for its subsea pipelines and the Las Flores Pipeline System.75 To do so, OSPR regulations require that Sable demonstrate it is financially capable of remediating a worst-case spill from these facilities.76 The amount of financial assurances that Sable must provide is determined by calculating the worst-case spill volumes for each facility, and then plugging those figures into an equation set forth in OSPR regulations.77
Importantly, however, the worst-case spill volume must come from an approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan, where it is carefully calculated with oversight from OSPR.78 But Sable does not have an approved contingency plan for either its onshore or offshore facilities, as discussed infra Part IV. Where a CFR applicant does not have an approved contingency plan, OSPR takes the applicant’s estimates at face value and issues a preliminary CFR.79 Later, when the applicant’s contingency plan is approved, it modifies the CFR to accurately reflect the worst-case 74 See 14 CCR § 791.7(h). 75 See 14 CCR § 791.7(h). 76 See id. 77 See 14 CCR § 791.7(h)(B). 78 See id. 79 David Reinhard (Chief of Preparedness, OSPR), Telecommunication Meeting (Oct. 23, 2024).
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
spill volume that was verified by OSPR.80 And OSPR may revoke the CFR if the applicant cannot provide adequate financial assurances.81
That is what has occurred here. The CFRs that Sable submitted to the County are preliminary CFRs based on Sable’s unsubstantiated estimates of worst-case spill volumes. They will be subject to change, and possibly revocation, after those estimates are properly verified by OSPR.
In fact, these preliminary CFRs are likely to be modified or revoked, as Sable appears to have severely underestimated the worst-case spill volumes for its facilities. For example, Sable’s estimate for CA-324 — the pipeline that caused the Refugio Oil Spill — is only 1,935 barrels.
But the Refugio Oil Spill was closer to 3,000 barrels.82 And the County has estimated that another spill from CA-324 could be twice that size, even with the addition of automatic shutoff valves.83 Likewise, Sable’s estimate for a spill from its subsea pipelines is exceedingly low — just 624 barrels.
If OSPR ultimately determines that the worst-case spill volumes for these facilities are much higher, it will require additional financial assurances before Sable can obtain final CFRs.
For example, for the Las Flores Pipeline System, Sable has apparently demonstrated financial responsibility up to $100M. But the verified spill volume may require additional assurances, possibly up to $300M.84 And it is unclear if Sable will be able to provide such assurances. As discussed at length above, Sable has only $112M in cash — which is steadily diminishing — and only $100M in insurance coverage for its onshore facilities.
Accordingly, the preliminary CFRs that Sable submitted do not actually verify that it is financially capable of remediating a worst-case spill at its facilities, and they are thus inadequate for purposes of Chapter 25B. To conclude otherwise would lead to an absurd application of Chapter 25B: an entity could obtain preliminary CFRs by claiming whatever spill volume it pleases, use those CFRs to obtain County approval for a transfer of ownership, and then promptly have those CFRs revoked once OSPR completes its review. Construing Chapter 25B — and the Permits — to allow such a scenario would fundamentally undermine the ordinance’s financial guarantee requirement.
2. A Final CFR is a Financial Guarantee that is Required by the SYU Permit.
Sable must obtain a CFR to comply with the SYU Permit, which mandates that the permittee “provide the County with copies of its [CFRs]” as part of its duty to demonstrate financial responsibility.85 Thus, before the County can approve a transfer of the SYU Permit, Chapter 25B requires that Sable obtain an adequate CFR for applicable facilities permitted 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 NRDA, supra note 8, at 4. 83 County Draft EIR, supra note 44, at 79. 84 See 14 CCR 791.7(h)(B). 85 SYU Permit, Condition XI-2.w.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
therein — i.e., its subsea pipelines (portion in state waters). 86 As explained above, Sable has
failed to do so.
Importantly, it is insufficient for Sable to give assurances that it will eventually secure an adequate CFR. Section 25B-10(a)(9) requires that Sable affirmatively demonstrate that it can comply with all permit conditions before a transfer occurs. That includes the SYU Permit’s requirement to obtain an adequate CFR.
87 Since it is unclear whether Sable will be able to meet that condition, as explained above, Chapter 25B requires that Sable obtain and provide a final CFR prior to ownership transfer.
3. Under the Circumstances, Sable Must also Obtain CFRs for the Las Flores Pipeline System.
Unlike the SYU Permit, the LFP Permit does not explicitly require CFRs as a financial guarantee. But Sable must still produce them under the circumstances.
Generally, Chapter 25B does not allow the County to require a proposed operator or guarantor to produce financial guarantees that are not required by permit.88 However, an exception exists where a facility “is transferred from a financially strong company to a weaker one.”89 In such cases, the County may review outside assurances and “amend a permit to require insurance or other guarantees, in order to preserve financial assurances that were provided (either explicitly or implicitly) through the financial strength of the previous owner or operator.”90 As such, the County may “impose additional conditions on the permit” to maintain financial assurances.91
Indeed, “[t]hat the previous owner was not required to obtain insurance or provide other guarantees[] does not automatically carry over to a new owner or operator. Unless the new owner or operator also has sufficient resources to self-insure, [the County] may add a permit condition requiring financial assurances.”92
Because this is quite obviously a case where facilities are being transferred from a stronger company (Exxon) to a weaker company (Sable), the County may require, via permit amendments or otherwise, that Sable submit adequate CFRs for the Las Flores Pipeline System.
And it would be irresponsible not to: these pipelines have already caused a catastrophic oil spill, they are prone to rupturing again, and Sable has not otherwise assured the County that is financially capable of responding to another spill.
86 See County Code, §§ 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), and 25B-10(a)(2). 87 See SYU Permit, Condition XI-2.w. 88 Santa Barbara County Energy Division, Guidelines to Implement Chapter 25B Guidelines, p. 13 (June 13, 2022) [hereinafter “Chapter 25B Guidelines”].
89 Id. 90 Chapter 25B Guidelines, supra note 88, at 13. 91 County Code, § 25B-10(b). 92 Chapter 25B Guidelines, supra note 88, at 13.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Thus, before approving a transfer of the LFP Permit, the County can — and should — require that Sable submit final CFRs for the pipelines.
4. Without Final CFRs, Sable has not Offered any Assurance that it Can Remediate a Worst-Case Spill.
Again, Chapter 25B requires that the County ensure that Sable is financially capable of remediating a worst-case spill. However, the worst-case spill volumes that Sable has disclosed for its facilities have not been verified. As discussed, we know that the Refugio Oil Spill provides a baseline, but we can only speculate as to the actual scope of a worst-case disaster.
According to the County’s own analysis, it is likely that a spill could be nearly double the size of the Refugio Oil Spill.93
It is simply premature to approve a transfer of the Permits when Sable has not conclusively demonstrated it can remediate a worst-case spill, and when OSPR, the agency charged with making that determination, has not completed its review. At the very least, the County should consider Sable’s lack of final CFRs as compelling evidence that it lacks the financial responsibility required by Chapter 25B.
In sum, then, having not produced final CFRs for its facilities, the County cannot make the findings in Sections 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), 25B-10(a)(2), or 25B-10(a)(9), and it must therefore deny Sable’s applications.
C. Sable Must Post Performance Bonds for its Facilities before a Transfer can be Approved.
As noted, before the County can approve the proposed transfers, Chapter 25B requires that Sable secure/submit any financial guarantees that are required by the Permits.94 That includes performance bonds for the abandonment of its facilities, which is required by the POPCO Permit, and may be required, at the County’s option, for Sable’s remaining facilities.
1. The POPCO Permit Requires that Sable Post a Performance Bond for the Abandonment of the Facility.
As staff acknowledges, Condition Q-2 of the POPCO Permit “requires the permittee to be responsible for the proper abandonment of the facility.”95 Specifically, Condition Q-2 provides as follows:
Immediately following permanent shut down of the facilities permitted herein, [the permittee] shall abandon and restore all facility sites covered under this permit consistent with County policies on abandonment and restoration of said facilities in effect at that time. Absent any policies, [the permittee] shall remove 93 County Draft EIR, supra note 44, at 79. 94 County Code, §§ 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), and 25B-10(a)(2). 95 Staff Report, supra note 52, at 26; see also POPCO Permit, Condition Q-2.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
any and all abandoned processing facilities and portions of the import pipeline, buried or unburied, constructed and/or operated under this permit, excavate any contaminated soil, re-contour all sites and revegetate all sites in accordance with a County approved abandonment and restoration plan within one year of permanent shut down. [The permittee] shall post a performance bond, or other security device acceptable to County Counsel, in an amount determined by the County.96 Despite the plain language of the condition, staff claim that Sable only needs to post a bond after the permanent shutdown of the facility, and thus “no current financial guarantee is needed.”97 Staff is mistaken.
Staff appear to misread this condition as stating: “Immediately following permanent shut down . . . POPCO shall post a performance bond.” That is not what the condition says. It says that abandonment should occur “immediately following” shutdown, which makes sense. But the bonding requirement is not so qualified.
Put differently, the condition imposes two requirements: (1) to abandon the facility “immediately following” shutdown, and separately, (2) to post a performance bond to ensure abandonment and restoration are completed. Staff have improperly applied the qualifying language in the first requirement — “immediately following” — to the second requirement, changing the intended meaning of the condition.
Not only does staff’s interpretation defy the plain language of the condition, it is nonsensical. The purpose of a bond is to guarantee that the operator will properly abandon the facility and restore the site after it is shut down. But there are any number of reasons why a facility may be shut down, including because an operator has gone bankrupt or does not have sufficient capital to continue operations. In that case, the operator would not be able to fund the abandonment of the facilities, leaving the County to pick up the pieces. Thus, the only way to ensure the proper abandonment of the facility is to require a bond when an operator acquires the facility, not after it has shut it down.
Accordingly, per the plain language of Condition Q-2, Sable is required to post a performance bond for the abandonment of the POPCO Gas Plant. If it fails to do so, the County cannot make the necessary “financial guarantee” findings in Section 25B-9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), and 25B-10(a)(2) for the transfer of the POPCO Permit.
2. The County Can — and Should — Require that Sable Post Performance Bonds for the Abandonment of its Other Facilities.
Unlike the POPCO Permit, the SYU and Las Flores Canyon Pipeline Permits give the County an option to ensure compliance with abandonment procedures: either require that the permittee post a performance bond, or allow the permittee “to pay property taxes as assessed 96 POPCO Permit, Condition Q-2 (emphasis added). 97 Staff Report, supra note 52, at 26.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
during project operation until site restoration is complete.”98 For obvious reasons, the County should elect the former.
As discussed at length above, Sable is steadily losing capital and will not be profitable until it restarts the SYU. Thus, it is a distinct possibility that Sable runs out of funds before it can restart production, which Sable itself acknowledges.99 If that were to occur, absent a performance bond, the County (or some other public entity) would have to foot the bill for the abandonment of Sable’s facilities.
Surprisingly, staff nonetheless suggest that it would suffice for Sable to pay property taxes rather than post a bond.100 In doing so, it cites Sable’s $112M in cash or cash equivalents, which it claims are “sufficient to cover the continued payment of property taxes.”101 But staff ignores that Sable (1) estimates it will spend an additional $197M in cash expenditures before restarting; (2) is operating at a $426M deficit and will continue to do so until restart; and (3) in light of its capital concerns, may bankrupt well before the abandonment process, either because it fails to restart its facilities, or because it cannot cover the costs of another disaster.
Accordingly, the only way to ensure the public is not left responsible for abandonment costs is to require Sable to post performance bonds for each of its facilities. Thus, the County should exercise its discretion to do so.
III. The County Must Deny Sable’s Applications because Exxon and Sable are Not in Compliance with All Existing Permit Conditions.
Section 25B-9(a)(5) and 25B-10(a)(5) prohibit the County from approving a change of owner or operator unless Exxon was in compliance with all requirements of the Permits as of July 30, 2024 — the date Sable’s applications were deemed complete. 102 However, to date,
Exxon and Sable are not in compliance with the LFP Permit because the Las Flores Pipeline System lacks effective cathodic protection.
The Conditions for the Los Flores Pipeline System incorporate “the procedures, operating techniques, design, equipment and other descriptions” articulated in the 1985 pipeline system Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) as “required elements” of the permit.103 Specifically, Condition A-7, Substantial Conformity, provides:
The procedures, operating techniques, design, equipment and other descriptions (hereinafter procedures) described in 83-DP-25 cz, 83-CP-97 cz and in subsequent clarifications and additions to that application and the Final Development Plan are incorporated herein as permit conditions and shall be required elements of the project. Since these procedures were part of the project 98 SYU Permit, Condition XIX-1; LFP Permit, Condition O-1. 99 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at 6, 31. 100 Staff Report, supra note 52, at 9, 31. 101 Id. 102 County Code, §§ 25B-9(a)(5), 25B-10(a)(5). 103 LFP Permit, Condition A-7.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
description which received environmental analysis, a failure to include such procedures in the actual project could result in significant unanticipated environmental impacts. Therefore, modifications of these procedures will not be permitted without a determination of substantial conformity or a new or modified permit. The use of the property and the size, shape, arrangement and location of buildings, structures, walkways, parking areas and landscaped areas shall be in substantial conformity with the approved Final Development Plan.104 The 1985 EIR’s description of the Las Flores Pipeline System articulates the following regarding protection from external corrosion:
Protection of a pipeline from corrosion is of critical importance to the environment as well as the pipeline operator. Pitting of the pipeline can occur due to chemical reaction between the soil and the carbon steel pipe if it is not adequately protected. This pitting would eventually reduce the strength of the pipe sufficiently to cause a break and allow an oil leak. Therefore, [the operators] intend to wrap the pipelines in accordance with applicable regulations.
Additionally, cathodic protection would be installed as required within 12 months of the pipeline installation dependent upon soil and chemical conditions.
Corrosion control test stations would be installed with which to test the integrity of the corrosion protection. This is all in accordance with 49CFR-195.105
Additionally, the EIR provides “[t]he entire pipeline would be protected from corrosion with cathodic protection systems consisting of groundbeds and rectifiers.”106 The Project Description further provides “[m]aintenance activities associated with the pipeline and the ROW would include the following: . . . Inspection and maintenance of cathodic protection systems.”107
As we now unfortunately know, these pipelines’ cathodic protection system is ineffective in preventing corrosion from occurring beneath their coating/insulation system, which is what ultimately caused the devastating Refugio Oil Spill.108 However, instead of remediating the issue, Sable is seeking a waiver from OSFM to operate the pipelines without effective protection from corrosion.
True, the Las Flores Pipeline System was constructed with a cathodic protection system, as Sable may point out. But the LFP Permit requires effective cathodic protection, which is what 104 Id., emphasis added. 105 California State Lands Commission et al., Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement, p. 4-106 (August 1984) (emphasis added) [hereinafter “Draft Celeron EIR”]. Note that the Final EIR published in 1985 is a finalizing addendum to the 1984 Draft EIR. The preface of the Final EIR explains that the Final EIR is intended to be read “in conjunction with, rather than in place of, the Draft EIR/EIS that was released for public review on August 1, 1984.” Thus, collectively, the two documents and their appendices form the project EIR. 106 Id. at 2-5. 107 Id. at 2-24. 108 PHMSA Report, supra note 12, at 3, 14.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
was contemplated in the original project description for the pipelines and its EIR. To construe the permit otherwise would, effectively, altogether eliminate the requirement that pipelines have cathodic protection.
The County cannot ignore the critical fact that the liner system has been compromised and the Las Flores Pipeline System is not protected from external corrosion. The EIR is clear that “[p]rotection of a pipeline from corrosion is of critical importance to the environment.”109 As the County calculated in its Draft EIR for a replacement pipeline project, the limited effectiveness of cathodic protection makes the risk of an oil spill five times greater than was initially envisioned, potentially resulting in a spill every year.110 Finding that Exxon, as the current owner and operator, is in compliance with the project description when the pipelines are not protected from external corrosion is simply nonsensical.
The lack of an effective system of cathodic protection leaves the project susceptible to the very environmental impacts that section Condition A-7 is designed to prevent. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot find that Exxon is in compliance with this permit condition.
IV. The County Must Deny Sable’s Applications because It Has Not Submitted All Necessary Compliance Plans and Demonstrated a Capability of Complying with Those Plans.
Pursuant to Section 25B-10(a)(6) and (9), Sable must submit an updated Oil Spill Contingency Plan for its facilities, and it must demonstrate the ability to comply with the plans.
However, Sable has failed to submit an adequate Oil Spill Contingency Plan for the Las Flores Pipeline System, and has altogether failed to submit a contingency plan that encompasses its subsea pipelines (portion in state land).
The purpose of an Oil Spill Contingency Plan is, in part, to identify a facility’s worst-case spill volume, where a worst-case spill would occur, and how the operator would respond to and remediate a worst-case spill.
111 However, in the Integrated Contingency Plan (“ICP”) that Sable submitted to the County, Sable claims that a worst-case spill from the Las Flores Pipeline System would be 0 barrels, presumably because the pipelines are currently inactive.112 Thus, the plan fails to address the actual worst-case spill volume that would come from the pipelines when they become operational, and how Sable would respond to a worst-case spill. That is to say, Sable does not actually have an updated Oil Spill Contingency Plan in place for active operations.
Notably, whether an Oil Spill Contingency Plan is adequate for the purposes of the LFP Permit turns on whether the plan is “consisten[t] with the intent of the condition ‘to detail site restoration subsequent to emergency response.’”113 Because Sable’s plan only considers the pipelines in their idle state, it necessarily fails to address the scope of a possible spill and how 109 Draft Celeron EIR, supra note 105, at 4-105. 110 County Draft EIR, supra note 44, at 79. 111 See 14 CCR § 816.03(b)(E), (F). 112 Sable Offshore Corp., Pacific Pipeline Company Integrated Contingency Plan, p. 14-3 (April 2024). 113 LFP Permit, Condition P-5.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Sable would contain a worst-case spill. Thus, it is patently deficient for purposes of the LFP Permit, and for Chapter 25B.
Indeed, the County would not be the first governing body to find Sable’s plan inadequate.
This exact plan was already rejected by OSPR — an agency with special expertise in contingency plans — in part for the reasons outlined above.114 As County staff allude to, Sable’s Oil Spill Contingency Plan “require[s] formal approval from other regulatory agencies” — i.e., OSPR — before a transfer can be approved.115
Even more damning is that Sable has altogether failed to submit an Oil Spill Contingency Plan for its offshore facilities, including those permitted under the SYU Permit — i.e., its subsea pipelines.116 Moreover, it is not apparent that Sable even has an offshore contingency plan; according to OSPR, it has yet to approve one. The SYU Permit contemplates that the permittee must have a contingency plan in place to respond to a spill. And it is explicitly required under Section 25B-10(a)(6) and (9).
Accordingly, because Sable lacks an adequate Oil Spill Contingency Plan for the Las Flores Pipeline System, and altogether lacks a plan for its offshore facilities, Sable is not in compliance with the LFP or SYU Permits, and it has not demonstrated it can comply with all necessary compliance plans required by Chapter 25B. Thus, the County cannot approve a transfer of owner or operator of the permit.117
V. Sable’s Management Team has Shown that it is Unreliable, Averse to Regulation, and Lacks the Capability to Responsibly Operate the Facilities as Required by Chapter 25B.
Section 25B-10(a)(9) provides that the County shall only approve an application for a change of operator if the operator is found capable. Specifically, the proposed operator must have “the skills, training, and resources necessary to operate the permitted facility” and the operator’s past behavior must not “reflect a record of non-compliant or unsafe operations systemic in nature for similar facilities to those being considered for operatorship.”118 As to operational capacity, staff have largely copied and pasted information that Sable provides on its website, painting a rosy picture of an entity that is staffed with experienced personnel. But Sable’s actions to date tell a far different story. Sable’s history, propensity to cut regulatory corners, and even its recent struggle to submit a complete application for this very transfer request, all indicate that Sable’s management team cannot be relied on to safely operate these facilities.
A. Recent Failures and Unsafe Practices in the Oil and Gas Space 114 E-correspondence from Rachel Fabian, OSPR, to Jeremy Frankel, EDC (Aug. 23, 2024), attached hereto as “Attachment E.” 115 Staff Report, supra 52, at 17. 116 SYU Permit, Conditions IV-E.2, XI-2.e,, and XI-2.w. 117 See County Code, §§ 25B-9(a)(5), 25B-10(a)(5), 25B-10(a)(6), and 25B10(a)(9). 118 County Code, § 25B-10(a)(9).
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
While Sable intends to retain experienced staff from the prior operator, their management team leaves much to be desired. Sable is managed by their CEO, James C. Flores, and “a management team that have historically worked with Mr. Flores in the oil and gas exploration and production business.”119 While Sable — and staff — tote this team’s “more than thirty years” of experience,120 Sable fails to disclose the fate of Flores’ most recent endeavors. Flores’ leadership roles at Freeport-McMoran and Sable Permian Resources, both of which suffered massive financial losses under his management, cast tremendous doubt on his team’s capability to operate an oil project successfully and responsibly.121 While running Sable Permian, Flores and his team allegedly cut corners in pursuit of short-term profits, ultimately to the detriment of the company.122 Tom Laughery, who worked on distressed credit analysis at Silverback Asset Management during Flores’ time at Sable Permian, described Flores’ management of Sable Permian in scathing terms:
Sable Permian was poorly run. It was not a high-quality asset base to begin with and it was drilled horribly. Flores and his team drilled the wells way too densely.
It was basically destroying the company for near term quarterly results. And that was back in the day when everyone thought no one would look at the data. It was very scammy.123
That disregard for safety already appears to be rearing its head. There has already been a spill since Sable took over, and operations have not even begun.124 Making matters worse, Sable does not even have an adequate plan in place to respond to a spill, as discussed supra Part IV.
B. Sable’s Pattern of Deceptive Statements and Efforts to Conceal Risks of its Restart Plan
After acquiring the SYU, the company told investors that it intended to restart production during the third quarter of 2024.125 Despite numerous regulatory setbacks, Sable reaffirmed this prediction in its quarterly report filings on August 13, 2024, but allowed that restart could occur in early fourth quarter 2024.126 Now, Sable has adjusted its prediction to the fourth quarter of 2024.127
119 Sable Offshore Corp., Application for Change of Owner, Operator and Guarantor of Oil and Gas Facilities:
Santa Ynes Unit (“SYU”) Project, p. 4. (March 14, 2024), available at:
https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/urgblguikn7jlo1igrq5yz55zyiveo7k/file/1489580351768. 120 Id.; Staff Report, supra note 52, at 20. 121 Daniel Sherwood, Sable Offshore’s Oil Restart May Be Pipe Dream, Hunterbrook Media (April 17, 2024), https://hntrbrk.com/sable/. 122 Id. 123 Id. 124 Sable Offshore Corp., Incident Report Form (Sept. 13, 2024), attached hereto as “Attachment F.” 125 Q2 Report, supra note 32, at 6. 126 Id. at 31. 127 Sable Offshore Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-k, p. 2 (September 3, 2024), available at:
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001831481/20f32768-3b40-49e8-9db7-7e2c616df5f9.pdf.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Of course, Sable was likely aware that the SYU was never going to restart in the third quarter of 2024. As of this letter, Sable has yet to secure easements from owners of property through which the Las Flores Pipeline System passes, it has not received CFRs from OSPR or created a satisfactory Oil Spill Contingency Plan, it has not completed an application with the California State Lands Commission (“CSLC”) to transfer necessary leases from Exxon, and it has not received a waiver for the limited effectiveness of cathodic protection or the go ahead from OSFM to restart the pipeline.
Sable’s restart predictions can be charitably described as extremely optimistic, but more accurately as deliberately deceptive. And such deceptive statements appear to be par for the course for Sable. For example, in a July SEC filing, it claimed that:
In cooperation with and under the supervision of OSFM personnel, PPC is currently making pipeline repairs, installing new pump stations, and constructing multiple new control facilities for lines 324 and 325, all in preparation for restart of Las Flores Canyon processing facilities and associated Santa Ynez Unit offshore production platforms. Restart is expected in late third quarter 2024 or early fourth quarter 2024.128
Now, however, Sable admits that some of these activities never occurred, assuring the County that it never had any plans to install new pump stations or construct new facilities.129 When Sable is not making misleading statements, it is attempting to conceal information altogether, specifically when it comes to the risks posed by its restart plans. For example, Sable recently sued EDC and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to try and withhold vital information from the public about the risks of operating its facilities. The information included estimates regarding a worst-case spill from CA-324 and CA-325.130 After prevailing in court, EDC received the information that Sable sought to keep out of public view. One of the things we learned is that, per Sable’s estimate, a worst-case spill from these pipelines could be fourteen times the volume of the Refugio spill.131
C. Ineptitude before Governing Bodies and Propensity to Cut Regulatory Corners
Perhaps more concerning is Sable’s lack of attention to detail and willingness to cut corners. Recall that CA-324 ruptured in 2015 in part because Plains failed to diligently monitor, 128 Sable Offshore Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-k, p. 2 (July 11, 2024) (emphasis added), available at https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001831481/b4d48765-05c7-47bd-8c39- 998554504ac0.pdf. 129 See e-correspondence from Errin Briggs, Planning Department, to Jeremy Frankel, EDC (Oct. 11, 2024), attached hereto as “Attachment G.” 130 See Complaint, Sable Offshore Corp. et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife et al., Sacramento County Case No. 24WM000111.
131 ICP, supra note 112, at 14-4.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
maintain, and repair the pipeline.132 Sable’s recent behavior indicates that it likely suffers from the same organizational disfunction that resulted in the dangerous corrosion of CA-324 going unnoticed.
The County need not look further than this very transfer process for an example of Sable’s ineptitude. Despite incentives for Sable to promptly provide the County with all the information it needs to approve the transfers, Sable consistently failed to provide basic information in its applications.133 The County was forced to issue Sable three incompleteness letters, requesting the same information multiple times. 134 If Sable needs four attempts just to
complete a basic administrative task, how can the people of Santa Barbara trust Sable to safely and responsibly own, operate, and guarantee the Facilities? Sable had the same issue with the CSLC. Along with Exxon, it submitted applications to assign a number of state leases from Exxon to Sable that are needed to operate the SYU.135 Those applications were initially submitted in March 2024.136 Since then, Sable has received multiple incompleteness determinations from CSLC and, to date, the applications have still not been deemed complete.137
But it is not just Sable’s ineptitude that is concerning. It has consistently shown a willingness to cut regulatory corners as it rushes to bring the SYU back online.
As noted above, Sable is required to get final CFRs from OSPR prior to restart. However, in a ploy to evade financial oversight, Sable grossly underestimated the risks associated with its facilities in its initial CFR applications. Like its inadequate contingency plan, it claimed, relying on its facilities’ current idle status, that the reasonable worst case spill volume for each of its facilities is just one barrel, and thus it needed to provide financial assurances of only a few thousand dollars.138 Yet according to Sable itself, it expects to restart these facilities by the end of the year, and thus its applications did not accurately represent the liability that Sable would actually bear when operating the facilities. OSPR reached the same conclusion and required that Sable submit new applications.139 At best, Sable’s applications were, like its many other applications, improper and incomplete; at worst, they were deliberately misleading.
Most worrisome, however, is Sable’s recent attempt to avoid County oversight and its refusal to cooperate with the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”). After suing the County to 132 PHMSA Report, supra note 12, at 3, 14. 133 See Santa Barbara County Planning Department Determinations of Application Incompleteness, available at https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/urgblguikn7jlo1igrq5yz55zyiveo7k. 134 See id. 135 ExxonMobil Corporation, Applications to Assign Leases 4977, 5515, 6371, 7163, on file with the California State Lands Commission. 136 See id. 137 See California State Lands Commission, Determinations of Application Incompleteness, attached hereto as “Attachment H.” 138 Sable Offshore Corp., Applications for Certificates of Financial Responsibility, attached hereto as “Attachment I.”
139 See Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Response to Public Records Act Request, attached hereto as “Attachment J.”
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
dissuade it from exercising its jurisdiction over certain aspects of the Las Flores Pipeline System, Sable began extensive excavations along the coast to repair the pipelines and install valves — all without any oversight.140 When CCC got wind of Sable’s activities, it issued Sable a Notice of Violation (“NOV”), clarifying that, contrary to the County’s position, Sable is required to obtain Coastal Development Permits for both the valve installations and repair work.141 Alarmingly, Sable continued working despite the NOV, prompting the CCC to send a follow-up letter laying the groundwork for a cease and desist order.142
In sum, Sable has already demonstrated a lack of necessary diligence, an aversion to regulatory compliance, and a propensity to cut corners, all of which weigh against entrusting Sable with the immense responsibility of operating the Facilities. Indeed, whether Sable will be able to safely operate the Facilities is questionable, if not unlikely. At the very least, the matter is imbued with too much uncertainty to approve Sable’s requested transfers.
VI. Conclusion
The purpose of Chapter 25B is to “protect public health and safety, and safeguard the natural resources and environment of the county of Santa Barbara, by ensuring that safe operation, adequate financial responsibility, and compliance with all applicable county laws and permits are maintained during and after all changes of owner, operator or guarantor of certain oil and gas facilities.”143 For the reasons outlined above, approving the transfer of the Permits to Sable would be a grave dereliction of the County’s duty to administer Chapter 25B.
Perhaps most disconcerting is Sable’s obvious financial vulnerability. We know that Sable lacks the financial resources on hand to remediate a spill from its facilities, particularly if one were to occur during restart, or in the months before it becomes profitable. Given the likelihood of another spill occurring, which could cost Sable upwards of $750M, it would be negligent to find Sable financially capable here. Nor is the County even able to make that finding when it has yet to be verified what a worst-case spill would look like. Should the County approve the transfers knowing full well Sable’s lack of financial capacity, one can only imagine what the impact will be to the public, local businesses, and private landowners that are affected by another spill and cannot be made whole.
Sable’s failure to obtain final CFRs further underscores its financial instability. But it is also fatal to its transfer applications. As discussed, at least one permit requires Sable to obtain a final CFR, and the County can — and should — require final CFRs for all of its facilities in light of Sable’s capital concerns. Similarly, the County must require Sable to post performance bonds to ensure Santa Barbara taxpayers do not end up paying for the decommissioning of Sable’s facilities.
140 Press Release, Santa Barbara County, Conditional Settlement Reached in Litigation Regarding Safety Values on Los Flores Pipeline (Sept. 5, 2024), available at: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/d3c647be-d1b9-4384- b21d-0635ccf199cc 141 See Notice of Violation, supra note 47, at 2-3. 142 California Coastal Commission, Notice of Executive Director’s Intent to Issue a Cease and Desist Order, attached hereto as “Attachment K.” 143 County Code, § 25B-1.
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
Sable’s noncompliance with other permit conditions is likewise disqualifying here. Most notably, its onshore pipelines lack effective cathodic protection — a critical design feature incorporated as a condition in the LFP Permit. Equally fatal is Sable’s failure to provide an adequate Oil Spill Contingency Plan for any of its facilities.
Lastly, we recognize that the executives running Sable are no strangers to the industry.
But Sable as an entity has never actually operated an oil and gas facility. There is no empirical evidence indicating that Sable would — or even could — reliably operate the Facilities, comply with the Permits, or comply with important safety regulations. If anything, what we have seen so far from Sable suggests the contrary. Indeed, Sable has already demonstrated a lack of necessary diligence, an aversion to regulatory compliance, and a propensity to cut corners.
By approving the transfers, the County would more or less be taking Sable at its word that it can safely operate the Facilities. But Sable has not given the County any assurance that its word can be trusted in light of its recent behavior and misleading public statements. Ultimately, whether Sable will be able to safely operate the Facilities is questionable, if not unlikely. At the very least, the matter is imbued with too much uncertainty to approve the transfers.
Accordingly, as discussed above, the County cannot make the necessary findings of approval required by Chapter 25B. See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514 -15 (the County “must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order” and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence).
In this case, the lack of evidence prevents the County from making the following findings of approval, as outlined in detail in the Appendix attached hereto:
• First, Sable has not provided evidence demonstrating that it possesses the necessary financial guarantees as required by Sec. 25B-9(a)(2), Sec. 25B-9(e)(1), and Sec. 25B-10(a)(2);
• Second, Sable has not provided evidence of compliance with the existing permit requirements as required by Sec. 25B-9(a)(5) and Sec. 25B-10(a)(5); • Third, Sable has not provided evidence of operational oil spill contingency plans, which is required for the County to make a finding pursuant to Sec. 25B-10(a)(6); and
• Fourth, Sable has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the company possesses (1) the necessary skills, training, and resources necessary to operate the Facilities in compliance with the permits and (2) the ability to comply with necessary compliance plans, which are both required to make a finding pursuant to Sec. 25B-10(a)(9).
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
In conclusion, another spill from these facilities is all but inevitable. And Sable has not demonstrated it has the operational or financial capacity to be entrusted with the great weight of responsibility that comes with operating these facilities. Approving the transfers would simply pose an unacceptable risk to our community, our natural resources, and our local economy. Thus, we urge the County to deny Sable’s applications.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Linda Krop,
Chief Counsel
Jeremy Frankel,
Staff Attorney
Attachments:
A. Memorandum of Understanding between PHMSA and OSFM (May 18, 2016) B. Excerpt of Santa Barbara County Administrative Draft of Draft EIR for Plains Pipeline Replacement Project
C. CCC’s Notice of Violation (Sept. 27, 2024)
D. CalGEM Letter to Sable re Bonding Requirements (Sept. 26, 2024) E. E-correspondence from Rachel Fabian, OSPR, to Jeremy Frankel, EDC (Aug. 23, 2024) F. Incident Report Form (Sept. 13, 2024)
G. E-correspondence from Errin Briggs, Planning Department, to Jeremy Frankel, EDC (Oct. 11, 2024)
H. CSLC’s Determinations of Application Incompleteness
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
I. Sable’s Applications to OSPR for CFRs
J. OSPR’s Response to Public Records Act Request
K. CCC’s Notice of Executive Director’s Intent to Issue a Cease and Desist Order
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
APPENDIX:
FINDINGS THAT LACK SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SYU Permit: Application for Change of Owner, Operator, and Guarantor Financial Guarantees: Sections 25B9(a)(2), 25B-9(e)(1), and 25B-10(a)(2) “All necessary instruments or methods of
financial responsibility approved by the
county and necessary to comply with the
permit and any county ordinance have been
updated, if necessary, to reflect the new
owner(s) or operator and will remain in full
effect following the ownership or operator
change.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
financial capacity to remediate a worst-case
spill from these facilities, as required by
Condition XI-2.w. (See Part II.A.)
2. Sable has not obtained a final CFR for its
facilities, as required by Condition XI-2.w.
(See Part II.B.)
3. Sable has not posted a performance bond
for the abandonment of these facilities, which
can — and should — be required under
Condition XIX-1. (See Part II.C.)
Compliance Plans: Section 25B-10(a)(6)
“The current owner and proposed operator
have updated, where applicable, any . . . oil
spill contingency plan, or equivalent approved
plans, with current emergency contact
information pertaining to the new operator.”
1. Sable has not submitted an Oil Spill
Contingency Plan that encompasses its subsea
pipelines. (See Part IV.)
Operator Capability: Section 25B-10(a)(9)
“The proposed operator has the skills,
training, and resources necessary to operate
the permitted facility in compliance with the
permit and all applicable county codes and
has demonstrated the ability to comply with
compliance plans listed in section 25B10.1.f.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
resources necessary to operate these facilities,
as it may run out of capital prior to restart.
(See Part II.A.)
2. Sable has not demonstrated that it can
comply with an Oil Spill Contingency Plan,
as it failed to submit a plan that encompasses
its subsea pipelines, and it lacks the financial
resources to comply with such a plan. (See
Part II.A and Part IV.)
3. Sable has not shown that it can be trusted
to reliably operate these facilities. (See Part
V.)
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
POPCO Permit: Application for Change of Operator and Guarantor Financial Guarantees: Sections 25B-9(e)(1)
and 25B-10(a)(2)
“All necessary instruments or methods of
financial responsibility approved by the
county and necessary to comply with the
permit and any county ordinance have been
updated, if necessary, to reflect the new
owner(s) or operator and will remain in full
effect following the ownership or operator
change.”
1. Sable has not posted a performance bond
for the abandonment of this facility, as
required by Condition Q-2. (See Part II.C.)
Operator Capability: Section 25B-10(a)(9)
“The proposed operator has the skills,
training, and resources necessary to operate
the permitted facility in compliance with the
permit and all applicable county codes and
has demonstrated the ability to comply with
compliance plans listed in section 25B10.1.f.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
resources necessary to operate this facility, as
it may run out of capital prior to restart. (See
Part II.A.)
2. Sable has not shown that it can be trusted
to reliably operate this facility. (See Part IV.)
LFP Permit: Application for Change of Operator and Guarantor Financial Guarantees: Sections 25B-9(e)(1)
and 25B-10(a)(2)
“All necessary instruments or methods of
financial responsibility approved by the
county and necessary to comply with the
permit and any county ordinance have been
updated, if necessary, to reflect the new
owner(s) or operator and will remain in full
effect following the ownership or operator
change.”
1. Sable has not obtained final CFRs for CA324 and CA-325, which the County can — and should — require pursuant to Section
25B-10(b). (See Part II.B.)
2. Sable has not posted a performance bond
for the abandonment of these facilities, which
can — and should — be required under
Condition O-1. (See Part II.C.)
Compliance with Existing Requirements:
Section 25B-10(a)(5)
“As of the date that the application is deemed
complete, the current operator is in
1. The current owner/operator is not in
compliance with Condition A-7, as the Las
Flores Pipeline System lacks effective
cathodic protection. (See Part III.)
October 28, 2024
Sable Change of Owner, Operator, Guarantor
compliance with all requirements of the
permit . . . .”
Compliance Plans: Section 25B-10(a)(6)
“The current owner and proposed operator
have updated, where applicable, any . . . oil
spill contingency plan, or equivalent approved
plans, with current emergency contact
information pertaining to the new operator.”
1. Sable has not submitted an adequate Oil
Spill Contingency Plan for the Las Flores
Pipeline System. (See Part IV.)
Operator Capability: Section 25B-10(a)(9)
“The proposed operator has the skills,
training, and resources necessary to operate
the permitted facility in compliance with the
permit and all applicable county codes and
has demonstrated the ability to comply with
compliance plans listed in section 25B10.1.f.”
1. Sable has not demonstrated that it has the
resources necessary to operate the facilities,
as it may run out of capital prior to restart.
(See Part II.A.)
2. Sable has not demonstrated that it can
comply with an Oil Spill Contingency Plan,
as it failed to submit a adequate plan for these
facilities, and it lacks the financial resources
to comply with such a plan. (See Part II.A and
Part IV.)
3. Sable has not shown that it can be trusted
to reliably operate these facilities. (See Part
V.)
Attachment A
Attachment B
5.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET
MARCH 2022 5.6-77 PLAINS REPLACEMENT PIPELINE PROJECT
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
Impacts related to Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset would only be related to maintenance and construction activities and these maintenance activities would have a minor impact on risk due to the potential for localized spills of hydraulic or diesel oils. Impact RISK.1, RISK.2, RISK.3 would not be applicable and mitigation measures RISK.2-1 through RISK.2-7 would not be applicable. Impacts would therefore be insignificant.
Construction activities related to valve stations, pump stations and some segments of the pipeline that could be abandoned could potentially produce an increased risk of wildfires during construction, and RISK.4 would still be applicable and mitigation measures RISK.4-1 through RISK.4-4 would still be applicable. Impacts related to Impact RISK.4 and wildfires would therefore be significant but mitigable.
No Project, Existing Pipeline Restart Alternative
Under this alternative, the existing pipeline would be utilized instead of a new pipeline being installed, and transportation of crude oil would occur through the existing pipeline. The existing pipeline would be brought into compliance with existing requirements related to AB 864 and CSFM best available technologies (BAT), including the installation of additional valves along the pipeline route. The Applicant would have to apply to the CSFM for a waiver to utilize the existing pipeline since the existing pipeline is subject to corrosion under insulation, which could affect the efficacy of cathodic protection systems.
Generally, a pipeline is not allowed to operate with ineffective cathodic protection systems. There is uncertainty as to whether the Applicant could demonstrate to the CSFM that the pipeline could be operated safely, and therefore this variation and the variation above (no Project, No Pipeline Alternative) are both addressed.
Assuming that a CSFM waiver is granted, the Applicant would have to install additional valves along the pipeline in order to comply with AB 864 and BAT requirements, similar to the proposed Project pipeline design. The installation of these additional valves would require some construction activities and some limited clearing at multiple locations along the pipeline ROW.
The existing pipeline is insulated, and therefore there would be no need for heaters at the Sisquoc Pump Station or the installation of the gas pipeline.
The installation of valves would most likely be at locations similar to the proposed Project valve installations as the pipeline would follow a similar ROW and similar terrain.
Hazards are associated with risks to the public from a spill and subsequent fire, as well as impacts from a spill to the environment, impacts to schools and potential wildfire impacts. The existing pipeline is a larger diameter pipeline, and therefore the draindown spill volumes would be larger than the proposed Project.
This results in potentially larger spills and larger fires, impacting more people, as well as larger spills to the environment. In addition, the frequency of a spill from the existing pipeline would be higher due to its age and the potential for the cathodic protection to be compromised by the insulation. These factors have been incorporated into the analysis presented below.
Risks to Public Safety
Impact RISK.1 describes the potential spill sizes and the estimated frequency of spills from the pipeline system and the potential for immediate (fires, etc.) health impacts on the public.
Crude Pipeline Spill Volumes
The spill volumes for this alternative were calculated based on the pipeline size, which would be larger than the proposed Project, and the associated terrain for different segments of the pipeline. The Applicant
5.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET
MARCH 2022 5.6-78 PLAINS REPLACEMENT PIPELINE PROJECT
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
provided a risk assessment for the proposed Project and this analysis was utilized to estimate the spill volumes associated with a larger pipeline size. Figure 5.6-11 shows the estimated spill volumes along the pipeline route for each segment as a worst case for that segment. The worst-case sized spill volume is shown in Table 5.6-16 for the different portions of the crude oil pipeline alternative.
Crude Pipeline Spill Frequencies
Spill frequencies from a crude pipeline are based on the PHMSA failure rates for the California pipeline database. The PHMSA base failure rate for crude oil pipelines is shown in Table 5.6-17. The spill frequencies are adjusted for the pipeline potential higher failure rate due to the compromised cathodic protection system and the potential for corrosion under the insulation issues. This correction is based on the CSFM report (CSFM 1993) indicating a five times increase in failure frequencies for pipelines that are not equipped with cathodic protection over the average failure rate. In addition, because the existing pipeline is older, it could experience a higher failure rate due to age. However, the CSFM study indicated a minimal increase in failure rate for pipelines that are less than 40 years old and the PHMSA database used to estimate the base failure rate includes many older pipelines. Therefore, only the five times factor was applied as an estimate of the increased failure rate for this pipeline.
Figure 5.6-11 No Project – Existing Pipeline Restart Alternative Spill Volume by Segment Milepost Source: based on Applicant QRA and EFRD 2019, with adjustments for the size of the existing pipeline.
5.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET
MARCH 2022 5.6-79 PLAINS REPLACEMENT PIPELINE PROJECT
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
Table 5.6-16 No Project – Existing Pipeline Restart Alternative Crude Pipeline Worst Case Spill Volumes
Location Proposed Project - Maximum
Spill Volume, gallons
Alternative - Maximum Spill
Volume, gallons
LFC – Gaviota Plant 84,000 126,000
Gaviota – Sisquoc 131,040 284,594
Sisquoc - Pentland 198,030 657,893
Coastal Segments 117,600 237,344
Source: based on Applicant QRA and EFRD 2019, with modification to address spill duration of 60 minutes. Coastal segments include up to valve station 2-500. Includes the installation of additional valve stations as per the proposed Project locations.
Table 5.6-17 No Project – Existing Pipeline Restart Alternative Crude Pipeline Spill Frequencies Location Spill Frequency Return Period, years
rupture/leak/total
PHMSA California Crude oil base rate 1.62 per 1,000-mile years - Adjustment due to Pipeline Condition 5.3 factor -
PHMSA Adjusted Rate 8.56 per 1,000-mile years -
Failure rate for L901R (49.2 miles) 0.43 failures per year 9/3/2 years Failure Rate for L903R (74.1 miles) 0.63 failures per year 6/2/2 years Failure Rate for L901R + L903R 1.07 failures per year 4/1/1 years Source: based on Applicant QRA and EFRD 2019 with CSFM 1991 adjustment factor. PHMSA data since 2010. The return period is the anticipated period between releases. Includes leaks and ruptures.
Crude Pipeline Population Densities
The population densities along the route are based on estimates for remote, rural, low density and highdensity areas with some additions for highways. The population densities are similar to those used for the proposed Project except for the area through the City of Buellton, since the existing pipeline would pass through the City of Buellton and the proposed Project would pass around the City of Buellton to the west.
Crude Pipeline Fires
In the event of a spill of oil and subsequent ignition resulting in a pool fire, the heat (i.e., thermal radiation) from the fire could result in a serious injury or fatality. The assumptions for impacts would be the same as for the proposed Project.
Gas Pipeline
The proposed gas pipeline would not be installed as part of this alternative since heaters at Sisquoc would not be installed.
Alternative Pipeline: Public Safety Risk
The combination of scenario frequency and consequences is combined to estimate risk using FN curves.
FN curves are depictions of the risk levels of a project and show the frequency (F) of scenarios that could produce a given fatality or injury level (N) or greater. These are presented for the proposed Project in Impact RISK.1. Santa Barbara County has established risk thresholds that use societal risk profiles (FN curves) to determine the significance of hazardous material releases. These FN curves address both injury and fatality. The Santa Barbara County’s adopted thresholds are generally applicable to fixed facilities and pipelines. The risk FN curves are shown in Figure 5.6-12 and are based on the FN curves developed as part of the Plains 2019 QRA analysis, with adjustments for the existing pipeline (increased pipeline diameter
5.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET
MARCH 2022 5.6-80 PLAINS REPLACEMENT PIPELINE PROJECT
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
and failure frequency). The FN curves would be located within the amber region, and the impacts to public health due to pipeline releases would be significant and unavoidable.
Figure 5.6-12 No Project – Existing Pipeline Restart Alternative Pipeline Risk FN Curves Source: Plains 2019 with modifications
Risks to the Environment
A spill of crude oil from the pipeline could impact resources in the vicinity of the pipeline ROW. See Section
5.2 Biological Resources, Section 5.4 Cultural Resources and Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of the impacts of a crude oil spill on biological, hydrological and cultural resources along the crude oil pipeline ROW.
Crude Pipeline Spill Volumes
The spill volumes are discussed above under Impact RISK.1. For the public health assessment under Impact RISK.1, a worst-case spill shutdown time of 15 minutes was used due to the already conservative analysis for fires and impacts to the public used in the QRA. However, for spills that could affect the environment, a longer duration is used. As evidenced by the May 2015 Refugio spill, there is the potential for a pipeline shutdown to take longer than 15 minutes.
Crude Pipeline SCADA System
The SCADA system used for the alternative would be the same as that used for the proposed Project since the SCADA system would be required to be updated per CSFM and AB864 requirements.
5.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET
MARCH 2022 5.6-81 PLAINS REPLACEMENT PIPELINE PROJECT
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
Proposed Project Pipeline: Spills Affecting Marine Resources Portions of the pipeline extend along the Santa Barbara County coastline. A crude oil spill could drain from the spill location through existing culverts or drainages and enter the marine environment. This is what occurred during the May 2015 Refugio Beach spill. An estimated 43 percent of the oil entered the ocean from the Refugio spill location, which was an estimated 750-foot pathway from the ocean shoreline.
Because the proposed pipeline is located onshore at various distances from the shoreline, a rupture at different locations spilling the same amount of oil could allow for oil to enter the marine environment.
Assuming a linear function of oil being trapped and adsorbed onshore with distance, the maximum amount of oil could enter the ocean where the pipeline is closest to the ocean and potential worst-case spill volumes are large. An estimated maximum amount of 71,621 gallons of crude oil could enter the ocean at the worst-case spill location. An estimated 11.8 miles of the 16.6-mile coastal portion (71 percent) of the pipeline would be vulnerable to spills entering the ocean if a spill were to occur along any of those segments and the adsorption rate were similar to that which occurred during the Refugio spill.
This assumes that no rain event is occurring and that drainages are not flowing.
There are a number of variables affecting the amount of oil that could reach the ocean from an onshore spill, including the terrain, the location of drainages under the freeway and the railroad tracks, the soil type, and extent of rocky interfaces as well as the amount of moisture. During a rain event, when drainages and creeks are flowing, a spill into the waterways could follow the flow and enter the marine environment more readily. A spill under these conditions would also have more extensive terrestrial impacts and reach the marine environment more readily but would also be subjected to turbulence and mixing along the drainages.
For inland areas, the area with the largest potential impacts is along the Cuyama River. Based on the elevation profile and the spill volumes, the maximum spill volume along the Cuyama River segments of the pipeline (between proposed Project valve 3-800 and 5-400 nearest the Cuyama River) and using the absorption rate as seen in the Refugio spill, a spill along the Cuyama River portion of the pipeline could impact resources a distance as far as about 3,200 feet, which means that pipeline segments within about 3,200 feet of the Cuyama River could potentially impact the river in the event of a spill.
Potential Impacts
Depending on the location of the spill, the environmental conditions, and the biological resources present, Impact RISK.2 short and long-term effects to biological resources associated with a crude oil spill has the potential to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures RISK.1-1 through RISK.1-7 would apply.
Due to the increased size and frequency of spills, this significant and unavoidable impact would be a greater severity than that presented by the proposed Project.
Risks to Schools
For Impact RISK.3 (schools), the pipeline construction activities for the existing pipeline would only affect areas near the proposed valve installations. The existing pipeline is located about 500 feet from the Oak Valley School in western Buellton. In order to address the risk levels to this school, the California Department of Education (CDE) school siting risk protocol was utilized to determine the risk levels.
The assessments demonstrated that the risk levels are acceptable under the CDE Risk Protocols with a Total Individual Risk/Individual Risk Criteria (TIR/IRC) ratio of 0.29, with a 1.0 TIR/IRC ratio being the CDE Protocol threshold. It is important to note that the CDE protocol examines the individual risk at the closest school and does not examine the risks cumulatively along the entire pipeline route. Because the CDE
Attachment C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Sent by Electronic Mail
September 27, 2024
Steve Rusch
VP Environmental & Regulatory Affairs
Sable Offshore Corp.
[email protected]
Violation File No.: V-9-24-0152 (Sable Offshore Corporation) Location: At various locations along the existing Las Flores Pipelines CA324 and CA-325 (previously known as Lines 901 and 903), which are part of the pipeline system originally constructed by Plains All American in 1988, spanning from the Gaviota coast to the Los Padres National Forest within Santa Barbara County, on 16 different properties.
Violation1 description: Unpermitted development in the Coastal Zone, including, but not necessarily limited to, excavation with heavy equipment and other activities associated with the Line 324 and 325.
Dear Mr. Rusch:
As you have recently discussed with Cassidy Teufel and Wesley Horn of our staff, it has come to our attention that unpermitted activities are currently taking place in the Coastal Zone, including excavation and other activities at various locations along the existing Lines 324/325 (formerly known as Lines 901/903) now owned by Sable Offshore Corp. (“Sable”) 1 Please note that the description herein of the violation at issue is not necessarily a complete list of all unpermitted development on the subject property that is in violation of the Coastal Act and the Santa Barbara County LCP. Accordingly, you should not treat the Commission’s silence regarding (or failure to address) other unpermitted development on the subject property as indicative of Commission acceptance of, or acquiescence in, any such development. Please further note that the term “violation” as used throughout this letter refers to alleged violations of the Coastal Act/County LCP.
Steve Rusch
Sable Offshore Corp.
associated with a proposed restart of the Santa Ynez Unit. These activities constitute violations of the Coastal Act2 and Santa Barbara County’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”).
As you may know, the California Coastal Act was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 to provide long-term protection of California’s 1,250-mile coastline through implementation of a comprehensive planning and regulatory program designed to manage conservation and development of coastal resources. The California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) is the state agency created by, and charged with administering, the Coastal Act of 1976. In making its permit and land use planning decisions, the Commission carries out Coastal Act policies, which, amongst other goals, seek to protect and restore sensitive habitats; protect natural landforms; protect scenic landscapes and views of the sea; protect the marine environment and its inhabitants; protect against loss of life and property from coastal hazards; and provide maximum public access to the sea.
The Commission plans and regulates development and natural resource use in the coastal zone in keeping with the requirements of the Coastal Act.
Violations
It has been confirmed that Sable is currently performing various unpermitted construction activities in the Coastal Zone associated with upgrades to Lines 324/325 in connection with Sable’s proposed restart of that pipeline.
3 As part of that proposed restart, Sable is
currently undertaking work including a pipeline upgrade project to address pipeline corrosion in locations within the Coastal Zone and to install new safety valves in portions of the pipeline in the Coastal Zone. These activities constitute development and are not exempt from coastal development permit (“CDP”) requirements.
Pursuant to Section 30106 of the Coastal Act and Section 35-58 the Santa Barbara County Local Coastal Program (“LCP”):
“Development” means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act...change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure… (emphasis added)
2 The Coastal Act is codified in the California Public Resources Code, sections 30000 to 30900. Unless otherwise indicated, references to section numbers in this letter are to that code, and thus, to the Coastal Act.
3 The California Office of the State Fire Marshall has not reviewed or approved the proposed restart of the pipeline, which includes a review of a proposed State Waiver and a final Restart Plan, among other required materials. The Commission’s investigation of this matter is continuing, and it reserves its right to review the proposed restart and other associated activities or other matters concerning the pipeline.
Steve Rusch
Sable Offshore Corp.
Under this definition, the unpermitted development activities, as described above, constitute “development” under the Coastal Act and the County’s LCP. Coastal Act Section 30600(a), and Section 35-58 of the Santa Barbara County LCP, require Sable to obtain authorization under the Coastal Act and/or the LCP prior to performing or undertaking any development activity in the Coastal Zone, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law. Any non-exempt development activity conducted in the Coastal Zone without such authorization constitutes a violation of the Coastal Act/LCP. Thus, the unpermitted development activities described above constitute Coastal Act and LCP violations.
In addition, the upgrade project does not qualify as CDP-exempt repair and maintenance work. Activities that “result in addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object” of the activities require a CDP under the Coastal Act and the LCP. (Public Resources Code § 30610(d); Coastal Zoning Ordinance § 35-169.2; Appendix C, Section I.) At a minimum, because the project involves the installation of safety valves, this is an addition to the pipeline that does not qualify as “repair and maintenance.” Even if the project could be considered repair and maintenance (which it cannot), Section 30610(d) of the Coastal Act and the Appendix C, Section III of the LCP nonetheless require a CDP for categories of repair and maintenance activities that are designated as presenting a “risk of substantial adverse environmental impact.” These include the following:
(3) Any repair or maintenance to facilities or structures or work located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area, any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or environmentally sensitive habitat area, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams that include: . . .
(B) The presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized equipment or construction materials.
Title 14, California Code of Regulations § 13252(a)(3); Coastal Zoning Ordinance § 35- 169.2; Appendix C, Section III(a)(3).)
Furthermore, although Sable appears to have taken the position that the upgrade project involves work for which the Coastal Act requirement for a CDP is entirely preempted, this is incorrect. Although the California Office of the State Fire Marshall has authority over certain aspects of pipeline safety under the federal Pipeline Safety Act (49 U.S.C § 60101 et seq.), any resulting preemption is limited in scope. Other state agencies, as well as local governments, may review and impose requirements related to other issues. Thus, the Commission and the County have jurisdiction to review and impose requirements relating to consistency with the Coastal Act and the LCP that do not pertain directly to pipeline safety. For example, a CDP review for construction impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, cultural resources, water quality, or public access (to name a few) are not preempted. Finally, the 1988 settlement between the County and Celeron Pipeline Company does not affect the preemption analysis because the settlement cannot contractually limit the County’s duties under the law or the applicability of the law. Thus, a CDP is required for the upgrade project.
Steve Rusch
Sable Offshore Corp.
Resolution
To begin resolution of the Coastal Act/LCP violations, please cease Immediately any unpermitted activities/development in the Coastal Zone associated with Lines 324/325. 4 At
this time, we have no information that any development activities are currently taking place related to the three offshore platforms and offshore pipelines owned by Sable. However, if any such activities are taking place, please cease those as well. These are all activities that require a CDP and/or federal consistency review from the Commission.
Please note that in certain cases when unpermitted development takes place, but Commission staff believe that some version of the work could have been found to be consistent with the applicable standard of review and authorized accordingly, staff recommends that the party undertaking the development submit a CDP application to the regulating authority (in this case, Santa Barbara County), seeking after-the-fact (“ATF”) authorization for the previously undertaken unpermitted development within the County’s LCP jurisdiction. In other cases, when staff has determined that the unpermitted development is not something for which staff would recommend approval due its inconsistency with the Coastal Act/certified LCP, staff advises the alleged violator to seek resolution through removal, mitigation, restoration, and/or payment of penalties, etc., and not to seek a CDP to authorize such development.
In this case, we are uncertain at this time whether Santa Barbara County would be able to approve a CDP application from Sable that was seeking ATF authorization for the unpermitted construction activities that have already taken place, as well as authorization going forward for continued construction or other development activities related to the pipeline, such as the installation of safety valves. More information regarding the project would be necessary to come to any such conclusion at this time; however, since such an application might be found approvable by the County, we recommend that you submit a CDP application to the County as soon as possible. Please note that should the County grant approval of such a CDP application, those portions of the project that are located within the Coastal Commission’s appeals jurisdiction would be appealable to the Commission and those portions of the project, if any, that are located within the Commission’s original jurisdiction would require a CDP from the Commission.
To help us evaluate the project, it would be helpful if you could submit to us a complete description of all development activities currently taking place, as well as those activities that are being contemplated (e.g., installation of safety valves; any work to the platforms or offshore pipeline) prior to the anticipated restart of the pipeline, including scope of the project; exact locations of where the development activities are taking place/will take place; project schedule, etc.
Enforcement Remedies
4 Please note that interim measures to stabilize the site may also be necessary to avoid damages to coastal resources, and any such measures should be coordinated with Commission and County staff to avoid additional harm and to ensure consistency with Coastal Act/LCP requirements.
Steve Rusch
Sable Offshore Corp.
Santa Barbara County has declined to enforce the above-noted Coastal Act/LCP violations, and thus, pursuant to Section 30810 of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission is pursuing enforcement regarding the Coastal Act/LCP violations described above.
Please note that the recent Settlement Agreement between Sable and the County does not preempt the Coastal Act or the LCP, and does not obviate the need for Sable to seek authorization for development activities in the Coastal Zone.
Whenever possible, Commission enforcement staff prefers to work cooperatively with alleged violators to resolve Coastal Act violations administratively. We are hopeful that we can resolve this matter without resorting to formal action. However, should we be unable to resolve this matter through this process, please be advised that the Coastal Act has a number of potential remedies to address violations of the Coastal Act, including the following:
Section 30809 states that if the Executive Director of the Commission determines that any person has undertaken, or is threatening to undertake, any activity that may require a permit from the Coastal Commission without first securing a permit, the Executive Director may issue an order directing that person to cease and desist. Section 30810 states that the Coastal Commission may also issue a cease and desist order. A cease and desist order may be subject to terms and conditions that are necessary to avoid irreparable injury to the area or to ensure compliance with the Coastal Act. Section 30811 also provides the Coastal Commission the authority to issue a restoration order to address violations at a site. A violation of a cease and desist order or restoration order can result in civil fines of up to $6,000 for each day in which each violation persists.
Additionally, Sections 30803 and 30805 authorize the Commission to initiate litigation to seek injunctive relief and an award of civil fines in response to any violation of the Coastal Act. Section 30820(a)(1) provides that any person who undertakes development in violation of the Coastal Act may be subject to a penalty amount that shall not exceed $30,000 and shall not be less than $500 per violation. Section 30820(b) states that, in addition to any other penalties, any person who “knowingly and intentionally” performs or undertakes any development in violation of the Coastal Act can be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $15,000 per violation for each day in which each violation persists.
Finally, as of January 1, 2022, the Commission’s administrative penalty authority was expanded, allowing the Commission to administratively impose penalties for all violations of the Coastal Act. Section 30821 and Section 30821.3 collectively authorize the Commission to impose administrative civil penalties in an amount of up to $11,250 per day for each violation.
Failure to resolve the violations noted above could result in formal action under the Coastal Act. Said formal action could include a civil lawsuit, the issuance of an Executive Director
Steve Rusch
Sable Offshore Corp.
Cease and Desist Order or Commission Cease and Desist and/or Restoration Order, and/or imposition of monetary penalties, as described above, including imposition of administrative penalties.
We understand that you will be meeting soon with our staff to discuss the pipeline situation. Please contact me by telephone at 415-904-5269 or by email at [email protected] within a week of that meeting, or by October 21, 2024, whichever is earlier, to discuss how you intend to resolve the Coastal Act/LCP violations associated with the pipeline. Also, you may contact Wesley Horn at [email protected] to discuss any permitting or planning issues associated with the pipeline.
Failure to meet the deadline noted above may result in formal action by the Commission to resolve this Coastal Act violation, including initiation of the enforcement remedies discussed above.
Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Sincerely,
Jo Ginsberg,
Enforcement Analyst
cc: Kate Huckelbridge, CCC, Executive Director
Cassidy Teufel, CCC, Deputy Director
Lisa Haage, CCC, Chief of Enforcement
Sarah Esmaili, CCC, Senior Attorney
Pat Veesart, CCC, Enforcement Supervisor
Aaron McLendon, CCC, Deputy Chief of Enforcement
Alex Helperin, CCC, Assistant Chief Counsel
Joseph Street, CCC, EORFC Program Manager
Jonathan Bishop, CCC, Oil Spill Program Coordinator
Wesley Horn, CCC, Environmental Scientist
Jim Hossler, CA State Fire Marshal, [email protected] Errin Briggs, Deputy Director, Santa Barbara County Planning & Development, [email protected]
Attachment D
Gavin Newsom, Governor
Gabe Tiffany, Acting Director
State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation 715 P Street, MS 1900, Sacramento, CA 95814
conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 322-1080
September 26, 2024
Sent via electronic mail only to [email protected] Dear Mr. Mills:
I am reaching out regarding your client, Sable Offshore Corporation’s (Sable)s, acquisition of the Las Flores Canyon Processing Facility (the Facility). Based upon publicly available information, it appears that equipment at the Facility meets the definition “production facility” found in Public Resources Code section 3010.
There are a handful of compliance issues CalGEM would like to discuss with Sable in more detail.
I. Equipment at the Facility appears to be equipment regulated by CalGEM.
CalGEM regulates production facilities, which includes “any equipment attendant to oil and gas production or injection operations, including but not limited to, tanks flowlines, headers, gathering lines, wellheads, heater treaters, pumps, valve, compressors, injection equipment, and pipelines that are not under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51010 of the Government Code.” Based upon publicly available information, the Facility includes equipment that meets the definition of “production facility,” including at a minimum, pipelines not under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal and tanks.
II. Bonding requirements under Public Resources Code section 3205.8.
The acquisition of the Facility appears to have occurred after January 1, 2024, thereby triggering the requirements of Public Resources Code section 3205.8, including the filing of a bond. Given the unique aspects of the Facility, and the newness of these requirements, Sable was probably unaware these bonding requirements apply to those production facilities attendant to oil and gas production.
CalGEM would like to develop a timeline for expeditiously getting Sable into compliance, which will require a determination of equipment attendant to oil and gas production at the Facility. CalGEM is requesting your cooperation in timely scheduling an inspection of the Facility. To facilitate a more productive inspection, in advance of that inspection, CalGEM requests that you provide a facility map which identifies the equipment on site, including pipelines, and point of sale information, as well as the contact information for your operations manager, so that CalGEM may contact them with questions in advance.
Please have Sable contact Michael Takamori ([email protected] or (661) 434-8163) to schedule an inspection and provide the information described above no later than October 3, 2024.
III. Additional requirements for production facilities.
In addition to these important bonding requirements, there are a range of inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements that apply to production facilities, which you should be aware of, outlined below.
First and foremost, it appears that at least a portion of the production facilities at the facility fall within a health protection zone. Effective June 27, 2024, subject to the exceptions outlined in the regulation, in advance of new construction or operation of a new production facility, an operator is required to submit a notice for CalGEM’s approval before undergoing that work. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 1765.5.) Additional requirements for health protections zones may be found in Article 2.5 of title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Additional production facility requirements include, but are not limited to the filing of spill contingency plan, filing of a pipeline management plan, and production facility containment, maintenance, and testing. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, §§ 1722, subd. (b); 1773.4; 1774.2; 1773-1773.4-1774.1.)
Sincerely,
Courtney Kasberg
Attachment E
1 Jeremy Frankel
From: Fabian, Rachel@Wildlife <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 1:49 PM
To: Jeremy Frankel; Reinhard, David@Wildlife
Cc: Linda Krop
Subject: RE: Sable Offshore's Contingency Plans
Good afternoon Jeremy,
Thanks very much for reaching out with these questions. We have provided answers below.
1. What is the expected timeline for OSPR’s review of the two plans? OSPR has completed the initial review of the Las Flores Canyon onshore pipeline plan (CA-00-7217). Since the legal matter regarding public release of the plans was resolved earlier this week, we will direct Sable to correct the identified deficiencies. In accordance with OSPR’s contingency plan regulations, a plan holder has 30 days to submit a new or modified plan, which is thoroughly reviewed as a new submittal (§ 816.03 (a)(4)).
OSPR will take at minimum 30 days to review the re-submittal dependent upon the complexity of the deficiencies. This often involves multiple back and forth communications with the plan holder to get the required information. The timeline for plan approval is dependent on Sable’s timeliness in correcting the identified deficiencies.
Our initial review of the Santa Ynez Unit oƯshore plan (CA-00-7239) is in progress.
2. In both of the plans, Sable claims that a reasonable worst-case spill from its facilities is 0 bbl. In doing so, they cite the fact the facilities are currently idle – even though they are claiming that they will be restarting the facilities as soon as next month. Does OSPR expect Sable to submit new contingency plans, before it restarts, that consider a worst-case spill from the facilities when active?
OSPR regulations specify that plan holders shall ensure all plans are up-to-date and complete (§ 816.05 (a)(1)(A)). Sable must submit revisions to their contingency plans to account for all details associated with commencing operations of any assets covered by the plans. These revised plans plan must be submitted prior to any change in operations, and the plans will be fully reviewed for compliance.
3. In addition to estimating the potential volume of a spill, does a contingency plan have to consider the frequency of a spill? (In light of the corrosion issues in the onshore pipelines, Santa Barbara County estimated that a restart could lead to a spill every year, and a rupture every four years.) The risk and hazard analysis required in contingency plans must consider any hazards that resulted in a historical spill, as well as analysis of potential discharges and their size, frequency, cause, duration, and location resulting from each type of hazard identified. The primary focus of the plan is on the ability to cleanup a spill, not on how many times on operator might spill.
4. Relatedly, must Sable’s onshore contingency plan account for the fact that its onshore pipelines don’t have adequate protection from corrosion?
OSPR evaluates whether contingency plans comply with our regulations, which center around the actions, processes, and resources involved in responding to a spill. The OƯice of the State Fire Marshal holds the authority to inspect pipelines and determine whether a pipeline has the appropriate measures in place to operate in compliance with state pipeline safety regulations.
2 The Coastal Commission and/or the State Lands Commission might establish equipment or protection requirements as part of any permits or leases. If any of the pipeline is within the jurisdiction of the CA Geologic Energy Management Division, there may be additional operational requirements.
Have a lovely weekend!
Thanks,
Rachel Fabian, PhD (she/her)
Response Certification & Planning Unit Supervisor
Preparedness Branch
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(916) 616-0355
From: Jeremy Frankel <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 12:44 PM
To: Reinhard, David@Wildlife <[email protected]>; Fabian, Rachel@Wildlife <[email protected]>
Cc: Linda Krop <[email protected]>
Subject: Sable Offshore's Contingency Plans
WARNING: This message is from an external source. Verify the sender and exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.
Hi David and Rachel,
We received Sable’s 2 contingency plans from OSPR yesterday: one for its oƯshore facilities, and one for its onshore. We’re in the process of reviewing them, but we have a few initial questions that we were hoping you folks could answer:
1. What is the expected timeline for OSPR’s review of the two plans?
2. In both of the plans, Sable claims that a reasonable worst case spill from its facilities is 0 bbl. In doing so, they cite the fact the facilities are currently idle – even though they are claiming that they will be restarting the facilities as soon as next month. Does OSPR expect Sable to submit new contingency plans, before it restarts, that consider a worst case spill from the facilities when active?
3. In addition to estimating the potential volume of a spill, does a contingency plan have to consider the frequency of a spill? (In light of the corrosion issues in the onshore pipelines, Santa Barbara County estimated that a restart could lead to a spill every year, and a rupture every four years.)
4. Relatedly, must Sable’s onshore contingency plan account for the fact that its onshore pipelines don’t have adequate protection from corrosion?
Thanks,
3 JEREMY FRANKEL (he/him/his)
STAFF ATTORNEY
906 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.963.1622 x100
www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org
We recognize that EDC sits on occupied, unceded, stolen lands of the Chumash Peoples, on Shmuwich Territory, who have called this area home for time immemorial. We commit today to make space to elevate indigenous voices and support our local Chumash and indigenous communities in our work to protect our environment.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and maybe legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
Attachment F
9/14/24 10:20
Describe incident and indicate specific causes and area aƯected At approximately 00:38 9/13/24, a vacuum truck operator reported a spill to the Las Flores Canyon Control Room. Approximately 5 minutes before, at 00:33, the operator discovered that he mistakenly overfilled the truck during an oily water transfer operation and approximately 49 gallons of oily water (2.5 gallons of oil, 46 gallons of water) was released onto an asphalt roadway and adjacent gravel within a developed processing area called the Oil Treatment Plant. The truck operator stopped the fluid transfer upon discovery. Absorbent litter and berms were put out to limit the spread of the material. The release did not enter or threaten to enter state waters.
Indicate actions to be taken to prevent similar spills from occurring in the future An investigation of the incident is being performed. Vacuum trucks will be positioned on containment mats or equivalent to collect any unanticipated releases.
Clean-Up Procedures & Timeline
Clean up crews were called out and arrived onsite at 02:45 9/13/24. Absorbent material was used to remove the oily water. Contaminated material was collected and bagged. Clean up activities were completed at 12:05 9/13/24. The waste will be characterized and disposed at an appropriate waste facility following state and federal waste regulations.
Attachment G
1 Jeremy Frankel
From: Briggs, Errin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 4:20 PM
To: Jeremy Frankel
Cc: Nall, Katie; Linda Krop; Ybarra, Jacquelynn
Subject: RE: Sable pipeline questions
Hi Jeremy,
I understand what Sable is represenƟng to its investors. As with much of what they push out to investors, not everything they represent is accurate.
I have no informaƟon that would lead me to believe they are, or will construct new pump staƟons. If they do wish to construct a new pump staƟon, certainly that would require a permit from the County and I would expect Sable to request that permit prior to any development acƟviƟes. I have let them know what my expectaƟons are in this regard.
They mentioned in their statement below that they plan to “outfit a control center” in the Santa Maria area. I have no additional information on where this may be located at this time. When anything else on this topic becomes available, Jax and I will let you guys know.
Thank you and have a great weekend,
Errin Briggs
Deputy Director, Energy Minerals & Compliance
Planning & Development
County of Santa Barbara
123 E. Anapamu St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805-568-2047
[email protected]
https://www.countyofsb.org/160/Planning-Development
From: Jeremy Frankel <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 3:39 PM
To: Briggs, Errin <[email protected]>
Cc: Nall, Katie <[email protected]>; Linda Krop <[email protected]>; Ybarra, Jacquelynn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Sable pipeline questions
Caution: This email originated from a source outside of the County of Santa Barbara. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks, Errin.
Just a reminder, here is what Sable represented to the SEC and its investors in July, which appears to be inaccurate:
2 “In cooperation with and under the supervision of OSFM personnel, PPC is currently . . . installing new pump stations, and constructing multiple new control facilities for lines 324 and 325, all in preparation for restart of Las Flores Canyon processing facilities and associated Santa Ynez Unit oƯshore production platforms. Restart is expected in late third quarter 2024 or early fourth quarter 2024.”
JF
JEREMY FRANKEL (he/him/his)
STAFF ATTORNEY
906 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.963.1622 x100
www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org
We recognize that EDC sits on occupied, unceded, stolen lands of the Chumash Peoples, on Shmuwich Territory, who have called this area home for time immemorial. We commit today to make space to elevate indigenous voices and support our local Chumash and indigenous communities in our work to protect our environment.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and maybe legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
From: Briggs, Errin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 3:18 PM
To: Jeremy Frankel <[email protected]> Cc: Nall, Katie <[email protected]>; Linda Krop <[email protected]>; Ybarra, Jacquelynn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Sable pipeline questions
Hi Jeremy,
Here’s what I received from Sable staƯ:
Pacific Pipeline Company (PPC), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sable OƯshore Corp., owns three existing pump stations along the pipeline route at Las Flores Canyon, Gaviota (Pt. Arguello at Mariposa Reina) and Sisquoc which are critical to decreasing pipeline pressure consistent with enhanced safety plans. No new pump stations will be installed. PPC plans to outfit a control room near Santa Maria within an existing building requiring no new construction.
Hope this helps,
3 Errin Briggs
Deputy Director, Energy Minerals & Compliance
Planning & Development
County of Santa Barbara
123 E. Anapamu St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805-568-2047
[email protected]
https://www.countyofsb.org/160/Planning-Development
From: Jeremy Frankel <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 2:02 PM
To: Briggs, Errin <[email protected]>
Cc: Nall, Katie <[email protected]>; Linda Krop <[email protected]>; Ybarra, Jacquelynn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Sable pipeline questions
Caution: This email originated from a source outside of the County of Santa Barbara. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Errin,
Just following up on this.
Did the County look in to whether Sable was installing new pump stations and control facilities? If so, did the County make any determinations about whether those activities would require a CDP? Thanks,
JEREMY FRANKEL (he/him/his)
STAFF ATTORNEY
906 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.963.1622 x100
www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org
We recognize that EDC sits on occupied, unceded, stolen lands of the Chumash Peoples, on Shmuwich Territory, who have called this area home for time immemorial. We commit today to make space to elevate indigenous voices and support our local Chumash and indigenous communities in our work to protect our environment.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and maybe legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
Attachment H
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900
April 10, 2024
File Ref.: Leases 4977,
7163, 5515, 6371
Dylan Boyer (SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY:
[email protected])
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Subject: Applications for Assignment of Lease, Santa Ynez Unit Facilities, Santa Barabra County
Dear Mr. Boyer:
On March 13, 2024, Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) submitted four applications to assign its lease interest in the referenced leases to Sable Offshore Corporation (Sable). Based on our review of the materials submitted with the applications, it has been determined that the applications are complete for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as of April 12, 2024.
For the purpose of processing the applications, Exxon may be requested to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information submitted on the applications.
While the applications are complete for purposes of CEQA, staff require additional information to continue processing the applications and prior to scheduling them for the Commission’s consideration. Please provide the following information at your earliest convenience.
1. Describe who will staff, operate, and maintain the three offshore platforms, the Las Flores Canyon processing facility, lines 901/903, and other Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) facilities under Sable’s ownership, including the authorized improvements under leases 4977, 7163, 5515, and 6371. o Organization chart and brief bios of staff’s experience in operations of these assets or similarly situated offshore oil and gas production facilities.
D. Boyer
April 10, 2024
2. Provide a copy of the final, executed purchase and sales agreement between Exxon and Sable.
3. Provide an organization chart and brief bios for the Sable senior management team. Include all relevant information related to the individual’s experience in the offshore oil and gas industry, including oil and gas pipeline operation and maintenance, and when they last worked in the industry.
4. Provide staff with contingency plans that Sable will implement during periods of extended low oil prices, significant financial losses, and bankruptcy.
5. Provide staff with information addressing how Sable will address financing/operating the SYU if it remains shut-in longer than anticipated.
6. Provide copies of the bonds for Leases 5515 and 6371 and provide verification from the bond issuer that they are in good standing. o Lease 6371 requires a bond of $80,000, however, staff is only in receipt of a $25,000 bond (Bond No. 019051655) issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in 2015.
o Lease 5515 requires a $30 million bond.
7. Update the attached timeline chart previously provided to staff on January 25, 2023.
8. Provide an updated projected reserve and resource summary. The previous summary was provided to staff on February 28, 2023 (attached).
9. Provide Sable Pro Forma projected financial statements (Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Statement of Cash Flows) for 2024 and any other future periods.
10.On February 28, 2023, Sable provided staff information related to plans for restarting production at the SYU facilities (see response #1). Please provide an update for each of the four primary workflows and the projected SYU restart date. Also provide a detailed summary of the process and timeline for restarting SYU operations.
D. Boyer
April 10, 2024
11.Provide a detailed summary of the process and timeline for bringing lines 901/903 back into operation.
12.Information detailing the economic life of the SYU facilities under a reasonable range of oil price scenarios, taking into account per barrel price fluctuations over the past 10 years. Sable previously provided information to staff on February 28, 2023, under an assumed $50 flat Brent crude price. Please provide the estimated economic life at varying oil prices, specifically at $40, $80, and $100 per barrel.
13. List of financial securities for decommissioning the federal platforms (including plugging the wells and removing the associated oil infrastructure). Sable previously informed staff that the dollar amount of these securities had not been determined as of February 28, 2023.
14.Provide an independent third party estimate for cost of removal for the lease improvements for leases 4977 and 7163.
You will be advised as to the conduct and needs of this process as it progresses. Please contact me at (916) 574-2275 or at [email protected], if you have any questions concerning the applications.
Sincerely,
Drew Simpkin
Public Land Management Specialist
Attachments
cc: Nathan Franka ([email protected])
Steve Rusch ([email protected])
Chris Workman (CSLC)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900
May 23, 2024
File Ref.: Leases 4977,
7163, 5515, 6371
Dylan Boyer (SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY:
[email protected])
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Subject: Applications for Assignment of Lease, Santa Ynez Unit Facilities, Santa Barabra County
Dear Mr. Boyer:
On April 30, 2024, Exxon provided written responses to Commission staff’s request for additional information, dated April 10, 2024. After reviewing Exxon’s responses, additional information is required to continue processing the applications and prior to scheduling the proposed assignments for the Commission’s consideration. Please provide the following information at your earliest convenience.
Question/response #1:
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 6804, subd. (b), which allows the commission to consider the experience and managerial control of the proposed assignee, we request an organizational chart of:
o Sable's senior management team; and
o Sable's staff who will operate and maintain the SYU assets, namely the pipelines leased by the Commission.
This information is necessary to evaluate the qualifications and experience of key personnel who will be responsible for managing the leases, ensuring compliance with all terms and conditions.
Question/response #14
Include the removal cost estimate for the three power cables under lease 7163 to the Petra cost estimate, dated April 24, 2024.
D. Boyer
May 23, 2024
Additionally, Exxon must provide evidence of a legal relationship with Sable in order for Sable to operate the pipelines and other lease improvements.
An agreement between Exxon and Sable is required stating that Sable is authorized (as a subcontractor, operator, agent, etc.) to operate the pipelines and lease improvements on behalf of Exxon and that Sable will be acting as Exxon’s agent in the submission of required restart testing/inspections and other required lease submissions until such time as the Commission authorizes the assignments.
You will be advised as to the conduct and needs of this process as it progresses. Please contact me at (916) 574-2275 or at [email protected], if you have any questions concerning the applications.
Sincerely,
Drew Simpkin
Public Land Management Specialist
cc: Nathan Franka ([email protected])
Steve Rusch ([email protected])
Chris Workman (CSLC)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900
May 23, 2024
File Ref.: Leases 4977,
7163, 5515, 6371
Dylan Boyer (SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY:
[email protected])
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Subject: Applications for Assignment of Lease, Santa Ynez Unit Facilities, Santa Barabra County
Dear Mr. Boyer:
On April 30, 2024, Exxon provided written responses to Commission staff’s request for additional information, dated April 10, 2024. After reviewing Exxon’s responses, additional information is required to continue processing the applications and prior to scheduling the proposed assignments for the Commission’s consideration. Please provide the following information at your earliest convenience.
Question/response #1:
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 6804, subd. (b), which allows the commission to consider the experience and managerial control of the proposed assignee, we request an organizational chart of:
o Sable's senior management team; and
o Sable's staff who will operate and maintain the SYU assets, namely the pipelines leased by the Commission.
This information is necessary to evaluate the qualifications and experience of key personnel who will be responsible for managing the leases, ensuring compliance with all terms and conditions.
Question/response #14
Include the removal cost estimate for the three power cables under lease 7163 to the Petra cost estimate, dated April 24, 2024.
D. Boyer
May 23, 2024
Additionally, Exxon must provide evidence of a legal relationship with Sable in order for Sable to operate the pipelines and other lease improvements.
An agreement between Exxon and Sable is required stating that Sable is authorized (as a subcontractor, operator, agent, etc.) to operate the pipelines and lease improvements on behalf of Exxon and that Sable will be acting as Exxon’s agent in the submission of required restart testing/inspections and other required lease submissions until such time as the Commission authorizes the assignments.
You will be advised as to the conduct and needs of this process as it progresses. Please contact me at (916) 574-2275 or at [email protected], if you have any questions concerning the applications.
Sincerely,
Drew Simpkin
Public Land Management Specialist
cc: Nathan Franka ([email protected])
Steve Rusch ([email protected])
Chris Workman (CSLC)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900
August 16, 2024
File Ref.: Leases 4977,
7163, 5515, 6371
Dylan Boyer (SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY) [email protected] Exxon Mobil Corporation
Subject: Applications for Assignment of Lease, Santa Ynez Unit Facilities, Santa Barabra County
Dear Mr. Boyer:
I am writing in acknowledgment of, and in response to, Exxon’s July 3, 2024, letter. In that letter, Exxon granted consent “to Sable’s direct engagement with CSLC in regards to the submission, review and approval of the SYU PRIP by Sable, provided that Exxon Mobil is fully informed of material updates in regard to same, including any approvals thereof.”
In our earlier communication on May 23, 2024, Exxon was explicitly asked to provide clear evidence of a legal relationship with Sable that would authorize Sable to operate the pipelines and other lease improvements (please see the attached for reference). Staff appreciates Exxon’s efforts; however, the response in your recent letter falls short of addressing the core issue. The Commission’s engagement with Sable is not predicated on Exxon providing its consent.
For staff’s review of the pending lease assignment applications, it is imperative that Exxon formalizes its relationship through a binding agreement with Sable regarding the use of the lease premises on state land. Importantly, while each lease requires Commission authorization for assignment or sublease, the leases also permit the existing lessee to allow employees, agents, servants, and invitees to occupy or use any portion of the lease premises without specific
D. Boyer
May 16, 2024
Commission authorization.
1 This point is critical in light of Exxon’s decision to transfer ownership of the SYU assets to Sable while retaining the leases on state land. Therefore, to facilitate staff's review of the pending applications, staff expect Exxon to submit a copy of a formal agreement with Sable that links Exxon’s ongoing status as a lessee with Sable’s authorization to operate on the lease premises as an agent or equivalent, as permitted under the leases.
Please contact me at (916) 574-2275 or at [email protected], if you have any questions concerning the applications.
Sincerely,
Drew Simpkin
Public Land Management Specialist
Attachment(s): CSLC Letter to Exxon dated May 23, 2024
cc: Nathan Franka ([email protected])
Steve Rusch ([email protected])
Stephen Laperous ([email protected])
Chris Workman (CSLC)
1 See e.g., Lease 5515, section 3 (General Provisions), paragraph 11(a). Each lease contains similarly phrased language for this allowance.
Attachment I
Attachment J
1 Jeremy Frankel
From: CALIFORNIADFW Support <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:55 PM
To: Jeremy Frankel
Subject: Public Records Act Request :: R012679-091924
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Dear Jeremy Frankel:
Thank you for your interest in public records of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game Commission, or Wildlife Conservation Board. Your request has been received and is being processed in accordance with the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 7920.000 et seq. Your request was received in this office on 9/17/2024 and given the reference number R012679- 091924 for tracking purposes.
Records Requested: Just following up here: 1. Has Sable submitted a revised ICP for its onshore facilities? 2. Has Sable submitted revised applications for COFRs? 3. What is the status of OSPR’s review of Sable’s offshore contingency plan? Also, could you please send us a copy of the deficiency letter that OSPR sent to Sable on 8/30? Thanks, as always, for your time and attention to this.
Your request will be forwarded to the relevant regions and/or programs to locate records and to determine the volume and any costs associated with satisfying your request. You will be contacted about the availability of the records in question. PLEASE NOTE: The Public Records Act does not require a governmental body to create new records, to do legal research, or to answer questions.
You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and you'll receive an email when your request has been completed. Again, thank you for using CDFW’s Records Center.
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
GovQA logo
1. Has Sable submitted a revised ICP for its onshore facilities? No, we have not received a revised contingency plan.
2. Has Sable submitted revised applications for COFRs?
Yes, they are in queue to be reviewed in the order they were received.
3. What is the status of OSPR’s review of Sable’s offshore contingency plan? Our reviewer has nearly concluded the review and expects to send feedback to Sable by the end of this week.
Attachment K
STATE OF CALIFORNIA— CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 455 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE (415) 904- 5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
TDD (415) 597-5885
WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
VIA CERTIFIED AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
10/04/2024
Carolyn Bertrand, Deputy General Counsel
Lee Alcock, Assistant General Counsel
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sable Offshore Corporation
12000 Calle Real
Goleta, CA 93117
Subject: Confirmation of Suspension of Current Operations Dear Ms. Bertrand and Mr. Alcock,
This letter is a follow-up to your video conference with California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) staff on October 1, 2024, to memorialize both your discussions regarding unpermitted activities taking place within the Coastal Zone, associated with existing Las Flores Pipelines CA-324/325 (formerly known as Lines 901/903), and your follow-up email message the next day. It also lays the groundwork for an order, just in case that proves to be necessary, by providing formal notice of that possibility, as is explained on page three. As stated in the “Notice of Violation” letter sent to you on September 27, 2024 (the “NOV”), and as discussed in the October 1 video conference, because the prerequisite Coastal Act authorization was not granted, the activities you’ve been discussing with my staff (which include, but are not limited to, the placement of solid material, excavation/grading/earth movement work, and the alteration of the size of a structure, all of which qualify as “development” under the Coastal Act) constitute violations of the Coastal Act and Santa Barbara County’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”).
I appreciate your willingness to meet with my staff to discuss the issues detailed in the NOV and steps forward, and your stated commitment to working collaboratively and maintaining open dialogue with the Commission. I also thank you for the email message you sent to Commission staff on October 2, 2024, responding to the request made in the NOV and during the October 1 meeting that development immediately cease. This letter confirms that my staff received that email message, providing your assurances that development along Pipelines CA-324 and CA 325 has ceased.
However, Commission staff subsequently received a report that Sable Offshore Corp. (“Sable”) has restarted development along the pipelines, which would be unfortunate
Sable Offshore Corporation
10/04/2024
and would materially alter our discussions regarding next steps. I am therefore requesting your assurances that this is not the case and ask that you confirm this by email or telephone by 2:00pm today (October 4, 2024).
I recognize that in your October 2, 2024 email to Commission staff, you stated that Sable will be taking “interim measures necessary to stabilize the sites....” Commission staff acknowledged in the NOV that some measures may be necessary to address the site conditions and prevent harms to coastal resources, wildlife, and/or the public, and requested, during your discussion with Commission staff on both October 1, 2024, and October 3, 2024, that you coordinate with Wes Horn of the Commission’s Energy Division on any such measures, including regarding what actions are to be taken, where they will be taken, and the timing of such measures. I appreciate that you began collaboration during an October 1 in a meeting with Mr. Horn and others, but my understanding is that in that meeting, Mr. Horn emphasized the need for additional information before you commence any site stabilization measures. Commission staff remain available to answer questions you may have, and I hope that we can continue to coordinate in advance of any such work to avoid any misunderstandings or inadvertent additional violations.
In addition, I would like to reiterate the request in the NOV and in subsequent conversations with Commission staff that you confirm that the unpermitted development activities have fully ceased, and that any further measures are conducted safely, effectively, and in a manner that prevents further resource damage. Specifically, I ask that you provide clarification as to: 1) what specific activities constitute “interim measures”; 2) the specific development along the pipeline that was undertaken prior to your cessation of activities; 3) identification of the location of each of these activities; 4) identification of which activities have ceased; 5) identification of proposed steps to be taken to secure the sites; 6) a timeline as to when such “interim measures,” assuming we approve them, will be initiated and fully completed; and 7) any available full-size project plans, including site plan(s) and other applicable plans. If possible, please provide photos of each category so we can more easily understand the current site conditions and work performed, and coordinate steps to resolve the current situation.
Please send this information directly to Wesley Horn at [email protected], with a copy to Stephanie Cook at [email protected], no later than 5:00 pm on October 7, 2024.
Additionally, I reiterate that generally any development that has been undertaken along Pipelines CA-324 and CA-325, within the Coastal Zone, requires a coastal development permit (“CDP”). As Commission staff communicated to you on October 1, any current or future development along Pipelines CA-324 or CA-325 requires authorization by the regulating authority under the Coastal Act. If you intend to continue to undertake development activities along the pipelines, including “interim measures”, we recommend that you submit CDP applications for that work as soon as possible. We also ask that you provide Commission staff with written confirmation of your commitment to apply for a CDP from Santa Barbara County (or the Commission, for any work in the
Sable Offshore Corporation
10/04/2024
Commission’s jurisdiction) seeking after the fact (“ATF”) authorization for work that has already occurred.
As indicated in the NOV, the Commission has several administrative and judicial remedies available to it to respond to unpermitted development, including the ability to issue administrative orders (both cease-and-desist orders and restoration orders), and violations of either the Coastal Act or those orders can result in significant administrative and judicial fines.
Finally, in order to ensure that we are in a position to be able to act quickly in case there is any misunderstanding, this letter also serves as a notice of the Executive Director’s intent to issue an Executive Director Cease and Desist Order (“EDCDO”) if you fail to provide, in a satisfactory manner, the information and assurances requested above regarding both clarification of operations and commitment to apply for required CDPs.
Your willingness to cooperate with the Commission and prompt email regarding suspension of operations would provide assurances that we would not need to issue such an order, and I hope we can continue working with you collaboratively. However, please also be aware that if you fail to comply with the NOV or, if unpermitted development along the pipelines recommences without Coastal Act authorization, you will be in direct violation of the Coastal Act, and I may issue an EDCDO directing you to take cease work immediately and correct the all violations. Such violations may subject Sable to additional fines, and/or action by the Commission itself.
Again, I appreciate your attention and coordination with us in this matter. Please respond to this letter to provide written assurances regarding the cessation of unpermitted development activities no later than 2:00pm today (October 4, 2024) and follow up with the aforementioned written clarifying information no later than 5:00 pm October 7, 2024.
If you have any questions regarding enforcement actions detailed in this letter, please direct them to Stephanie Cook at (415) 904-5273 or [email protected].
Additionally, you may send any inquiries or requisite information to:
California Coastal Commission
Attn: Stephanie Cook
455 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Sincerely,
Kate Huckelbridge
Executive Director
Sable Offshore Corporation
10/04/2024
cc: Cassidy Teufel, CCC, Deputy Director
Lisa Haage, CCC, Chief of Enforcement
Sarah Esmaili, CCC, Senior Attorney
Aaron McLendon, CCC, Deputy Chief of Enforcement
Stephanie Cook, CCC Enforcement Attorney
Alex Helperin, CCC, Assistant Chief Counsel
Wesley Horn, CCC, Environmental Scientist
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 7
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shannel Zamora, Finance Director
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: Discussion for Strategic Goals and Objectives for Biennial Budget FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this discussion is to outline strategic goals and objectives for the biennial budget for FY 2025/26 and 2026/27. This report provides an overview of the budget process, key considerations, and a roadmap for financial and strategic decision-making.
The primary focus is on aligning financial resources with priorities while addressing economic, social, and environmental challenges. The Finance Department collaborates with the City Council, City Manager, and Department Heads to develop a financial plan that effectively supports short-term objectives.
The City’s financial plan is designed to connect short-term goals with the resources needed for their successful implementation. The two-year Financial Plan achieves this by:
• Identifying and prioritizing key goals
• Establishing a reasonable time frame for achieving these goals • Allocating the resources necessary to achieve these goals The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (NACSLB), an organization whose mission is to improve state and local governments, provides best budget practices.
The principles established by the NACSLB provides general direction for the City of Buellton and establishes the level and type of services that will provided for the next budget cycle. The fundamental principles of the NACSLB budgeting framework are:
1. Establish broad goals to guide government decision making
2. Develop approaches to achieve goals
3. Develop a budget consistent with approaches to achieve goals
4. Evaluate performance and make adjustments
Goals & Objectives for Biennial Budget Page 2 February 13, 2025 As part of the Financial Plan, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that public agencies adopt a mission statement. The mission statement should be a broad but clear statement of purpose for the entire organization. The organization’s goals, strategies, programs and activities should cascade from the mission statement.
Attachment 1 includes the current mission statement and vision plan principles. City Council should review the City’s mission statement to ensure it is consistent with its goals and objectives for the next two fiscal years.
Current Goals and Objectives
The goals established in the previous budget cycle are listed below. These goals were guided by the Buellton Vision Plan published in February 2012 and serves as the foundation for goal setting. City Council may remove and/or add additional goals for the next two fiscal years. City staff recommends no more than ten broad goals as the scope of the budget. The goals should be achievable and/or funded in the next two fiscal years. For each goal, City Council should identify objectives. At a later meeting, City Council priorities will be discussed.
GOALS OBJECTIVES Prior Year
Accomplishments
1. Maintain a Balanced
Budget
• End the fiscal year
within budget
appropriation
• Completed FY
2023 and FY
2024 within
budget
appropriations
2. Support and Fund
Trails & Bike Paths
• Continue to
allocate money to
the bike trail
reserve
• Contributed
$50,000 towards
the Bike and
Pedestrian Trail
Reserve in FY
2023 and FY
2024
3. Continue to Support
Economic
Development
• No objectives were
identified.
• Approved Mixed
Use Project - 518
project
• Approved MultiFamily
Residential
projects: Polo
Village and
Buellton Garden
Apartments
Goals & Objectives for Biennial Budget Page 3 February 13, 2025
4. Improve Avenue of
Flags
• Begin Median 3
Design
• Hired intern to
design Median 3
plans and
submitted
preliminary plans
to City Council
5. Sound Planning &
Development
• Update Circulation
Element
• Improve Highway
246 Safety
• Adopt a Complete
Streets Plan
• Contract with
KOA for Hwy
246 Caltrans
ROW Study
6. Emergency
Preparedness
• Acquire a
generator for City
Hall
• Continue to
provide CERT
Classes
• Research
emergency lights
and generators
• Awarded CERT
grant to provide
CERT training
• Application for
FEMA grant for
generator
submitted.
7. Maintain
Infrastructure and
Sustainability
• Maintain the
landscape rebate
program
• Review drought
tolerant landscape
standards
• Pursue funding and
construction of
sidewalks and
streetlights
• Improved the
landscape rebate
program
• City projects that
include
landscaping are
all drought
tolerant.
• Solar street lights
installed on
Industrial Way
and Central
Avenue.
8. Promote Arts and
Culture
• Continue to fund
the Arts and
Culture Program
• Funded several
Arts and Culture
projects
9. Increase and Improve
Resources for its
Residents
• Fund social service
programs
• Investigate funding
and provisions of
broadband or
wireless
infrastructure
• Provided
emergency
funding to the
Buellton Senior
Center
Goals & Objectives for Biennial Budget Page 4 February 13, 2025 Suggested Goal Addition
Staff recommends “Government Efficiency and Transparency” as a goal. This goal encompasses the objectives of leveraging technology and digital transformation to enhance operational efficiencies and fostering community engagement.
Economic and Fiscal Outlook
The City of Buellton holds a strong financial position, but still faces challenges to consider when discussing goals and objectives. Revenue projections show moderate growth, with funding from taxes, grants, and other sources. Essential services such as public services, infrastructure, social programs, capital improvement projects, other contract services and employee retention often demand significant funding, while state and federal mandates can impose additional costs. Economic uncertainties, including inflation and regulatory changes, require prudent financial planning for sustainability. Debt obligations, long-term liabilities such as CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) and Other PostEmployment Benefits (OPEB), technological advances, and unexpected expenses related to disasters or emergencies also impact budgets.
Budget Prioritization and Resource Allocation
By aligning budget prioritization and resource allocation with clearly defined goals and objectives, ensures that limited funds are directed toward the most demanding community needs while maintaining long-term fiscal stability. Setting strategic priorities helps guides spending decisions on essential services while adapting to economic uncertainties, and state mandates. By assessing community needs, evaluating cost-effectiveness, and considering long-term sustainability, the City can make informed financial decisions that balance immediate demands with future growth. This approach fosters transparency, accountability, and responsible financial planning, ultimately enhancing public trust and ensuring that resources are used efficiently to improve the quality of life for residents.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the mission statement, set goals and objectives to be included as part of the development of the Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2025/26 and 2026/27.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – City of Buellton Mission Statement, and Vision Plan Principles
MISSION STATEMENT – Last updated 2/28/2019
“Strive to provide the highest quality of life for its residents in the most sustainable and efficient manner.”
Vision Plan – Adopted February 2012
1. Portray a Positive Buellton Image and Brand
2. Expand Opportunities for Active and Healthy Living
3. Offer a Variety of Arts and Cultural Opportunities
4. Promote Desired Change Through Planning and Design
5. Create a Vibrant Downtown
6. Maintain a Strong Sense of Communality and Family
7. Be a Leader in Environmental Sustainability and Stewardship
8. Foster Local Economic Development
CITY OF BUELLTON
City Council Agenda Staff Report
City Manager Review: SW
Council Agenda Item No.: 8
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Linda Reid, City Clerk
Meeting Date: February 13, 2025
Subject: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
BACKGROUND
Following the reorganization of the City Council, it is appropriate for the Council to consider appointments to various boards, commissions, and committees. To assist in the consideration and possible action as to the appointments, staff has listed below the respective agency or body, has provided brief comments as to the purpose of said agency or body, and has provided additional comments as to an appointment. Copies of agency by-laws, membership rosters, and other information pertaining to the respective agency, board, body, committee, commission, or organization are not included with this staff report but are available for review. Attachment 1 is a meeting schedule for the various boards, commissions, and committees on which Council Members may serve and lists the current representatives to each board, commission, and committee.
A. County Library Advisory Committee
This Committee meets quarterly on the third Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. at a varied location to formulate and oversee policy regarding the operation of the Santa Barbara County Library system, which includes the Buellton Library. It would be appropriate for the Council to appoint a City representative and an alternate representative to the Library Advisory Committee.
B. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
The California Joint Powers Insurance Authority is an agency created to provide programs to protect its members, their officers and employees, and property against unavoidable losses through purchase of insurance, self-insurance, and pooling of losses. The Authority is governed by a Board of Directors and an Executive Committee. The Board meets on an annual basis each July and also in special session on an as needed basis. Each member has a representative on the CJPIA Board of Directors. In the past, the City representative has been the Mayor or in his/her absence, the Vice Mayor. It would be appropriate for the Council to appoint a representative and an alternate to the CJPIA Board of Directors.
Appointments to Boards, Commissions, Page 2 February 13, 2025 and Committees
C. League of California Cities (LOCC) – Voting Delegate Each year prior to the Annual Conference, the League formally requests the appointment of a City representative and an alternate to the League business meeting. It has been standard practice for the Mayor to be the City’s representative, if attending the conference, and for the Vice Mayor to be the City’s alternate representative. It is recommended that the Council continue to follow this standard procedure.
D. Buellton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors (Ex Officio Member) Currently a member of the City Council serves as the City Liaison Member on the Buellton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, which meets monthly on the first Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. in Buellton. The Council representative does not have voting power. Having a member on the Board allows the City to provide input as to Chamber programs and activities and to receive input from the Chamber Board as to City projects and programs.
It would be appropriate to appoint a Council Member to serve as the Council representative to the Chamber Board of Directors as the City Liaison Member.
E. Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group
The Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group is composed of elected officials representing the incorporated cities within the County, the County itself, and special districts. The purpose of the Task Group is to review recommendations from various subgroups as to short and long-term disposal methods and alternatives, and to make decisions regarding the planning, implementation, and oversight of solid waste issues. The Task Group meets quarterly on the fourth Monday of the month at various locations in the County. The City has two seats on the Task Group. It would be appropriate for the Council to appoint two representatives to the Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group.
F. Economic Development Task Force
The Economic Development Task Force was formed in accordance with the Business Retention and Expansion Program of the Economic Development Element of the City’s General Plan. The Task Force is comprised of six members, those being the City Manager, Finance Director, two appointed City Council Members, and two appointed members of the Buellton Business Association/Chamber of Commerce and Buellton Visitor’s Bureau Board of Directors. The Task Force meets on an as needed basis. It would be appropriate for the Council to appoint two Council Members to the Economic Development Task Force.
Appointments to Boards, Commissions, Page 3 February 13, 2025 and Committees
G. City/School District Joint Use Committee
The City/School District Joint Use Committee was created in June of 2001 through a Joint Facility Use Agreement to provide for joint cooperation regarding the utilization, construction of improvements, and maintenance of certain school district property and certain City property. The Committee meets on an as needed basis. It would be appropriate for the Council to appoint a City elected representative to serve on the Committee. The Mayor may also attend these meetings.
H. Joint Cities-County Affordable Housing Task Group
This is a Policy Committee that meets as needed to discuss homelessness in Santa Barbara County. It includes elected representatives from the County Board of Supervisors and the County’s eight cities. It would be appropriate for the City Council to appoint a representative to sit on this Committee.
I. Association of California Water Agencies/Joint Powers Insurance Authority The City receives dental and vision benefits through the Association of California Water Agencies/Joint Powers Insurance Authority (ACWA/JPIA) and all member agencies must appoint a representative to sit on their Board of Directors. It would be appropriate for the City Council to appoint a representative to sit on this Committee.
J. Central Coast Community Energy (3CE)
This is the electrical energy service provider created as a Community Choice Energy aggregator. Its governing body consists of members representing various jurisdictions within the service area of 3CE. The City of Buellton shares a region with the Cities of Solvang and Guadalupe. The City’s representative would serve on the 3CE Policy Board as a voting member in years when Buellton is the seated city, and on the Policy Board as a non-voting member in years when Solvang or Guadalupe are the seated city. The meetings are quarterly and held in various locations along the Central Coast. The Mayor is currently appointed to serve as the City’s representative. It would be appropriate for the City Council to appoint a representative to sit on this Committee.
K. Arts & Culture Committee
This Committee meets as needed to determine community arts and culture projects to bring to the Council for approval. It would be appropriate for the City Council to appoint a representative to sit on this Committee.
L. Other Committees Per Council Direction
Such Committees may include (as desired by the City Council): Avenue of Flags Ad Hoc Committee, 1000 Trees Initiative Committee, Santa Ynez Valley Aquatics Complex Committee, Meals on Wheels (SYV Community Outreach) Funding Review, and/or other Committees that the City Council may desire to create.
Appointments to Boards, Commissions, Page 4 February 13, 2025 and Committees
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are included in the City’s fiscal year budget for travel and meeting expenses for City representatives to boards, commissions, and committees.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider appointments to various boards, commissions, and committees for calendar year 2025.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Boards, Commissions, and Committees Meeting Schedule - 2025
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
MEETING SCHEDULE/REPRESENTATIVES
Board, Commission or Committee Date Time Location 2024
Representatives
2025
Representatives
Central Coast Water Authority 4th Thursday –
Monthly
9:00 a.m. Buellton Sanchez
Silva
Sanchez
Silva
County Library Advisory
Committee
3rd Wednesday -
Quarterly
10:00 a.m. Buellton Lewis
Silva
Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments
3rd Thursday -
Monthly
10:00 a.m. Rotates between
Santa Maria and
Santa Barbara
King
Silva
Silva
Lewis
Air Pollution Control District 3rd Thursday -
Monthly
1:00 p.m. Rotates between
Santa Maria and
Santa Barbara
King
Silva
Silva
Lewis
California Joint Powers
Insurance Authority
Annual meeting
in July
7:00 p.m. La Palma Lewis
King
League of California Cities -
Voting Delegate
LOCC Annual
Conference
Long Beach
(October 8-10)
King
Silva
Buellton Chamber of Commerce
City Liaison Member
As Scheduled Buellton Sanchez
Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task
Group
As Scheduled TBD Hornick
Silva
Economic Development Task
Force
As Scheduled Buellton King
Hornick
City/School District Joint Use
Committee
As Scheduled Buellton Lewis
Joint Cities-County Affordable
Housing Task Group
As Scheduled TBD Silva
Association of California Water
Agencies/Joint Powers Insurance
Authority
As Scheduled TBD Hornick
SY River Groundwater Basin Central
Management Area Groundwater
Sustainability Agency JPA(CMA GSA)
As Scheduled TBD Sanchez
Silva
Sanchez
Hornick
Central Coast Community Energy
(3CE)
As Scheduled TBD Silva
Arts & Culture Committee As Scheduled TBD Sanchez
Other Committees Per Council
Direction
As Scheduled TBD