Santa Barbara County planning commissioners recommend ban on new onshore oil drilling, 3–2

The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission voted 3–2 on April 8 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt ordinance amendments that would prohibit new onshore oil and gas drilling in unincorporated county areas.

Staff planner Karina Martin told the commission that the board had directed the two‑phase effort as part of the county’s 2030 Climate Action Plan and in response to Assembly Bill 3233. “The purpose of today’s hearing is to review and recommend approval of the board‑directed oil and gas prohibition amendments,” Martin said, summarizing the Phase 1 package that would bar new drilling and prohibit re‑entering previously abandoned wells while leaving existing vested operations for later consideration.

Martin said staff anticipates the Phase 1 amendments could be adopted this summer and submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification, a process staff estimated could take nine to 15 months. Staff also outlined Phase 2 as an amortization study and potential environmental review to address how, on what timetable, and with what conditions existing operations could be phased out.

Supporters told the commission the narrow ban on new drilling is a practical first step. Pasha Madavi, a UCSB professor who led a county survey and economic analysis submitted to the record, said his team found strong public support and limited countywide employment exposure: “We found that 65% of all county residents support an ordinance to prohibit new onshore oil and gas drilling in the county,” Madavi said, urging the commission to forward the measure.

Environmental and community advocates emphasized public‑health and environmental justice concerns, citing research and local exposure patterns. Tara Renhifo of the Environmental Defense Center told commissioners that AB 3233 “grants local governments the explicit authority to prohibit oil and gas operations” and argued the amendments were legally narrow because they apply only to activities that have not been permitted or vested.

Industry representatives, royalty owners and some ranchers warned of legal risk, economic harm and unintended effects. Eric Vasquez of Asphalta LLC described the proposal as “a little too extreme and far‑reaching,” arguing the county was shortcutting environmental review and exposing itself to litigation. Ed Hazard, who identified himself as a royalty owner and leader in the National Association of Royalty Owners, said he plans to challenge AB 3233 and warned a prohibition could lead to takings claims: “If AB 3233 is upheld ... there’s a taking,” Hazard said.

Commissioner questions before the vote focused on definitions and scope. Commissioners asked staff whether the draft defined “new drilling” or “abandoned” wells; staff said the draft does not include a formal definition of “new drilling,” and clarified for the commission that re‑entering an abandoned well would be treated as a prohibited new well while reworking or sidetracking an active or idle well would not be considered new drilling.

The commission weighed competing concerns about climate and local jobs. Supporters argued the ordinance is consistent with county climate goals and would avoid new local pollution and risks. Opponents warned the ban could displace production to fields with weaker controls, raise fuel or asphalt import costs, and harm small local operators and ranchers whose mineral income helps keep land in agriculture.

After deliberation, Commissioners Cooney, Ford and Park voted to recommend the ordinance amendments; Chair Reid and Commissioner Martinez voted no. The commission also unanimously (5–0) directed Vice Chair Cooney to sign the transmittal resolution to the Board of Supervisors.

What happens next: the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the staff‑prepared ordinance will go to the Board of Supervisors for final action; staff estimated the Phase 1 adoption and Coastal Commission certification could require several months to a year.

Corrections and clarifications: staff cited CalGEM records on well counts but the transcript number for active wells is garbled in the record (staff reported active and idle well counts in the staff report); the ordinance materials and staff report cite CEQA guideline exemptions and statutory citations; any final staff or board materials supersede this summary.

The Board of Supervisors will receive the commission’s recommendation as the next procedural step; the board may modify the language, request an environmental impact report, or pursue the two‑phase schedule staff described.