A project to increase the number of safety valves along a currently unused oil pipeline from the Gaviota Coast to Kern County to meet a state law mandate was denied Wednesday on a split vote of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission.
Commissioners voted 3-2 to uphold three appeals of the zoning administrator’s approval of the Pacific Pipeline Co.’s application to install five new check valves and 11 new motor-operated valves on the connected pipelines designated 901 and 903.
The vote came as part of a hearing that was continued from the March 1 meeting and was trailed to the end of Wednesday’s meeting to give the staff time to develop findings for denial, as directed by the commission majority.
More than 30 members of the public, most of them opposed to the project, spoke during the continued hearing, repeating arguments for and against it that were raised March 1.
Fourth District Commissioner Larry Ferini and 5th District Commissioner Vincent Martinez cast the dissenting votes based on their view of the appeal’s narrow focus on the decision made by the zoning administrator.
“My rationale is … we have certain provisions of the law or regulations or whatever we’re dealing with that’s in front of us, and that’s [what] we have to focus upon,” Martinez said.
“In this instance, it’s an appeal of the zone administrator’s approval … and the focus is on the installation of the valves and not the operation [of the pipeline],” he said, adding “that’s another day, that’s another argument.”
Ferini agreed, noting the project was in response to Assembly Bill 864, which requires the “best available technology” to prevent oil spills to be installed on all oil pipelines in the state.
“It does seem very simple to me,” Ferini said. “This is not an operating permit we’re issuing; this is one to allow them to make the pipeline safer as required by the state.”
But the majority of the board saw the appeal as being connected to the entire pipeline project, its original environmental impact report that was certified in 1985 and the condition of the pipeline today.
They echoed some of the arguments that were put forth by the appellants — the Tautrim family, the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and GreyFox LLC — who said the pipeline was corroded and dangerous and there would be no reason to install the valves unless the pipeline was going to be put back into operation.
Sign up to receive headlines in your inbox!
Breaking News | Local Sports | Daily Headlines | Local Obituaries | Weather | Local Offers
It has been shut down since 2015 when it ruptured, dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil, some of which flowed into the ocean, fouling local beaches and migrating south beyond Ventura County.
“My feeling is the project is linked inextricably to the history of the environmental review and, most importantly, our history with this pipeline,” said 1st District Commissioner C. Michael Cooney, who eventually made the motion to deny the project.
“We as a county have been witness to a long process that could not and did not cure all the damage that was done” by the 2015 spill, he said.
Second District Commissioner Laura Bridley, who would second his motion, said the “EIR is stale” and she wasn’t comfortable with the California Environmental Quality Act exemptions to requiring an extended environmental review.
“A lot of things have changed since 30 years ago,” she said.
Commission Chairman and 3rd District Commissioner John Parke said the county had been consistently told the pipeline would be replaced with a new pipeline, but now it seems the old pipeline will be restarted.
He also said if the valve project was approved, the old pipeline could be restarted without further environmental review.
“I’ve got to think about the consequences,” he said.
Findings used by the commissioners to deny the project included that the project would not be compatible with the physical scale of the area; would be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the neighborhood because of the elevated danger of oil spills; and the findings made when the pipeline project was initially approved are no longer valid.
