
Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan
A high-stakes effort to resume local oil permitting advanced this week as Kern's Planning Commission voted Thursday night to recommend approval of the county's third attempt at a massive environmental review.
The board voted 4-0 with Commissioner Joe Ashley, a local oil executive, absent. Next the controversial measure will head to the county Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider certifying the review and adopting a related ordinance during a special meeting June 26.
Because the board is seen as likely to approve the proposal over the objections of climate and environmental justice activists, the bigger challenge for the county may be getting the approval of state appellate court judges. They have ruled, as recently as two years ago, that the county's efforts violate the California Environmental Quality Act.
Kern's latest attempt includes new concessions that would raise the costs oil companies face when applying for permission to drill in the county. If the legal bid falls short, permitting will remain in the hands of Sacramento, where producers complain that the process is slow and hobbled by politics.
People attending Thursday's commission meeting spoke up in opposition and support for revisions that would allow the county to permit up to 26,970 new wells by 2035. The county estimates that, based on past experience and depending on barrel prices, it will give out no more than about 19,000 drilling permits during that time, and that many of those will merely replace other wells set to be idled.
Relatively few people criticized the county effort on Thursday; if history is a guide, a much greater number of opponents will weigh in when the Board of Supervisors takes up the issue. Many groups see the permitting process as overly broad "fast-tracking" at a time when oil production should be curtailed for climate and health reasons.
Policy Director Ema De La Rosa at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability urged the commission Thursday night to reject the proposal. She said oil and gas has historically impacted poor people and communities of color she said suffer disproportionately from illnesses including asthma, cancer and high-risk pregnancies.
"Residents in Kern County already endure the worst air quality in the nation … and expanding these operations will only worsen the public health crisis and further burden already impacted communities," she said. Later she added, "Doubling down on fossil fuel reliance is a step in the wrong direction as the state is working toward a clean energy future."
Director Lori Pesante of Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah Chapter said in a statement ahead of Thursday's meeting it's time for the county to move past oil production.
'Kern's Planning Commission should prioritize clean air, new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector, and protecting the public from dangerous leaks and spills," she stated, "not double down on a failed approach that would give the oil industry a free pass to pollute our neighborhoods.'
The architect of the county's effort, Director Lorelei Oviatt of Kern's Planning and Natural Resources Department, made the point oil production is still legal in the state, and that permitting done in Sacramento does not incorporate the 89 mitigation measures and standards Kern's system would impose for the protection of local air, water and biological and cultural resources.
Oviatt said by email Friday the benefits of oil and gas production in Kern extend beyond the county, including to Southern California refineries that rely on local petroleum.
"Returning Kern County to full environmentally protective permitting is critical for providing gasoline to consumers at prices we can all afford, stabilizing our local business community and providing investor confidence," she wrote.
Since before it was initially adopted in 2015, the measure has been a top concern for local oil producers, which more recently are also dealing with a new state law forbidding oil work within 3,200 feet of a home, school or other sensitive site. Kern's proposed ordinance does not attempt to change that regulation.
CEO Rock Zierman of the California Independent Petroleum Association trade group expressed support for the county's actions in an email Friday.
"If we want any hope of saving the local oil industry and reducing gas prices, Kern must be empowered to take over permitting from the state, which is refusing to process permits in a timely manner' he stated.
One of the county's newly proposed mitigation measures, included to address the appellate court's concerns, would prohibit new wells on farmland until old oil-field equipment is removed. Oil producers would also have to secure an ag easement within the county measuring the same size as any lost farmland.
Additionally, oil companies applying for permits would have to pay into a fund that would match state investments in water systems serving local disadvantaged communities. Fees for each new oil well would amount to $9,732. It is projected to raise between $17.3 million and $25.9 million per year.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Daniel Lurie didn't get everything he wanted in his first S.F. budget. Neither did his critics
Mayor Daniel Lurie 's first San Francisco budget negotiations were not as dramatic as they could have been, despite vigorous opposition from labor unions and nonprofits over his plan to close the city's huge deficit. When Lurie introduced his proposal to eliminate a roughly $800 million two-year shortfall, he sought to cut 1,300 vacant jobs and about 100 filled positions. But city lawmakers on Thursday reached a deal with Lurie to prevent 56 layoffs, blunting the impact on San Francisco's vast municipal workforce that is already one of the largest in the country. The mayor allocated funding for about 33,000 city employees next fiscal year. Unions sounded the alarm about the budget even before it was proposed by Lurie, unsuccessfully urging him to avoid deep cuts by calling on tech companies to drop lawsuits seeking tax refunds. As the Board of Supervisors vetted the budget plan, labor groups escalated their resistance, disrupting a meeting until police removed protesting workers in handcuffs. Nonprofits also vehemently objected to Lurie's proposal to cut about $185 million in grant and contract spending. Ultimately, the deal that the supervisors' budget committee brokered with Lurie scaled back some of his most aggressive plans. By tweaking the mayor's two-year spending proposal, supervisors freed up $15 million to reduce layoffs, and they reallocated $26 million to invest in a variety of services that Lurie originally intended to cut. The money is a drop in the bucket of San Francisco's $7 billion general fund, but it will help avoid some of the most painful belt-tightening originally envisioned by Lurie. The budget deal, which must still be approved by the full board of supervisors next month, illustrates how Lurie is trying to balance the demands of lawmakers and organized labor while making good on promises to reduce San Francisco's persistent deficits. He didn't give the unions or supervisors everything they wanted. But he also didn't seek a massive overhaul of the city bureaucracy or press for layoffs on the scale the city saw during the Great Recession. Lurie said in a statement that the budget deal would help the city avoid spending 'money we don't have, while focusing our resources on providing safe and clean streets, addressing the fentanyl crisis, and advancing our economic recovery.' 'Passing this budget also required painful decisions that were, unfortunately, necessary to set up our entire city for success,' Lurie said. 'Leadership means making those tough decisions, and this group of city leaders did that.' Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the board's budget committee, said Lurie was put in a difficult position partly because recent city budgets under his predecessor, London Breed, were balanced with a heavy reliance on temporary funding sources. Lurie used far less one-time money in his first budget proposal than Breed did last year, according to the city controller's office. The mayor and supervisors also set aside $400 million to help shield the city from federal funding cuts under the Trump administration. 'We are looking to the future about how we protect San Francisco and make sure that San Francisco is solvent,' Chan said. 'That really is the common goal that got us through this budget process… I recognize that and I think the mayor recognizes that.' Chan said she and her colleagues have tried to do 'whatever we can to reverse the layoffs for our front-line workers and to protect as many direct services to the most vulnerable as possible.' 'Under the circumstances, I think that we have delivered that,' she said. SEIU 1021, the city's largest public-sector union, had a mixed reaction to the budget deal. Union president Theresa Rutherford said in a statement that her group was relieved that the agreement between supervisors and the mayor 'reverses layoffs of frontline workers.' But she was 'disappointed and concerned' about cuts to nonprofits and city services that remain in the spending plan. The budget would still cut about $171 million from grants and contracts, a $14 million reduction from what the mayor first proposed. 'We've been fighting hard, but our work is not done,' Rutherford said. 'We will continue to fight to protect public services, especially for those in our community who need them the most, and the rights of all the workers who provide those services, public and nonprofit alike. And we will hold the mayor accountable for reversing these layoffs.' One of the biggest sticking points in this year's budget negotiations involved changes that Lurie proposed in how the city spends revenue from a 2018 business tax that funds homeless services. The tax measure, Proposition C, earmarked specific percentages of the proceeds for permanent housing, mental health services, homelessness prevention and shelter and hygiene services. Lurie wanted to redirect about $90 million in unspent revenue from the tax to fund his priorities, namely homeless shelters, which he thinks are in dire need of expansion to get more unhoused people off the streets. The mayor also sought more flexibility in how his administration spends future revenue from the tax. After an extended debate and negotiations with the mayor's office, the budget committee reduced Lurie's $90 million reallocation request down to about $30 million. The committee also agreed to let Lurie more freely spend up to $19 million in extra revenue from the tax if approved by a simple majority of the board. That prompted some intense pushback from Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who questioned why supervisors were 'going to do away with a key provision' of Prop C, which originally required a supermajority board vote to alter the funding categories. 'Should we even have a Board of Supervisors at this point?' Fielder asked at a budget committee hearing. The Coalition on Homelessness advocacy group also lamented the decision, calling it a 'mayoral power grab' in a news release. 'San Francisco is not a kingdom, and it is not a corporation, it is a democracy,' Jennifer Friedenbach, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement. 'Prop C … was carefully constructed to ensure that data-driven, voter-approved mandates existed to build a responsive and efficient homeless system that was protected from wrongheaded political winds.' Chan, the budget chair, defended the committee's decision as a fair compromise. 'We negotiated with the mayor the best outcome (possible) in a very balanced spending plan that supports homeless families and homeless transitional-age youth,' Chan said in an interview. 'I also understand that at this moment and this time, there is also an urgent need to solve the crisis that we see on our streets.' Aldo Toledo contributed reporting.


San Francisco Chronicle
18 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California budget comes down to the wire as Newsom, lawmakers face off over housing
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers are scheduled to pass a budget that rolls back health care benefits for undocumented immigrants and makes other cuts, even as they continue to negotiate with Gov. Gavin Newsom over housing policies that have so far prevented them from reaching a final deal. The housing policies at issue would represent some of the most significant reforms to the state's landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, since its inception. They would grant broad exemptions to CEQA for homes and other buildings in already developed areas. The lawmakers who crafted the original proposals argue that the law has been abused by people trying to block development and that building more homes in already densely populated areas where people live and work is good for the environment. Newsom agreed, and has made his signature on the budget contingent on lawmakers agreeing to enact some of the CEQA exemptions. But when the negotiated language was released earlier this week, it drew swift backlash, especially from labor unions. Lorena Gonzalez, who leads the California Labor Federation, criticized the proposal because she said it did not require high enough wages for construction workers who build the projects allowed under the bill. For years, bills meant to kickstart housing construction have been stymied by labor unions' insistence on provisions that would effectively require that new homes be built by union workers or ones paid what developers often describe as prohibitively high wages. The budget bill lawmakers plan to pass Friday contains a clause that would render it inoperative if lawmakers don't also approve much of the CEQA overhaul that Newsom has called for. The budget deal makes up for a projected $12 billion shortfall in part by taking out billions of dollars in loans and taking money from the state's reserves. It also partially scales back the state's health care coverage for undocumented people who make less than 138% of the federal poverty level. It will freeze enrollment for the program starting next year and will charge undocumented people ages 19-59 $30 per month in premiums starting in 2027. Growing health care costs, in addition to the economic toll from import taxes imposed by President Donald Trump, made the state's budget outlook particularly challenging this year. 'We had to make some very difficult decisions to balance this budget,' Erika Li, a top budget official for the Newsom administration, told lawmakers during a committee hearing earlier this week. Republicans criticized some of the borrowing and budgeting techniques Newsom and lawmakers used to balance the budget, arguing there should have been more cuts given the economic uncertainty in the years ahead. 'This budget that we see today, to the extent that I can understand it, still has a large dose of hope for a miracle, and it is seemingly less likely,' Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said during the committee hearing. Cities and counties, meanwhile, have criticized the agreement for not providing more funding for reducing homelessness and implementing Proposition 36, which increased penalties for drug and theft crimes. The budget does include a $750 million loan for struggling Bay Area transit agencies and an expansion of the state's film tax credit program to $750 million to try to keep the industry in California.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
SLO County supervisor announces run for reelection
At least one current San Luis Obispo County supervisor will run for reelection in 2026. Supervisor Jimmy Paulding announced in a news release on Thursday morning that he will seek to retain his District 4 seat on the Board of Supervisors. 'Serving as District 4 supervisor has been one of the greatest honors of my life,' Paulding said in the release. 'When I first ran, I promised to put people before politics, lead with integrity, and restore trust in local government. Together, we've delivered real, measurable progress — and I'm running for reelection to keep that momentum going.' Paulding was originally elected in 2022, taking office in January 2023. His district includes runs from the coast to the far eastern reaches of the county, including Nipomo, Arroyo Grande, Oceano, Halcyon, Huasna, Edna Valley, the California Valley and other unincorporated portions of San Luis Obispo. Paulding's first two years on the board have been marked by his focus on public safety, emergency preparedness, water security, climate resilience, housing, mental health and a plethora of other issues in the fourth district and beyond. Recently, he championed a project to build a sheriff substation in Nipomo. 'This isn't just a campaign; it's a continuation of the work we've done together to build a more fair, resilient and responsive county government,' Paulding said. 'But that progress is at risk. Special interests are already gearing up to try and take back this seat and bring back the old way of doing things — political games, incivility and a lack of real results. We can't let that happen.' He is the second person to announce his candidacy, shortly following Jim Dantona, the CEO of the SLO Chamber of Commerce, who announced his candidacy for the District 2 seat Thursday morning as Supervisor Bruce Gibson sets down. Paulding will officially kickoff his campaign at an event in Arroyo Grande on July 26. The event will take place from 2 to 5 p.m. at Heritage Square Park in the Arroyo Grande Village. Paulding will be present and ready to meet voters and community members who hope to learn more about his vision for SLO County. More information can be found online at