A County Planning Commission meeting last week over exemptions to Measure P made for a media blitz Monday, with camps on both sides of the proposed drilling ban accusing the other of lying about how the proposed drilling ban could affect the county. From the steps of the county courthouse, blue-clad supporters reiterated their assertions that only new fracking, acidizing, and cyclic-steaming projects — not existing operations — would feel the effects. Shortly after, flanked by green yard signs and T-shirts at their upper State Street headquarters, a smaller “No” team repeated fears about what the ban would mean for their near- and long-term futures and for the entities that would no longer reap the oil industry’s financial benefits.
The final framework for handling claims of vested rights and takings will be up to the Board of Supervisors next month, but the Planning Commission voted in favor of protocols suggested by the Planning Department over the summer. Barring any changes they make themselves, the supervisors would have the ultimate authority over takings cases, which oil companies would have to submit in tandem with applications for development projects; the commission suggested it have the first crack at those claims. Vested-rights cases — which have drawn the most allegations of lie-spewing from both sides — would be under the planning director’s purview but appealable to the commission and board. Industry officials have stated the protocols — which they said presuppose the measure’s passage on November 4 — do nothing to reassure them their current wells won’t get shut down and thus do nothing to stop them from suing the county on November 5.
At a supervisors meeting in July, County Counsel Mike Ghizzoni said Measure P’s possible victory has seen his office preparing for the county’s largest litigation exposure but that the protocols could stanch some lawsuits. Last week, Deputy County Counsel Bill Dillon looked to further offset an onslaught, saying companies that feel secure in their operations’ vested rights — meaning significant work with a permit or work undertaken prior to a zoning restriction — wouldn’t be forced to go through the county and could continue operating. County planners piggybacked on that, saying projects would only be investigated if complaints were made.