Neighbors demand environmental review as Santa Barbara planners consider soil remediation at 3139 Sea Cliff

The Single Family Design Board on March 10 held a concept review of a proposed soil remediation project at 3139 Sea Cliff that would excavate and export approximately 2,225 cubic yards of pesticide-contaminated soil and remove several trees, then backfill and hydroseed disturbed areas.

Board members, staff and the applicant emphasized that the hearing was a design concept review and not a final decision on the remediation plan or environmental approvals. Barbara Burkhardt, project planner for the City of Santa Barbara, told the board that the project would adhere to a remedial action plan approved by the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services Site Mitigation Unit and would require a permit to operate from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. "The Air Pollution Control District did rely on environmental health services. However, environmental health services did review the issue thoroughly," Burkhardt said, adding that the city has not completed its own environmental review because the application remains incomplete.

Why it matters: The site has a documented history of pesticide use and several neighbors and community members pressed the board for an environmental impact report (EIR) and for more detailed air- and dust-monitoring plans before excavation begins. Neighbors said contamination poses risks to adjacent properties, to a nearby community farm that supplies food banks, and to Hendry's Beach and its users if contaminants reach drainage pathways.

The applicant, represented by Linda Blackburn of RM Design Group, said the proposal is remediation of contaminated soil with no subdivision before the environmental review is complete. She said excavated soil would be reused on-site to backfill the excavations rather than importing fill. Steve Campbell, the project's engineering geologist, told the board the excavation depths vary across the site and the deepest areas are about 30 inches. Campbell said the finished site would be recontoured and hydroseeded and "there's not gonna be a big gaping hole in the ground when it's done."

Public commenters pressed for stricter oversight and an EIR. A resident identified in the record as Gilberry told the board that Title 22 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code requires a finding that "the public health safety and welfare are properly protected and preserved," and argued the city cannot make that finding without an EIR. "Neither the applicant's team, city staff, county environmental health nor county air pollution control has yet to inform you of the odds of neighbors getting sick from this massive toxic grading," Gilberry said. Neighbor Timothy Rogers cited the site's history as a nursery that used DDT and said residents’ concerns include airborne dust and runoff to nearby beaches. Eve Atkinson and other speakers described dieldrin levels at the site and urged an EIR and more protective mitigation.

Board questions and staff explanation focused on process and jurisdiction. Alan Kokinda, design review supervisor, explained that the project appears before the Single Family Design Board because the municipal code triggers design review for projects with the proposed grading and vegetation removal; the board's review is focused on aesthetic appropriateness. Burkhardt and Kokinda explained that the staff hearing officer will be the decision authority for the Coastal Development Permit and for acceptance of any environmental review; decisions by the staff hearing officer are appealable to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Action taken: Vice Chair Sherry moved — and the board passed — an indefinite continuance to the staff hearing officer with written comments. Among the board's comments the motion recorded were: that the board found the proposed grading and vegetation removal to have an "aesthetically negligible impact" as presented at concept, that the trees proposed for removal appeared necessary for remediation and clearance of overhead utilities and that no specimen oak trees were proposed for removal, and that staff should continue to define the appropriate level of environmental review given the sensitive nature of the soil remediation. The motion passed unanimously (Vice Chair Sherry — yes; Board member Moslihy — yes; Board member Richards — yes).

What's next: Staff will continue completeness review; once the application is deemed complete the city will begin its CEQA analysis and determine if an exemption, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or an EIR is required. The staff hearing officer will consider the Coastal Development Permit and environmental review and those decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Ending: The board's action preserves the project's status as an active but incomplete application while preserving a path for the public to seek further hearings if environmental review proceeds to the Planning Commission or City Council.