The Santa Barbara Planning Commission on Dec. 18 denied an appeal of the staff hearing officer’s Oct. 15 approval of a coastal development permit for soil remediation at 3139 Seacliff and affirmed the city’s categorical CEQA exemption for the cleanup, voting 4‑0. Commissioners added conditions requiring city review of erosion‑and‑sediment controls to prevent site runoff prior to grading permit issuance, expanded neighborhood notification and strengthened air‑quality monitoring and stop‑work procedures.

Staff presented the project as a remedial action to remove contaminated soil left from a former orchid nursery. Associate Planner Carly Ernest said the plan calls for excavation of shallow, targeted areas (depths cited at about 12–36 inches), export of 2,225 cubic yards of contaminated soil, and regrading and replanting with 55 replacement trees. Staff said qualified technical studies — a biological resources assessment, arborist report, erosion‑control plan and a remedial action plan reviewed by county Environmental Health Services (EHS) — support the city’s finding that the cleanup fits CEQA’s Class 30 categorical exemption for small or medium removal actions (§15330).

“County Environmental Health reviewed the remedial action plan and confirmed it complies with current regulatory cleanup levels,” said Tom Razek of the Santa Barbara County site mitigation unit, who described decades of testing and corrective action planning at the site. David Harris, manager of the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District’s Engineering Division, said APCD will require dust and vapor suppression, a monitoring program and operational limits during excavation and transport.

Appellant Gil Barry, a neighbor who said he spent years researching the site, told the commission he believes pesticide residues including aldrin and dieldrin remain on large portions of the three‑acre parcel and that excavation could create cancer‑causing dust exposures to nearby residents and a neighboring working organic farm. “Words on a permit can’t stop cancer‑causing dust from rising,” Barry said, urging an environmental impact report or an alternative such as capping and import of clean soil.

The applicant’s attorney, Beth Collins, said the applicants and multiple regulatory agencies have analyzed and conditioned the remedial action plan, and that the owners voluntarily agreed to measures that go beyond typical permit requirements: monitoring checks every 15 minutes (applicant offering twice the APCD standard), a lower dust‑action level when removing the most contaminated soils, seven‑day neighbor notice before removal events and dry‑weather work windows. Geologist Steve Campbell described common dust‑suppression tactics — pre‑wetting, direct loading and on‑site hoses — and said the bulk of contamination is shallow and addressable by focused excavation.

Commissioners pressed staff and agency experts on a range of technical issues: how monitoring triggers and averaging periods are defined, the procedure for stop‑work and complaints, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of cost estimates (staff cited a preliminary geologist estimate of $538,000; the appellant submitted a higher professional estimate), and measures to prevent sediment or contaminated runoff. City and county staff explained that if grading exceeds one acre the project would require a state general construction (stormwater) permit and that the city would review a detailed erosion control plan when the grading permit is submitted. APCD said its goal is to respond to active complaints within about an hour and that permit conditions require immediate mitigation and notification if monitors exceed thresholds.

After public rebuttals from the applicant and appellant, Vice Chair Boss moved to deny the appeal and uphold the staff hearing officer’s approval; commissioners accepted amended language proposed by staff to require explicit city review of erosion‑and‑sediment controls for the contaminated portion of the site prior to any building/grading permit issuance, and to require adherence to Best Management Practices as applicable. The motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote.

What the commission approved: the Planning Commission upheld the staff hearing officer’s coastal development permit and the city’s categorical CEQA determination for the remedial action plan, subject to the conditions in the staff hearing officer resolution plus additional language directing city review of site runoff controls, continued APCD and EHS oversight, a construction contact sign for neighbor complaints and the more frequent monitoring schedule agreed by the applicant. The commission also confirmed that the staff hearing officer’s decision may be appealed to City Council.

Background and next steps: the site, in the Campanile (Yankee Farm) neighborhood, was used as an orchid greenhouse for decades and has been the subject of testing and remediation planning since the 2000s. The approved remedial action consists of targeted shallow excavation, off‑site disposal of contaminated soils and on‑site backfill and revegetation; the applicant proposes to subdivide the cleaned parcel into three residential lots after remediation. Before grading, the project still needs applicable permits and inspections from building and safety, APCD and the state water board if the grading triggers statewide stormwater requirements. County EHS and APCD staff will continue to inspect and enforce permit conditions during construction.