The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on Oct. 20 denied without prejudice a proposal to remediate contaminated soil at 3139 Seacliff after members said they could not make a required neighborhood preservation finding that addresses public health, safety and welfare. The project received technical approvals from Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services (EHS) and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), but public commenters and several board members said the board could not responsibly make the health‑and‑safety finding without additional expert input.

Applicants proposed excavation and off‑site disposal of approximately 2,225 cubic yards of contaminated soil at depths ranging from about 12 to 36 inches, with on‑site balancing of about 1,350 cubic yards of cut and 1,350 cubic yards of fill. The plan calls for removal and replacement of trees: staff materials listed removal of 17 front‑setback trees and 38 interior trees (55 total) with a proposed 1:1 replacement program (about 55 new trees). The project includes a construction staging area, a stabilized construction entrance and post‑grading hydroseeding with native erosion‑control seed.

Representing the owners, Dale Karen said the family intends to live at the property and described the cleanup as a long‑term stewardship decision. “My family and I, along with 2 other families, all with young children, plan to make this our permanent home,” Karen told the board. The applicants said they had met with neighbors, retained a licensed geologist and had worked with EHS and APCD to produce a remedial action plan and air‑monitoring conditions; the staff hearing officer had approved a coastal development permit and determined the project qualified for a CEQA exemption under cleanup‑related guidance.

Dozens of neighbors and environmental advocates spoke at the hearing and submitted written comments. Speakers said the excavation would raise toxic dust that could include aldrin — a pesticide the public commenters described as a long‑lasting neurotoxin and carcinogen — and urged the board to require a lower community dust‑action level and independent monitoring. As neighbor Gil Berry told the board: “This 2 month grading operation will cause a significant quantity of highly toxic cancer causing dust to be raised into the air... This microscopic dust stays in the air for weeks, so will be breathed 24 7 for 2 months.” Multiple speakers asked the board to require an action level of 25 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for particulate monitoring rather than the 50 µg/m3 standard that has been applied locally in this project’s permits.

Planning staff and the acting design review supervisor told the board the Single Family Design Board’s formal purview is aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and grading visibility; they noted that environmental and public‑health review was conducted by EHS and APCD and that the staff hearing officer’s CEQA exemption determination and related permits are on the record. Acting design review supervisor Ted Hamilton emphasized the board is charged with assessing aesthetic grading impacts and neighborhood preservation and urged members to focus comments on those criteria.

Board members said they were not qualified to make the neighborhood finding about public health and safety without additional expert, jurisdictional input. After discussion, a board member moved to deny the project without prejudice on the ground that the board could not make the required finding regarding public health, safety and welfare. The motion passed; the recorded roll call during the vote listed Board member Moslihy: yes; Board member Gafide: no; Vice chair Sherry: yes; Chair Lewis: yes. The board indicated the denial was without prejudice, meaning applicants may return with additional documentation or modifications and that an appeal path to the Planning Commission remains available for parties that seek review of the earlier staff hearing officer decisions.

The project record shows the remedial action plan was prepared for review by Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services and that APCD issued a permit to operate with construction‑phase dust‑control conditions. The board’s action does not alter those agency permits; it reflects the SFDB’s inability to make a neighborhood preservation finding about public health and safety given the level of community concern and the board members’ view that the finding goes beyond the board’s expertise.