On Dec. 14, a pile of dirt caused a stir among the Santa Barbara County planning commissioners who denied an appeal of the board’s decision to allow a Santa Ynez resident’s pool project.
Santa Ynez resident Lonny Maniscalco wants to use the dirt for a pool project in his yard. Sandra Brown, Maniscalco’s neighbor, moved to block the use of the dirt stating in her appeal to commissioners that the project is too visible from her backyard, could cause a nuisance, and violates her privacy rights due to a variety of reasons that included light and noise pollution issues.
It’s a simple pile of dirt that’s not only causing disdain between neighbors, but one that could open the floodgates for similar projects put before the commission, according 1st District Commissioner C. Michael Cooney. The issue also opened up a larger discussion about what constitutes appropriate land use.
Maniscalco’s original application was approved on Dec. 11, 2015, and allowed him to use the 97 cubic yards of displaced dirt (or “fill material”) to build a mound that’ll be used to support a pool slide. The project also includes a lagoon-style pool with a rock structure, hot tub, and picnic area.
In a report at the time, Planning and Development staff stated the project was in compliance with applicable county land use laws. Such projects that meet this requirement don’t normally face the commission’s scrutiny, according to county planner John Zorovich, unless it’s appealed or denied. In this case, it was appealed by Brown.
“If you’re doing something grandiose, then it would rise to the level of consideration from the planning commissioners,” Zorovich told the Sun. “In this case, because it’s a permit for a pool, the decision is made at the staff level.”
Cooney, along with 3rd District Commissioner Marell Brooks, were the only two among the five commissioners who voted in favor of the appeal.
In supporting the appeal, Brooks explained that she didn’t particularly agree that the project wasn’t subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Maniscalco’s project received class 3 and 4 CEQA exemptions because it didn’t include major construction of new facilities and didn’t involve significant impacts to the environment, respectively.
A Planning and Development staff report stated that the project was only a “minor alteration” to the land. Brooks disagreed and had a hard time with leaving 97 cubic yards of displaced dirt on the property. She expressed concern over a lack of a plan for the soil.
“It seems to me that it’s not minor,” Brooks said. “This is a very, very constricted part of a 1-acre lot.”
Passed in 1970, CEQA came amid national discussions on environmental protections following the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill disaster. Many states have similar laws but California’s is among the most powerful because it requires state and local agencies to follow a rigorous analytical process to determine how a project will impact the environment, according to Arthur Coon, an attorney with the Miller Starr Regalia law firm in San Francisco.
One of CEQA’s advantages, Cood said, is that the development industry has become much more mitigated and aware of environmental impacts.
One downside is that the law is too broad, Coon added. Only projects that are considered to have a significant impact receive enough scrutiny to warrant an environmental impact report. This is a “squishy” thing, Coon said, because each jurisdiction has different thresholds for what’s considered significant.
Also, Coon said, “NIMBYS” (an acronym for “not in my backyard”) will often use the law as a means to oppose projects, regardless of whether or not the appeal is used for environmental purposes.
“It’s been criticized that the standing has been too broad, that competitors use it and it’s too easy to sue under it,” Coon told the Sun. “It’s a fairly complex law.”
For Maniscalco, the law is clear. As an employee of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Maniscalco said he is quite familiar with the checks and balances for land use laws and agrees that the process needs to be in place to protect citizens.
He believes that commissioners Cooney and Brooks were attempting to stretch their authority over his project, and for them to cite CEQA was out of line.
“The state clearly puts exemptions on there so it doesn’t get bogged down,” Maniscalco told the Sun.
Attempts by the Sun to reach Brown before press time were not successful.
“My right to privacy is important to me,” Brown said at the meeting. “A lot of issues that have gone on in this hearing are because of privacy.”
“We don’t particularly protect private views,” 5th District Commissioner Daniel Blough responded.
Brown’s appeal was filed on Jan. 6, 2016, and it took a year for the commission to allow it to go forward.
This is abusive, Maniscalco said.
“The appeals process is complaint-driven, and everyone is forced to go through it,” Maniscalco told the Sun. “When you abuse the process, it costs the county a lot of money.”
Staff Writer David Minsky can be reached at dminsky@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Dec 22-29, 2016.