The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved plans last week for a proposed home in the Naples area of the Gaviota Coast despite opposition from local environmental groups.
The Planning Commission voted against the appeal in a 4-1 vote on Wednesday after hours of discussion opposing the project. Commissioners Michael Cooney, Kate Ford, Roy Reed and Vincent Martinez voted against the appeal, and John Parke supported the appeal.
The project would be at 61 Napoli St. and include a 6,100-square-foot home with two accessory dwelling units, a detached barn, a pool, a spa and a wastewater treatment system.
The project applicant is DMF Fund LLC, and the project approval was appealed by the Environmental Defense Center, the Surfrider Foundation and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy.
Beth Collins, a representative for the applicant, said the plan balances the desire to build a home on the land but respects the shoreline and local ecosystem.
Under the plan, 84% of the property, 12 acres, would be preserved as open land. The project also would provide access to public trails and beach access easements for the public.
“There is going to be a house,” Collins said. “You’re allowed to have a house, but we also are respecting priority coastal resources and uses, including recreation and (agriculture) and habitat.”
Opponents of the project say allowing the project to move forward would irreparably damage the local environment and animals that live on it. Appeal documents say the area’s natural habitat is home to the white-tailed kite, the California red-footed frog, the Southwestern pond turtle and various species of bumblebees.
“The current plan does not adequately address these wildlife impacts, allows for continued soil disturbance and does not ensure long-term protection of restored habitats as required by the (Gaviota Coast Plan),” said Tara Rengifo, the senior attorney for the EDC.
Rengifo said the Gaviota Coast Plan should protect the area from development by preventing the project from being broken up for development. The plan was adopted by the county in 2016.
Fourth District Commissioner Roy Reed said that despite his love for nature, he did not find the habitats of local birds pivotal to his decision.
Reed said he is aware the issue is likely to be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, but said he did not see any reason to approve the appeal.
“I’d much rather have it go to the Board of Supervisors, and I think … give the applicant the respect they deserve for their many years of concessions,” Reed said. “Their concessions to provide coastal access (and) their agreement to provide continuing … access to those who have trespassed over that property for decades.”
During deliberations, Fifth District Commissioner John Parke said he was concerned whether the project would fragment the coastline. He also said he appreciated the habitat restoration proposed, but he could not support the project.