265
signatures to date

Petition Against Santa Barbara's Creek Buffer Ordinance

Sign below 👇

To the City of Santa Barbara:

I oppose the proposed Creek Buffer Ordinance and urge the City to reconsider and ultimately abandon this unnecessary and burdensome regulation. While environmental protection is a worthy goal, this ordinance is redundant, excessively restrictive, and unfair to property owners across Santa Barbara.

Existing regulations at the federal, state, and local levels already safeguard our creeks, waterways, and wildlife. California and Santa Barbara have some of the strictest environmental protections in the nation, covering development, water quality, and habitat conservation. Adding yet another layer of regulation only creates undue hardship for residents and property owners without providing clear, demonstrable benefits.

The proposed ordinance would impose significant new limitations on land use, impacting thousands of property owners. It severely restricts what homeowners and businesses can do with their own land, rendering portions of their properties virtually unusable. Not only would it impede future development, but the ordinance also targets existing homes and other structures, most of which were built several decades ago in compliance with the regulations of their time. Many of the affected neighborhoods and homes have been established for over 50 years. This ordinance would, in effect, force the long-term displacement of homes, businesses, and the people who depend on them.

Beyond the immediate impact on property rights, this ordinance could carry severe financial consequences for property owners. It could decrease property values, make it even harder for homeowners to obtain insurance, and increase the costs and complexity of securing permits. It could also drive more property owners to pursue unpermitted work, ultimately undermining the very regulatory framework the ordinance seeks to enforce.

Despite these far-reaching consequences, the City has not convincingly demonstrated how these new restrictions would yield meaningful environmental or community benefits, nor has it made any serious effort to consult with impacted residents before attempting to fast-track the ordinance.

At a time when Santa Barbara is struggling with housing affordability, this ordinance would only add to the financial burden on residents who simply want to maintain, improve, or develop their properties. Instead of imposing unnecessary new regulations, the City should focus on responsible environmental stewardship that does not unfairly penalize property owners.

For these reasons, I stand with my fellow residents in respectfully urging the City of Santa Barbara to abandon the proposed Creek Buffer Ordinance.

Sign the petition

(By checking this box, you give us permission to publish your name and comments on this website.)

Our objective is to share all petitions with the City of Santa Barbara. By signing this petition, you give us permission to share it with them along with any entered data. Please contact us at info@sbcreekneighbors.org if you have any questions or want to make corrections to your submission.

Public Signatures

Donnie Fellersigned on March 12, 2025 at 3:08 AM
Bruce & Alice Paynesigned on March 12, 2025 at 1:52 AM
In the 41 years of ownership of this lot, We have never experienced more than 6 inches of rain water from winter storms
Louise Mooresigned on March 12, 2025 at 1:19 AM
This proposed ordinance is ill conceived. This will decrease property values. Strongly oppose.
Star Huntsigned on March 11, 2025 at 2:52 PM
But I’m tired of watching home owners lose more and more of their home owners rights in this state! I’m tired of homeowners losing all ability to remove squatters (which needs to be the next petition) their ability to have access to fire insurance, flood insurance and this new thing has now become a land grab!
DAN P BELLINGERsigned on March 11, 2025 at 4:26 AM
While not directly impacted, I am immediately aware of what this will due to the multitude of property owners who are not but a block away from me as neighbors. The seemingly arbitrary decision to callously enact an ordinance aggressively devaluing my neighbors' homes seems wildly unfair. As identified above, we are proud to have stringent rules and regulations in place for our waterways already. During a time where our nation is ripping out regulations left and right, please do not let our turbulent times be an excuse for you to double down on regulations. Be proud of where we are now; do not break the strong community bond with our neighbors and friends via this action. Especially during a time where our nation is ripping out regulations
Angelika Bergersigned on March 11, 2025 at 3:47 AM
This ordinance would severely limit the use of my property and cancel our plans to add an ADU that would provide affordable housing for people who work but cannot live in Santa Barbara and much needed income for us so we can continue living in Santa Barbara. The creek in our backyard is tiny, only has water in it when it rains heavily and runs maximally a week after heavy rains. It has never had a problem with flooding our property or damaging it. I think it's ridiculous to put restrictions on every little creek, and will cause severe losses for the property owners along the creeks. It's totally unnecessary.
Robert Rosssigned on March 11, 2025 at 12:52 AM
Carly Johnsonsigned on March 11, 2025 at 12:36 AM
Joan Rosssigned on March 11, 2025 at 12:13 AM
Our property is in the section of De La Vina where we have the Mission Creek right behind us. Due to the upcoming Reach 4 project, we have already lost 50% of our yard via eminent domaine. This seems so unfair giving the loss we have already suffered due to no fault of our own. PLEASE reconsider.
Ms. Denise Ann Stevenssigned on March 11, 2025 at 12:00 AM
Seems impractical in application to the many already developed areas near the creek. How about we concentrate on saving some of the undeveloped ag land surrounding the city that is more practical and impactful. Short of the City basically using eminent domain (and pissing off a whole bunch of voters who will NOT forget), there is nothing practical in enacting a creek buffer zone decades after development in many areas.
Robyn OHearnsigned on March 10, 2025 at 11:36 PM
Bradford Schaupetersigned on March 10, 2025 at 9:04 PM
I strongly oppose this proposed ordinance. There is no water accumulation at all during rainfall in what is being apparently labeled a 'minor creek' in our backyard. Even in the biggest torrential downpours of 2024 I could truly walk anywhere in my backyard and not get the bottom my pant legs wet. This is a gross overreach of government and the ordinance should be blocked in entirety. It is a highly foolish proposal that will limit homeowners' access to care for their own yards.
Paula Kimbrellsigned on March 10, 2025 at 7:57 PM
At the back of my residential property is a drainage ditch that the proposed ordinance calls a "minor creek," although it is dry except during winter rains. In the 48 years that I have owned the property, rain water seldom creates significant runoff and has never reached the top of the bank. The proposed ordinance lacks a factual basis for the restrictions it seeks to impose.
Richard Townhillsigned on March 10, 2025 at 7:46 PM
This clearly deprives home owners of their property rights. It undermines property values for no environmental gain. The lack of transparency clearly indicates that the city wish to pass this measure as quickly and as stealthily as possible.
James Rileysigned on March 10, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Donnis Galvansigned on March 10, 2025 at 3:26 PM
This ordinance would be extremely unfair and costly to long time home owners are overwhelmed with huge fire insurance increases and who pay substantial property taxes, while providing limited real benefits. The ordinance is an ill conceived overreach of government regulation that rejects the needs of hundreds of city residents.
Lex McKennasigned on March 10, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Kelly Yturraldesigned on March 10, 2025 at 3:30 AM
Many houses in our neighborhood are impacted by the control creek along Las Positas. This is an extreme request! To potentially remove homes because of their distance from a creek? This is a bad display of the city wasting our taxes with a quickly contrived solution. I understand that witnessing the Montecito floods was devistating and it brought up ligitimate concerns but this plan is not the right one for Santa Barbara. Do not support it.
Yolanda Yturraldesigned on March 10, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Our house is less than 35 feet from the controlled creek and in the event of an earthquake we wouldn't be able to rebuild in our own home's footprint causing a hardship.
Maxine Dekkersigned on March 9, 2025 at 10:51 PM
This would cost me millions as 80% of my residence is within these new extended boundaries.
Sarah Schaupetersigned on March 9, 2025 at 9:56 PM
The term “minor creek” was arbitrarily introduced by City staff to classify features that were never previously recognized as creeks by residents or to the residents. This is a clear overreach. The definition of “minor creeks” is vague and subjective, granting the Creeks Division excessive discretionary power. Many of these so-called creeks have never flooded or even contained flowing water, yet the ordinance applies indiscriminately to all, including these minor creeks—an unreasonable and illogical approach. Worse, many of the affected areas are private property, inaccessible to the public, yet it is property owners who will bear the brunt of these unfair restrictions. This policy is not just flawed—it’s an unjust infringement on private property rights.
Lee Chiacossigned on March 9, 2025 at 5:57 PM
At the same time the state is requiring more housing, we don't need more regulations to limit property rights.
JEFF FRANKENFIELDsigned on March 9, 2025 at 3:30 AM
Curt Crawshawsigned on March 9, 2025 at 3:12 AM
This is a completely unreasonable measure.
Tim Burgersigned on March 9, 2025 at 2:07 AM
I oppose this new ordinance
danae liechtisigned on March 9, 2025 at 1:23 AM
I would accept this moving forward for new building projects but strongly oppose homes having to be moved and not having freedom to garden as we please on our property.
Ricardo Lopezsigned on March 9, 2025 at 12:06 AM
Phillip Nighsigned on March 8, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Samantha Irelandsigned on March 8, 2025 at 11:54 PM
Cameron Shaffersigned on March 8, 2025 at 6:44 PM
I am strongly against this ordinance.
Eric Statessigned on March 8, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Julie Statessigned on March 8, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Steve Fortsigned on March 8, 2025 at 3:53 PM
prem krishsigned on March 8, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Kevin Davissigned on March 8, 2025 at 2:16 AM
Severe government overreach into the rights of property holders. Strongly opposed.
Scott C Lederhaussigned on March 8, 2025 at 1:43 AM
My home was built in 1947. My wife and I remodeled the home about 12 years ago with full approval of the plans by the city. Parts of my home would be affected by a 15 foot offset from the edge of the creek, and the property is small enough that any future structure could not be put on my property due to size constraints.
greg ticesigned on March 8, 2025 at 1:30 AM
Existing properties on minor creeks should be exempt if they need to rebuild.
Harry Gierhartsigned on March 8, 2025 at 1:21 AM
This is taking 75% of my property away forever. 50 ft line comes into my house. I have a large tree growing towards my house in the theft-of-property zone. If it becomes a fire hazard, I cannot cut it or trim it. This ordinance cannot anticipate all the possible changes for decades or a century. The city employees enforcing this cannot reasonable state what will happen in 50 years or more. Totally unrealistic. I think I might have to cut down some huge trees ahead of the date of implementation.
Brent Bottelsensigned on March 8, 2025 at 12:19 AM
we have a tennis facility that only has a pool, our driveway and a creek. We would lose access to half of our property.
Shawn Reilleysigned on March 7, 2025 at 11:35 PM
Thus is ridiculous and would be extremely burdensome and not even possible in the trailer park I live in.
Pierrick Vulliezsigned on March 7, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Glen Casebeersigned on March 7, 2025 at 8:43 PM
This ordinance is not an urgent matter. No new State regulation necessitates an urgent and haphazardly constructed response from the City. Given the ordinance’s numerous issues and its wide-ranging impacts, the City should start the process over, this time ensuring that stakeholders are given ample time to consider the ramifications.
Koonce, Nicksigned on March 7, 2025 at 7:40 PM
I favor property own rights over increasing, already burdensome, environmental regulations.
Brad T Mooresigned on March 7, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Please reconsider this overly restrictive ordinance. We support environmental protection but not undue hardships.
Robert F Feittsigned on March 7, 2025 at 7:11 AM
A similar attempt at this was tried several years ago by Jill Zachary, who I believe heads up the Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department. She attempted to hide the effort from residents, but it was uncovered at the last minute and defeated by a large surprise turnout at a hearing. Her move at that time would have given public access to hikers, etc. through private property. This may be another attempt to do this through a multi stage process.
Janet Olaughlinsigned on March 7, 2025 at 4:24 AM
The ordinance is arbitrary and not related to known hazards.
Margaret Saltersigned on March 7, 2025 at 3:51 AM
We tried several years ago to cover the "minor creek" next to our commercial property and the city refused to allow us to do it which is unfortunate as this would not be an issue now for us!
John B. Marvinsigned on March 7, 2025 at 3:47 AM
Land owners do not need another layer of government interference in how the landowner manages their property.
John Vrtiaksigned on March 7, 2025 at 2:30 AM
Does this mean that we cannot plant fruit trees in our back yard?
Andrian Kouznetsovsigned on March 7, 2025 at 1:56 AM
Robert Shandsigned on March 7, 2025 at 1:36 AM
I believe this is a substantial overreach, a blanket approach which could potentially effect hundreds of residents adversely.
Hannahsigned on March 6, 2025 at 8:16 PM
Asking for the city to provide more thorough information to residents and home owners. This includes DIRECTLY informing local residents and home owners if they will in fact be directly impacted by this ordinance. The residents of Santa Barbara are constantly at battle for permitting alone, lags on responses, etc. This proposed ordinance is quick, and sneaky and will catch long time, Santa Barbara residents off guard. In a time where housing alone is tough to manage, I oppose this proposal for the time being.
KIRK WYATTsigned on March 6, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Being directly impacted by this proposed ordinance, the first time I even heard about it was today 3/6/25 via a local homeowners association. I monitor my mail closely and I never received any type of notification from the City?! The lack of notification and ordinance schedule does not allow sufficient time for a thorough review, by those impacted, to fully understand the ramifications. Based upon the draft proposal and what I've read, this appears to be another level of bureaucracy that is totally unnecessary and unacceptable!
Jerry Baileysigned on March 6, 2025 at 7:18 PM
I built my home with permits in 1971-1972 adjacent to a barranca which takes street runoff during rains & over the past 50+ years has had no affects on my property, environment or wildlife.
Jason Sunukjiansigned on March 6, 2025 at 7:04 PM
The current regulations are already arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome.
richard hilliardsigned on March 6, 2025 at 6:23 PM
This is another example of the taking of property rights when there is no existing threat to the community as a whole and the existing controlling ordinance has proven to be wholly adequate.
Christy Bornemansigned on March 6, 2025 at 6:01 PM
Debbie Armstrongsigned on March 6, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Peter Sullivansigned on March 6, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Blair Edwardssigned on March 6, 2025 at 3:36 PM
I have personally seen ordinances like this reduce people’s property value to the degree that is significantly impacted their family. The health of our waterways is a valuable cause, but the method of doing it should not overreach into taking private property.
Jed Hendricksonsigned on March 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
I oppose the Creek Buffer Ordinance
Mark Grivettisigned on March 6, 2025 at 6:18 AM
The new ordinance is not necessary. Existing setbacks are adequate. With the increase in natural disasters and the need for subsequent rebuilding, this new ordinance will be a major hindrance toward rebuilding efforts.
Susan Shieldssigned on March 6, 2025 at 4:52 AM
I own a home in the city of Santa Barbara. I believe that, unless there exists an actual physical danger to the safety of a property owned here, every homeowner should have equal rights to utilize their property and enjoy every inch of their outdoor space, as long as they adhere to any pertinent zoning regulations. All homeowners pay county property taxes and we all deserve the same rights.
Ivan Lorkovicsigned on March 6, 2025 at 4:33 AM
What’s the point? The ecology of what point in time are we attempting to maintain in perpetuity? Why is that point in time special? Similarly, the expensive, restrictive, and time consuming work done on Tunnel trail has nothing to show for it but a lot of plumbing and modern contrivances, again in the name of preserving what exactly? Just pave our roads and keep the city trees pruned, please, and KEEP TRAILS OPEN. Things change, get over it. One need not control all plant and animal populations with an iron grip to be nature friendly.
Kevin M Welshsigned on March 6, 2025 at 4:01 AM
I am strongly opposed to this ordinance. It is absolutely imperative that it not be adopted.
Edith Ogellasigned on March 6, 2025 at 2:00 AM
It does not matter if I am impacted. These people have made choices to live near a creek, they should be allowed to manage their own property as they wish.
Anne Croffsigned on March 5, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Stephen Pottengersigned on March 5, 2025 at 7:03 PM
Avrom Altmansigned on March 5, 2025 at 5:13 PM
As a homeowner in Santa Barbara who has paid my property taxes for over 25 years, has maintained my property, and insured my property, I fiercely object to any ordinances or regulations that make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to insure my property, that destroy my property’s value, and make it impossible to rebuild or sell. We love living near Sycamore Canyon Creek. We cause no damage or interfere with the life of the flora and fauna. In fact we are protective of them. Don’t attack or diminish our rights as property owners. Or make me an offer for my home based on fair market value (including cost of moving) as of 1/1/2025 before this proposal which is egregious overreach based on specious and unsupported reasoning regarding conservation.
Jarrett Gorinsigned on March 5, 2025 at 3:51 AM
I have been a planning professional for over 30 years. I have never seen an ordinance that went tis far to deprive people of their property rights. The ordinance is completely one-sided and focuses on a single issue to the exclusion of many other issues that are critical to the City. Also there was no attempt to engage the community during the deveopment of this ordinance. It was crafted in secret by staff within in the silo of their department and then foisted on the community almost by surprise.
Nicholas Sebastian signed on March 4, 2025 at 11:38 PM
Suzanne Weintraubsigned on March 4, 2025 at 9:27 PM
We have lived in our home for 32 years & have always been as careful as possible to take care of the creek. We have spent thousands to remove eucalyptus trees, knowing they are dangerous & non-native.
Harrison Croffsigned on March 4, 2025 at 8:55 PM
We are in a massive housing crisis. Not a single city employee can afford to purchase a median priced home in the city they serve. These type of policies have led us to the brink of disaster. It is a shame that the city is still intent on pushing obviously NIMBY policies designed to transfer wealth from poor to rich, young to old and the have nots to the haves.
Maryamsigned on March 4, 2025 at 8:02 PM
John Patesigned on March 4, 2025 at 5:50 PM
City of SB has not provided storm drains that are operational up and down Barker Pass Road, Eucalyptus Hill Road levels 2 and 3, this is a safety issue.
Jeff Mikeskasigned on March 4, 2025 at 5:22 PM
M house is within 50 feet of the top of the bank. If the house burns down will I be able to rebuild?
Vinay Mahadiksigned on March 4, 2025 at 5:09 AM
The creek next to our property has never flooded and is tiny. We would like to be excepted out of this ordinance.
Brian Rochlitzersigned on March 3, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Borissigned on March 3, 2025 at 8:12 PM
I strongly support the effort to stop the Creek Buffer Ordinance in Santa Barbara. This redundant and overly restrictive regulation unfairly burdens property owners without clear environmental benefits. The City should prioritize fair, practical solutions over adding unnecessary hardships for residents.
David Hofbergsigned on March 3, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Bre Rodriguezsigned on March 3, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Chris Dahlstromsigned on March 2, 2025 at 11:40 PM
Pamela Langhornesigned on March 2, 2025 at 7:08 PM
This ordinance will unjustly affect numerous homeowners, and I firmly oppose the proposed legislation.
Karim Younessigned on March 2, 2025 at 4:38 PM
This ordinance is redundant, excessively restrictive, and unfair to property owners across Santa Barbara. There does not seem to be any rational justification for it. I will fight it all the way to the courts if need be.
John Brobergsigned on February 28, 2025 at 6:32 PM
The existing ordinance is good enough. If the creek people are getting bored get out there and clean out the large branches and debris from the creeks that will cause problems in a hard rain.
Joan E Estessigned on February 28, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Daniel McCarter signed on February 28, 2025 at 5:04 AM
1) I’m concerned that if I loose my house to fire that I will either not be allowed to rebuild or experience delays and extra permitting expenses to deal with. 2) Creek sections that are reinforced with concrete should be exempt as those sections already have reduced habitat value and added erosion control. 3) If the ordinance does pass, I expect the Arroyo Burro section of creek from the freeway to the YMCA be required to provide a 50 foot setback when the La Cumbre Plaza is developed. No exemption for the development. Infact, that section needs to be restored as per the city charter. Im not confident this proposal is well thought out.
Richard G. Battlessigned on February 28, 2025 at 12:40 AM
It appears that our entire back yard and possibly portions of our house may be within 50 feet of the top of the bank of Arroyo Burro Creek and therefore subject to the proposed creek buffer ordinance. As I read the ordinance, it would impose severe restrictions on our ability to make any alterations to our house or rebuild it in the event of a disaster. This would, without a doubt, reduce the value of our property and make it more difficult to obtain financing and insurance. In addition, the ordinance would prohibit in our back yard (a) “the [p]lacement or erection of any solid material, building, or structure regardless of type” (which means no playhouse for our granddaughters), (b) the “[p]lacement of new agriculture, trees, or landscaping” (so my retirement wouldn’t be spent gardening and working in the yard as I had planned, and my wife would no longer be allowed to plant new herbs and flowers in her vegetable boxes), (c) the “[r]emoval of vegetation or trees (so we would be stuck forever with the vegetation and trees we now have), and (d) “the construction or placement of a fence, landscaping, wall, retaining wall, curb, steps, deck, walkway, or paving” (so we would have to let go of all the plans and dreams we have for further improving our yard in the future). It's honestly difficult for me to believe that the City is seriously considering an ordinance as extreme and unreasonable as this. The City (i) zoned thousands of properties adjacent to creeks for residential development and use, and (ii) issued building permits for the construction of houses and other improvements on those properties. It’s therefore simply too late for the City to now decide “to move as many structures as possible outside of the creek buffer areas”. It would also be fundamentally unfair, inconsistent with principles of sound planning, and probably illegal for the City to now take away so many of the property rights and permitted uses that the owners paid for when purchasing their properties and that they reasonably expected to continue in perpetuity. The City should instead consider public education and outreach, incentives, and/or rebates to encourage voluntary efforts by property owners to reduce risks associated with flooding and erosion, enhance water quality, reduce runoff, protect and enhance riparian habitats and wildlife corridors, and preserve scenic beauty. The City can also achieve many of its goals simply by better enforcement of existing creek protection regulations.
Rachael Siebenalersigned on February 27, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Jeff Ruppertsigned on February 27, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Kara Ruppertsigned on February 27, 2025 at 6:46 PM
Jessica Haassigned on February 27, 2025 at 5:50 PM
Santa Barbara already has too many rules & regulations in place for home owners near creeks. The city makes it very hard for middle income native people who are just trying to make a home for themselves & survive in this crazy expensive town. We paid hundreds of thousands for permits that took us years to get approved to rebuild our home that was burnt down in the tea fire, it’s absolutely absurd. No more restrictions
Josh Rohmersigned on February 27, 2025 at 5:00 PM
This proposed ordinance unfairly puts the burden of city staff's goals for "resilience" on the shoulders of thousands of property owners who would lose substantial rights to utilize their property. If this is a civic priority, the city should offer to purchase development rights from property owners who want to participate.
Jennifer Heinemannsigned on February 27, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Alan Siebenalersigned on February 27, 2025 at 6:11 AM
Why doesn’t the city or the environmental protection groups test the water run off and water quality in the creeks and limit the use of pesticides? From my understanding the city is a heavy user of pesticide and does little to educate home owners one the dangers pesticides getting into runoff and creek water. Doesn’t that seem like a major concern, over taking away property owners rights to improve / repair their properties that live next to a creek? The creek protections are already in place and to bring them as far as this ordinance pushes them makes it unbelievably burdensome for homeowners near a creek.
Dan Waldman signed on February 27, 2025 at 1:56 AM
Kristen Battlessigned on February 27, 2025 at 12:25 AM
Hilary Dozersigned on February 27, 2025 at 12:06 AM
This proposed ordinance is ill advised, not well thought out, and will negatively impact homeowners in the impacted areas. The city should make a greater effort to address the overgrown watershed areas (wildfires) and inadequate drainage capabilities (flooding) existing in the designated major and minor waterways.
Robert Meltzersigned on February 26, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Evan Skeisigned on February 26, 2025 at 11:36 PM
As much as I support most environmental issues, the ripple effects of this proposed ordinance far outweigh any potential benefit to our community. When measured against our housing crisis, and the steep regulatory barriers that already exist for even modest redevelopment, this proposal is poorly conceived and wrong headed. Please vote it down.
Bharat Singhsigned on February 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM
The proposed Santa Barbara Creek Buffer Ordinance imposes excessive restrictions on property owners, rendering land within 50 feet of creek banks unusable for development or landscaping. This overreach not only devalues thousands of properties but also infringes upon homeowners’ rights to maintain and improve their residences. While environmental preservation is essential, this ordinance’s blanket approach fails to balance ecological concerns with property rights and community needs. We urge city officials to reconsider and develop a more equitable solution that protects our creeks without unduly burdening residents.
Colleen P Beallsigned on February 26, 2025 at 10:07 PM
This is the most poorly thought out ordinance I have come across - and I am speaking as a former land use attorney for the County and former First District County Planning Commissioner. This will have immediate and devastating impacts on insurance, property values and the economy of the City. What you SHOULD do is get started building debris flow basins like the County has. Protect the people - don't steal from them.
Susan Dahlstromsigned on February 26, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Andreas Schwarzsigned on February 26, 2025 at 8:30 PM
The city of Santa Barbara is pointing at the County and Goleta's buffer ordinances as justification for this, yet those ordinances are categorically different in scope and restriction. If Santa Barbara truly believes the County and Goleta are good examples, why don't they keep the scope of their ordinance similar to those examples?
Joan Fargassigned on February 26, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Reading Wilsonsigned on February 26, 2025 at 7:22 PM
The map provided is not clear enough as it relates to my property. I would hate for something to be passed WITHOUT full understanding by the neighborhood.
John Burksigned on February 26, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Environmental over-reach will only hinder fire mitigation efforts. efforts.
Greg lowesigned on February 26, 2025 at 5:56 PM
This ordnance will definitely negatively affect impacted property. Why don’t you come up with a more creative solution. Owners could donate to a preservation trust and receive a tax credit and property tax relief during their lifetime. Something that benefits both parties not a one sided power play
Emily Uhlandsigned on February 26, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Lucas Martinez signed on February 26, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Susan Burksigned on February 26, 2025 at 4:49 PM
It an example of government overreach to control something that is not needed.
Steven Johnsonsigned on February 26, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Violates SB330 Determination of top of bank is not based on science.
robert madaysigned on February 26, 2025 at 4:15 PM
Susan Patesigned on February 26, 2025 at 4:14 PM
My property is on a seasonal tributary, never been noted as a "Major Creek" for 27 years+. It's wet about 30 days of the year, otherwise the seasonal tributary is dry. The City of Santa Barbara has been negligent in not building rain water drainage into the streets. This is the main problem within the City. During heavy rains, the lack of City drainage system is what causes a safety hazards for citizens. The City has not spent its time or money on fixing the rain runoff drainage system in their streets. We pay taxes so that we can pay the City to take care of safety issues. There has been no demonstration as to why this particular tributary is now being considered a "Major Creek." There are so many problems with this proposed ordinance. I wish my tax paying dollars had been spent on City street drainage.
Brendan nelsonsigned on February 26, 2025 at 3:33 PM
This is classic unnecessary bureaucratic law that makes zero sense. Do not impede on my property or rights.
Ronald Seesigned on February 26, 2025 at 3:11 PM
This ordinance would be extremely unfair and costly to long time home owners who pay substantial property taxes, while providing limited real benefits. The ordinance is an ill conceived overreach of government regulation that rejects the needs of hundreds of city residents.