Creek Buffer Ordinance

Comments and questions for the City

Author

Joan Fargas

Date Published

Last Updated

Here is a list of comments and questions we have compiled from your feedback. Feel free to use it when submitting your public comments, and reach out if you want us to add anything (info@sbcreekneighbors.org).


Timelines

  • Stakeholders have not been given sufficient time to respond. From the initial notification to the end of the public comment period, only 5–6 weeks were allowed. Even with the 2-week extension granted by City staff in response to stakeholder feedback, the timeline remains too expedited for affected property owners to prepare informed responses and public comments.
  • This ordinance is not an urgent matter. No new State regulation necessitates a quick response from the City. Given the ordinance’s numerous issues, the City should start over, this time involving stakeholders from the outset.

Unreasonable Scope and Questionable Legality

  • The scope and magnitude of the proposed regulations significantly exceed state and federal requirements. Many view this as regulatory overreach.
  • Some prohibitions are extreme: the ordinance bans non-native plants, landscaping, and gardens in creek buffer areas. These are features property owners typically expect to develop and maintain on their land.
  • There are serious concerns regarding the ordinance’s legality.

Property Values

  • Land use restrictions and the possibility of higher insurance premiums or the inability to secure insurance as a result of this ordinance will reduce property values. Why isn't the City compensating property owners accordingly?

Lack of Transparency

  • City staff have been working on this draft since at least 2023 without involving stakeholders until now.
  • The City held an open house at the same time stakeholders were receiving the first and only notification. Many never saw the notice in time, and no additional open houses or workshops have been scheduled. Instead, City staff are reaching out to stakeholders individually.
  • The only notification mailed by the City was a plain postcard, easy to overlook and failing to convey the magnitude of the proposed restrictions.
  • Private citizens have had to organize basic awareness efforts, such as mailing stakeholders again or distributing printouts in Spanish.
  • This ordinance would severely restrict property rights for over 2,000 owners—approximately 8% of city parcels, according to City staff. Given this impact, the level of public engagement has been wholly inadequate.
  • The City’s decision to propose such severe restrictions and attempt to fast-track them raises serious concerns. How does the City plan to regain stakeholders’ trust?

Efficiency and Process Improvements

  • Instead of imposing new and more stringent restrictions, has the City considered improving the existing permitting processes? What alternative approaches were explored besides the regulations in this ordinance?
  • City staff have justified the ordinance by stating that some property owners, when faced with the existing permitting process, have asked for "just a number" (a clear, defined setback). However, has anyone requested that the number be 50 feet? It is doubtful that most stakeholders would prefer such an extreme restriction over the current requirements, no matter how inefficient they may be.
  • Staff have also cited inconsistent decisions as a justification for this ordinance. Has the City investigated the reasons for these inconsistencies? Could the issue be that the Creeks Division has too much discretionary power which would only increase with this ordinance? An official inquiry into the Creeks Division’s practices might reveal solutions that do not simply amount to prohibiting everything.
  • Another benefit touted by City staff and elected officials is that having a set buffer will benefit residents outside of it, given that today anyone relatively close to a creek (further from 50 ft) can be forced by the City to go through studies to get permits. This explanation defies logic: if this is really a concern, why isn't the ordinance limiting itself to keeping things as is within the buffers and explicitly removing the need for studies outside of them?

Unrealistic Setback Dimensions

  • Santa Barbara is a relatively dense city, not a rural area. The proposed buffer zones significantly impact affected properties, covering 30%, 50%, or even 100% of a lot in some cases. Has the City considered that solutions suitable for other jurisdictions may not work here?
  • The City is actively working on increasing population density through development projects, which will impact water quality and wildlife. How does this ordinance align with the City’s broader development goals?

Excessive Restrictions on Undeveloped Lots (22.26.090 E.1)

  • The ordinance imposes restrictions on undeveloped lots beyond buffer areas. How is this justifiable?
  • Instead of limiting the structure’s footprint, the ordinance restricts total livable space. Building upward to maximize space is prohibited, even if it does not encroach further into the buffer area.

Erosion Risks

  • Existing regulations already require geological assessments to ensure new structures are safe from erosion. This ordinance does nothing to improve safety in that regard.
  • Property owners know that many creek sections have seen little or no erosion historically. How does the City justify imposing such aggressive setbacks indiscriminately under the pretext of erosion risk?
  • Has the City conducted a study to assess historical erosion rates in different creek sections over the past 50 or 100 years?
  • City staff claim they lack the resources to assess site-specific erosion risks, so they apply uniform setbacks. This one-size-fits-all approach is unfair to most property owners.

Water Quality

  • Water quality is affected by runoff from the entire city, not just the 50/35/15-foot zones near creeks. Stormwater from streets and public infrastructure that ends up in creeks carries contaminants from far beyond these buffers. What evidence supports the claim that these setbacks will improve creek water quality?
  • The City has admitted that more studies are needed to determine which contaminants are of concern, their current concentrations, and their sources. How can the City claim these buffers will improve water quality without this data?
  • The City has dumped wastewater into the ocean, including directly onto East Beach in at least two incidents in the last year. West Beach near the pier and port frequently smells of wastewater. Has the City taken any steps to address these pollution sources? How does their impact compare to the supposed benefits of the proposed creek buffers?

Flooding Risks

  • Floodplain regulations already exist, exceeding FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements.
  • Thousands of structures exist within the proposed buffer areas. If property owners are prohibited from rebuilding, they may indefinitely retain aging structures, increasing debris risks during floods. Has the City considered encouraging flood-proofing upgrades rather than outright prohibiting rebuilding?
  • Many creek sections have never flooded, yet the ordinance applies indiscriminately to all creeks, including “minor creeks.”
  • If climate change is cited as a justification for these buffer zones, what hydrological studies support this claim?

Creek Habitat Protection

  • Federal, state, and local laws already protect riparian habitats. At a minimum, the City must explain why additional, more restrictive regulations are necessary and outline specific, measurable goals.

Wildfire Risks

  • Some upper-city areas are designated high wildfire risk zones. Given recent devastating urban wildfires, has the City considered whether wider, denser riparian corridors could increase wildfire risks in the City? Has the City studied potential mitigation strategies? This is not a theoretical danger: in 2021 the City voted to reclassify as high fire hazard areas segments of riparian corridors along San Roque Creek and Mission Creek. Residents in those areas have seen their insurance cancelled since.
  • These regulations will prevent people from defending their homes against wildfire as recommended by the State of California (https://readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/defensible-space/), particularly with respect to adding hardscape to Zone 0.

Scenic Beauty

  • Many affected areas are private property, inaccessible to the public. How do buffer zones enhance scenic beauty for the community? Why not focus on public spaces instead?

Top of Bank Determination

  • The ordinance’s method for determining the top of the bank is outdated and overly subjective, granting excessive discretionary power to the Creeks Division. This contradicts the ordinance’s stated goal of establishing objective criteria and streamlining permitting.

Minor Creeks

  • “Minor creeks” are poorly defined, adding further subjectivity and expanding the Creeks Division’s discretionary power.
  • The term “minor creek” was coined by City staff to designate features that were never previously recognized as creeks by residents. What is the basis for including them in this ordinance?

Public Development Allowed (22.26.150)

  • While private property owners face near-total restrictions, public entities have significantly more leeway. For example:
    • Public services, utilities, roads, pathways, and trails are permitted in buffer areas.
    • Maintenance of existing public structures is unrestricted. While private owners cannot replace more than 50% of a deck, the City can repave 100% of a parking lot in a buffer zone.
  • If erosion and flooding risks justify private property restrictions, why are public structures, parked vehicles, utility poles, etc. allowed within buffer areas?

Modification Process (22.26.100 & 22.26.110)

  • The ordinance lacks a clearly defined appeals process. More clarify is needed on this point.
  • The modification process is excessively burdensome, costly, and time-consuming. At the same time land use is virtually forbidden and requests for modifications would therefore be common and frequent. This contradicts the goal of streamlining approvals.
  • The new habitat restoration requirements are impractical in an urban area. For example, owners must plant 10 oak trees for every oak tree removed or some equivalent measure as determined by a biologist.
  • 22.26.110 B.4 requires clarification: must private owners restore habitat beyond their property?

Criteria for “Substantial Redevelopment” (22.26.170)

  • The ordinance discourages necessary maintenance, potentially endangering property safety.
  • Restrictions on replacing unsafe roofs and staircases are unreasonable.

ADUs (22.26.120)

  • Section 22.26.120 B.5 may conflict with State housing laws.

SB 330

  • How is this ordinance compatible with California's SB 330?