On February 19, 2025, the Creeks Advisory Committee held its monthly public meeting, where the main agenda item was the Creek Buffer Ordinance. Although the original agenda called for a Committee vote on whether to forward the ordinance to the Planning Commission, the Sustainability Department chose—at the last minute—not to request that vote. Staff instead announced they would return at a future date with unspecified updates to the ordinance text, yet proceeded to present and justify the current proposal and timeline anyway.

You're encouraged to watch the meeting's recording, available here, and form your own opinion. The Creeks Division has kindly shared the slide deck they presented, which can be downloaded here.

Summary:

• Public comment was formally included in the record, but the meeting was largely one-sided.
• Data and studies supporting the proposed ordinance were not provided, and major topics of interest to property owners were glossed over.
• Committee engagement was minimal; few questions were asked (none of them challenging) and no concern was expressed for property owners’ perspectives.

The Role of the Creeks Advisory Committee

Given the far-reaching impacts of the proposed ordinance, both City staff and the Committee were expected to uphold higher standards of due diligence. Unfortunately, the Committee asked no challenging questions, and at least one of its inquiries suggested members might not have fully reviewed the ordinance text. Based on this meeting alone, it is unclear what the Committee’s true purpose was beyond taking notes, approving meeting minutes, and asking cursory questions.

All the critical points outlined below—and likely many more—should have been part of the Committee’s public discussion. It is possible these issues were examined internally with the Sustainability Department beforehand, but as stakeholders we expect vital conversations like these to happen in open session for the sake of transparency and public education.

Note: committee member Chris Cline recused himself because his property is adjacent to a major creek. As a result, he was not permitted to ask questions or offer feedback.

Benefits of the Ordinance

The proposed ordinance cites several objectives or benefits, which have been published on the project website, included in City statements, and stated in the draft ordinance text. These benefits were reiterated during the February 19 meeting, though City staff glossed over them and the Committee didn't engage in any meaningful critique.

The City's point of view on the benefits of creek buffers.

Benefit 1: Streamline permit application reviews and provide clarity to applicants

No explanation was given as to how the City jumped from wanting to streamline application reviews to implementing brand-new, more extensive regulations that apply indiscriminately to all creekside properties. There was no mention of other options the City may have considered to make existing permitting processes less onerous, nor any consideration of how to achieve more consistent rulings through other means (something many residents would undoubtedly welcome). A blanket no-use creek buffer zone across the entire City appears to be, in some property owners’ eyes, an easy—and even lazy—solution to the problem.

Moreover, the ordinance does not eliminate any existing review requirements. It establishes multiple new review requirements, including the need for Zoning Clearances and Planning Commission approvals for projects that do not currently require these types of reviews and approvals.

Benefit 2: Reduce public safety risks associated with erosion

This goal was emphasized by Creeks Division staff before the meeting and is consistently mentioned as one of the ordinance’s primary objectives. However, not all sites face the same erosion risk. Some properties have experienced no erosion for at least the past 50 years, while many others have seen only minimal amounts. Yet the Creeks Division did not address these facts during its presentation, and the Committee did not inquire about them. When asked directly before the meeting, staff responded that they do not have the resources to analyze each site or creek section for individualized requirements, and therefore a generic buffer is the best they can offer for now.

There are several techniques available to reduce the risk of erosion (as discussed in this part of the video), but the City is introducing creek buffers as a way limit them ("limit channelization and other alterations of creeks"). The ordinance is founded on the premise that no active measures can or should be pursued to prevent erosion and that structures must therefore move away from creeks. But that is not necessarily true —if the City is willing to allow them like they have allowed in some parts if city. The City is still expected to convincingly justify why severe land-use restrictions affecting so many residents are preferable to active erosion-mitigation strategies.

More importantly, existing regulations already require any new development near a creek to prove, via geological studies, that structures are safe from erosion. The new ordinance declares that even if a proposed development is geologically sound, it still cannot be located in the buffer area for safety reasons. This logical inconsistency was put on display during the meeting when City staff answered a question about ADUs in buffer zones, stating that ADUs must be allowed in buffer zones under State regulations unless they are unsafe. Therefore, if they are safe and they are ADUs they are allowed, but if they are safe and they aren't ADUs they aren't allowed. Unfortunately, risk of erosion continues to be highlighted as one of the main driver for the new regulations, and the meeting on February 19 was no exception. The Committee also did not probe this point.

Benefit 3: Reduce public safety risks associated with flooding

Several potential counterarguments to this justification were not discussed at all during the meeting:

• Existing floodplain regulations already exist that go beyond FEMA's NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) requirements.
• Thousands of structures already exist in the proposed buffer areas, and some property owners may hold onto these structures indefinitely if rebuilding in a buffer is not an option—potentially increasing debris risk during floods. Has the City considered encouraging upgrades and flood-proofing within buffer zones instead of outright prohibiting rebuilding?
• Historically, many creek sections in the City haven't experienced any flooding, yet the ordinance applies to all creeks, including “minor creeks”, indiscriminately.
• If the argument is that climate change could alter flooding patterns and that buffer zones will mitigate those changes, then studies supporting that claim should be presented. As recently as December 2024, the Creeks Advisory Committee listened to a City staff presentation on future studies aiming to develop “hydrologic models of creeks in order to predict alterations in flow due to climate change,” which staff admitted “we haven’t tackled yet” (see the video here). The absence of climate-focused studies was also acknowledged on February 19.

Benefit 4: Enhance water quality in our creeks and ocean

No one wants polluted water traveling through their property, and we all want clean ocean water. However, the City has not quantified the impact this ordinance would—or should—have on water quality, nor shared any studies with stakeholders.

Storm runoff from throughout the city (not just runoff within 50/35/15 feet of a creek) eventually ends up in creeks. For instance, stormwater from streets off N. Ontare and up to Foothill Road flows down Ontare and empties into the San Roque Creek. The City should clarify how regulating a relatively small footprint of the city through buffer zones is expected to significantly improve creek or ocean water quality when many other sources contribute to runoff in creeks.

Anyone who has recently been to West Beach on a weekday afternoon can attest to the stench of wastewater at the shoreline. Residents who engage in water sports there are acutely aware of this ongoing issue. Occasionally, the City can be seen discharging wastewater in broad daylight right on East Beach (coming out of those thick black pipes partially buried and running eastward from West Beach along the bike path). There have also been multiple sewage spills after large storms. If the City wants residents to believe that buffer zones around creeks will materially improve ocean water quality, they must back that claim with data. How many pollutants in our ocean come from creeks, as opposed to wastewater outfalls or other stormwater sources? And how many of those can be tracked to their source?

As recently as December 2024, the Creeks Advisory Committee heard a City staff presentation on future studies related to water quality. One such study aims to identify which pollutants the City should be concerned about, measure their concentrations, compare them to known benchmarks or safety thresholds, and trace them to their sources (see video). Without knowing which contaminants to address or where they originate, it is unclear how the City can justify creek setbacks on water-quality grounds. None of this was discussed during the February 19, 2025, meeting.

Benefit 5: Protect creek side habitats and preserve scenic beauty

Regarding this objective, both City staff and the Committee neglected to address, at least, the following points for the public’s benefit:

• Many of the affected areas are private property, inaccessible to the general public. If that is the case, how do buffer zones enhance scenic beauty for everyone, and why not concentrate on public areas instead?
• Some upper parts of the City are designated high wildfire risk areas. We all have recently seen how devastating wildfires can be in urban areas near the mountains. Would allowing wider, denser riparian corridors from the mountains into the city eventually increase wildfire risk even more so in these neighborhoods? Have any studies on the matter been pursued? The City should at least demonstrate it has considered the issue and possible mitigations.
• Current federal, state, and local regulations already protect riparian habitats. At minimum, the City should explain why additional and more stringent restrictions are necessary and what measurable goals they hope to achieve. Simply stating the desire to “protect riparian and aquatic habitats” is insufficient.

Process

The timelines the City is pursuing are inexplicably expedited. Initial notices were mailed to stakeholders on January 14, and public comments close on March 10. Because many stakeholders did not receive these notices until late January or early February (more on that shortly), the public effectively has only five or six weeks to react—plainly inadequate for such a controversial and complex topic.

Historically, the City has allowed much more time for public discussion of other impactful projects and ordinances. A relevant precedent goes back to 1999–2004, when the City tried (unsuccessfully) to pass similar creek buffer restrictions. At that time, the City engaged with stakeholders through workshops, outreach activities, and newsletters over the course of multiple years.

City newsletter from 2000. Back then, the City engaged with stakeholders for an extended period of time (multiple years).

On the other hand, the notices the City did send to affected property owners were minimal: a simple, plain postcard that likely got lost among junk mail and thrown away in many cases. There was no mention of the proposed buffer lengths in them, nor any indication of how restricted land use would be if the ordinance is approved. In addition, stakeholders received the notification only a few days before the open house, or even afterward. While City staff noted that the open house was well attended, we are talking about thousands of impacted residents, many of whom did not learn about the ordinance until it was too late.

Postcard mailed by the City to impacted residents late January. It makes no mention of the proposed buffer lengths or the severe land use restrictions outlined in the ordinance. The postcard arrived a couple of days before the scheduled open house, and 5-6 weeks before the end of the public commentary period.

Understandably, some stakeholders question the City’s genuine willingness to engage with them and view this process as an attempt to push the ordinance through quietly. Not only did the Committee fail to question the timeline and process, but one member also openly commended the City staff for what they described as strong outreach efforts—to the dismay of stakeholders in attendance (see video).

To the Creeks Division’s credit, it has been responsive and willing to engage on a one-on-one basis with those who proactively reach out. However, this is insufficient for a measure of such broad scope. If the City intends to continue pursuing changes to its creekside regulations despite stakeholder opposition, it should begin anew with more extensive timelines and provide the public opportunities for genuine input through workshops and other meaningful forums.

Goals of Proposed Ordinance

Perhaps one of the most problematic slides the Creeks staff presented was titled "Goals of Proposed Ordinance". It didn't get any attention by the Committee, even though it lists aspirational goals that clearly haven't been met:

• Objective standards applied ministerially. Very little would actually be approved ministerially since the proposed ordinance forbids nearly all land uses within the buffer zones. In cases where a “modification” is necessary (i.e., it is impossible to avoid building in the buffer zone), the process is neither ministerial nor straightforward; it is cumbersome and expensive. Moreover, the ordinance’s vague definition of top of bank can lead to extra hurdles even when development might nominally be outside the buffer zone.
• Maximize protections while avoiding takings. Serious concerns remain, in the eyes of some property owners, about the legality of this ordinance and whether it amounts to a property taking in disguise. There is no question that the significant development and use prohibitions will reduce the value of properties impacted by the proposed buffers.
• Encourage redevelopment to reduce safety risks. Because development within buffer zones is banned in all but a few cases where state or federal law demands it, the ordinance does not truly encourage redevelopment of any kind.
• Buffer distances that can be achieved at most parcels. This is simply not accurate, as thousands of existing structures already lie within the proposed buffers. The idea that a home or building could be moved or “crammed” into a remaining portion of a parcel, losing landscaped yards, patios, decks, and other outdoor space in the process (since they are not allowed within the buffer either), does not mean, in the eyes of owners, that a parcel can accommodate these buffers without a materially negative impact to the property. Moreover, there is a significant number of parcels for which the buffer areas represent a large portion of the land.
• A modification process for when buffers can’t be met. Although a modification process is included, it is burdensome and costly, and there is no appeals process, giving the Creeks Division, who provides the recommendation to the Planning Commission, too much discretionary power. Not only that, the conditions that must be met to get a modification approved are borderline absurd. For example, for every oak tree removed in the development process, ten oak trees need to be planted (or some equivalent habitat restoration measure proposed by a biologist, whose cost is incurred by the property owner).

Why didn't the Committee point out any of this and press for more clarity?

Slide presenting the Sustainability & Resilience Department's goals for the ordinance. These goals don't necessarily match the ordinance text.

Top of Bank Determination

As pointed out during the round of public commentary, the top-of-bank determination guidelines the City presented add unnecessary subjectivity to the permitting process.

Top of bank determination guidelines presented by the City.

Double standards

As presented by City staff, essentially nothing is permitted within the buffer zones on private properties without City approval, and even with approval only a few things are allowed. For instance, planting tomatoes in a garden is not permitted under any circumstance. Meanwhile, public development is allowed in the buffer zones. This double standard apparently didn't set off any alarms for the Committee.

Allowed uses in public space.

Additional comments

During the public comments round, several residents made their opinions and concerns known to the City. It is worth watching the comments starting at minute 59:00.