Fact-Checking the City (March 2025)

In meetings, emails, their website, and in conversations with impacted property owners the City has made statements that aren't accurate and can mislead people into thinking the ordinance has a smaller impact than it really does.

Here is a compilation of such statements along with a fact-check.

Correction: this list was updated on 3/30/25 based on feedback from several people. Specifically, the information is now more accurate when it comes to the difference between development and maintenance and repairs, and the restrictions that apply to each.

MISLEADING: Creek buffers are required by the City’s General Plan.

• The General Plan only says buffers should be implemented, but it doesn't specify the size or the specific restrictions to be imposed. It also doesn't ask for one-size-fits-all buffers.
• In the General Plan, justifications for creek buffers are for public use in nature (to improve the visual appearance of the City) or for flood damage prevention. However, floodplain regulations already exist precisely for that reason, and they allow the City to participate in FEMA's NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program).

MISLEADING: Creek buffers are required by the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan.

• The Coastal Land Use Plan does not apply to the entire city. It just applies to the coastal zone (roughly up to 0.5 miles from the ocean).
• Current restrictions in coastal zone creek buffers (established in the Coastal LUP) are less onerous than the ones being proposed for the entire city.

FALSE: Creek buffers are required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

• CEQA doesn't require creek buffers on a City wide basis. Under CEQA, each project is reviewed and buffers, if any, are determined based upon the unique conditions of that project site. The ordinance seeks to impose generic, arbitrary buffers on all properties near creeks. That has nothing to do with “CEQA Compliance.”
• If buffers were required for compliance with CEQA, that would mean the City has been operating out of compliance for decades.

FALSE: The ordinance does not introduce additional restrictions.

• The ordinance includes many new restrictions. The most straightforward example is the prohibition on non-native plants or trees—but there are many more.
• In the ordinance, all development is prohibited by default unless explicitly allowed. That is the opposite of today's model.
• The ordinance overrides the City-wide standard definition of "substantial redevelopment" with a new, more restrictive one that is specifically tailored to creek buffers. This would make it more difficult to perform significant maintenance of existing structures (for example reinforcing a roof or staircase structure).
• It gives the Creeks Division even more discretion to decide what is allowed in creek buffers, and they are known for denying most requests.
• The ordinance eliminates the ability to appeal decisions through procedural means. The only way to contest a decision is by suing the City.  This is cost-prohibitive for nearly everyone. The City did this so that their decisions to deny applications will be final in the vast majority of cases.
• The coastal zone and Mission Creek have existing creek buffer regulations, but even those areas would see additional restrictions under the new ordinance.

INCOMPLETE: You can rebuild after a natural disaster.

• The City may allow you to rebuild after a costly and lengthy process, but it is not guaranteed.
• Even if allowed to rebuild, the City can and will force you to change the layout of your house/building in order to minimize encroachment into the buffer. That applies to houses/buildings but also to outdoor structures like decks, patios, pools, etc.
• The entire process takes a very long time during a time of distress for the occupants.

IRRELEVANT: It is not the City's intention to limit rebuilding after a natural disaster.

• The City's intentions are irrelevant. The text of the ordinance is what matters at the end of the day, and it is very clear that rebuilding after a natural disaster will result in a costly and lengthy process, and the outcome is uncertain.

INCOMPLETE: Existing structures can be maintained and repaired without approvals.

• The ordinance allows for maintenance and repairs of existing structures within the buffers ("nonconfirming" structures) without approval. However, not all maintenance and repairs are covered by this exemption. For example, replacing or altering more than 50% of a roof's structure, or replacing or structurally altering more than 50% of an accessory staircase are considered new development, not maintenance. The same is true when replacing more than 50% of a fence, for example.

MISLEADING: Development is allowed. A property owner just needs to ask for permission.

• The ordinance prohibits all development by default. Most development is prohibited outright without even an option to ask for approval. For the rest of cases, the City may give an approval but is not required to.
• The ordinance explicitly removes the ability to appeal a decision, which means only the judicial route is available to property owners. Given the costs and efforts involved, most owners won't have the means to contest decisions.

FALSE: The ordinance will help streamline processes.

• The ordinance establishes several new processes that do not exist today, and does not eliminate any existing processes.
• The ordinance makes the process for approvals more onerous and constrained. Most development is completely banned, without the possibility of approval.
• Very little is allowed without approval, which means that more scenarios will require approvals.
• The only way this statement can be true is if the City intends to deny most requests outright. If that's the case, they are correct that the ordinance will result in less overhead for the City (but not less overhead for the property owner, who is still required to conduct and pay for costly studies just to be considered).

FALLACY: The ordinance will help streamline processes for development outside of buffers.

• One could easily come up with a law that frees property owners from unnecessary processes like environmental reviews when attempting to develop more than 50/35/15 feet away from a creek. In order to accomplish that, it is not necessary to make it more difficult to develop close to creeks, which is what the ordinance does.

MISLEADING: The ordinance will improve safety.

• Safety regulations already exist today, something that the City repeatedly forgets to mention. In floodplains, structures must meet certain development standards. Structures cannot be located in erosion-risk areas and they need to be certified by a geologist.
• Given that only basic maintenance is allowed by the ordinance without triggering "substantial redevelopment", property owners will hold on to aging structures that aren't built according to the most up-to-date safety standards.

UNSUBSTANTIATED: The ordinance will improve water quality.

• No studies, data, or measurable objectives have been provided that support this claim.
• Storm runoff from large parts of the City ends up in creeks today, through pipes, roads, overpasses, etc.
• The same applies to ocean water quality.

MISLEADING: The proposed ordinance applies only to new development or substantial redevelopment.

• The ordinance redefines "development" and "substantial redevelopment" in creek buffers, making them more restrictive than they are today:
• • "development" is redefined to include things like installing patio furniture (even if not attached to the ground), landscaping, building a walkway, etc.
  • "substantial redevelopment" in creek buffers covers more activities than in the rest of the City.
• In at least one instance, City staff have said new development or substantial redevelopment happen when "you're completely rebuilding a building", which is not true. As mentioned, "development" includes much more than building a structure (for example planting a plant), and "substantial redevelopment" includes things like replacing more than 50% of your roof structure or 50% of a fence.

INCOMPLETE: You can get a modification to develop on severely constrained lots.

• There is no clear definition of what a "severely constrained" lot is. The City originally estimated that only 40 properties, approximately, met their informal criteria out of the 2000+ impacted by this ordinance. The City's opinion and that of a property owner are likely to differ significantly on this matter.
• Modifications, if approved, come with very onerous habitat restoration conditions that the City is introducing in the ordinance. For example, an owner could be forced to replant 10 native trees for every tree that was removed during development, or an equivalent measure as determined by a biologist (at the owner's expense). Any required restoration must be monitored for at least a period of 5 years (also at the owner's expense).

QUESTIONABLE: Permits for state mandated ADUs don't require a discretionary process according to the ordinance.

• The ordinance establishes that the Community Development Director, in consultation with the Creeks Division, will not issue a permit unless it is determined that there isn’t enough room outside of the buffer area and that the intrusion into the creek buffer area is the minimum necessary to locate the ADU. The Creeks Division and property owners will likely disagree on what constitutes the "minimum necessary", and no clear and objective definition has been provided, making this a discretionary decision.
• It is also unclear how the City will treat existing outdoor structures like patios (as in, will they be considered "available" space for an ADU and therefore replaceable?).

MISLEADING: Creek definitions, including minor creeks, are similar to those of neighboring jurisdictions (Goleta, County).

• Goleta, in its conservation element, defines 12 creeks within the City. According to their municipal code, a creek is "designated by a blue line on the largest scale of the latest edition of the United States Geological Survey map or a creek or stream which supports fish at any time of the year, or has significant water flow 30 days after the latest significant storm." (15.09.070 of the City of Goleta's code). Geological survey maps and the official city ESHA maps do not show any "minor creek".
• Goleta's version of creek buffers ("Streamside Protection Areas") does not apply to anything resembling minor creeks as defined by the City of Santa Barbara.
• Santa Barbara County's definition of a creek is "Appears as a solid or dashed blue line on a USGS 7½-minute or 15-minute quadrangle map" (35.110.010 of the County's Code). The City's "minor creeks" do not appear on those maps.
• Santa Barbara County has some regulations for drainage in general, with the possibility of setbacks to ensure adequate drainage from a lot. That's a far cry from the strict regulations the City of Santa Barbara wants to enforce around "minor creeks".

INCOMPLETE and MISLEADING: The ordinance is partly based on the creek definition from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

• The CDFW does not require buffers around creeks. State law requires CDFW involvement whenever a streambed alteration project is to take place. In the CDFW's own words, "the need to submit a Notification to the Department is triggered by the substantial obstruction or diversion of the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; or the substantial change to the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or use of material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or the deposition of waste or debris where it may enter a river, stream, or lake."
• The California Fish and Game Code (section 1602) already establishes what can be done in creeks. The ordinance does nothing more than to add more regulations on top of that by creating arbitrary buffers that extend beyond the creek itself.