City of Santa Barbara Ramps Up Outreach in Face of Mounting Opposition to Proposed Creek Buffer Ordinance

Efforts Include Recent Q&A Sessions, Extending Public Comment Deadline to April 7

People packed the Faulkner Gallery at the Santa Barbara Central Library to learn more about the city’s draft creek buffer ordinance; the map shows the city’s major and minor creeks. | Credit: Callie Fausey

Clean water and scenic beauty for Santa Barbara’s creeks may come at a cost to the city’s homeowners.

At least, that’s how creekside residents see it. Many are not happy about the city’s proposed creek buffer ordinance, which would require any and all new developments to stay away from a creek’s edge.

The city has 16 creeks. They zigzag through neighborhoods, showing off bare bottoms that host only a trickle of water for most of the year.

Right now, the city is working on a draft ordinance that prohibits new development within 50 feet of any of these creeks. That includes buildings, patios, and non-native gardens (yes, even tomato plants).

The only development that would be allowed in buffer zones without city approval would be the planting of native vegetation and debris removal for flood control purposes. Existing development would be allowed to stay where it is, as well as be repaired and remodeled without city approval.

City staff are increasing outreach efforts in the face of mounting opposition to the proposed ordinance, including recent Q&A sessions and extending the public comment deadline to Monday, April 7.

It is also planning revisions to the ordinance this spring and summer and will release a revised draft ordinance in the summer following more public outreach.

Residents with properties next to San Roque Creek could see 50 percent of their lots or more impacted by a 50 foot creek buffer, should the city’s proposed ordinance pass. Credit: Courtesy

The initial announcement set off alarm bells for people like Joan Fargas, who owns a home with his wife along San Roque Creek.

Fargas, an engineer who’s owned his home for three years, created a website and a petition — with more than 350 signatures — opposing the ordinance. If the ordinance passed, he said 50 percent of his lot would be off limits to new or substantial redevelopment.

But he said many neighbors have it worse, some with almost their entire homes within the proposed buffers.

While he doesn’t have any home improvements currently in the works, he fears that he would be unable to rebuild his home should it be destroyed. He said the immediate impact to properties would be a drop in value, as the ordinance would make much of the land “unusable.”

“I think for most people — certainly me — our primary residence is our biggest asset by far, and therefore, this could have a big financial impact from day one,” he said.

He is not ecstatic about the city telling him he can’t plant a lemon tree in his backyard, either.

“There are so many creeks that a lot of people would be impacted,” he added. “If you want to restore the creeks, that’s great, but you can’t tell people they can’t use their properties.”

Restoration is a major part of the city’s motivation. It’s seeking to improve creek water quality and preserve riparian habitat, as well as reduce public safety risks due to erosion and flooding.

City staff say that there are existing buffer policies in place, such as in the city’s General Plan, but that the new ordinance would include straightforward regulations to “take the guesswork out of permitting processes, providing clear objective standards for creek buffers that apply citywide consistently and efficiently.” Right now, the city determines regulations on a case-by-case basis.

This photo shows how close current structures are to San Roque Creek. Credit: Courtesy

“Creeks are dynamic in nature. They move on the landscape and some erosion is a part of a healthy creek ecosystem,” said Erin Markey, the city’s Creeks Division Manager, in an email to the Independent. “When development is placed too close to a creek, it can end up threatened by these natural processes.”

The primary goal, she continued, is to ensure long term that structures will be safe from future flooding and erosion, while supporting the long-term health of the region’s watersheds. City staff have reported that structures too close to the creeks have been compromised in the past.

“Creek buffers give creeks more room to move and be dynamic. It provides a natural buffer or filter between stormwater runoff and creeks, slowing fast-moving stormwater runoff down, reducing flood flows and improving creek water quality,” she said.

Jarrett Gorin, a land-use planner, questioned the idea of the ordinance actually streamlining city permitting. According to the city, it ensures disaster rebuilds or voluntary rebuilds can occur with “safety findings.” However, Gorin said, “It adds four new processes to go through if they want to rebuild their house after being damaged,” he said. “It may not sound so bad until you look at your property and realize the buffer is halfway through your house.”

According to the city, homeowners would be allowed to apply for approval for developments within the buffer through a modification. After disasters, for example, the city would encourage rebuilding outside of the buffer, but should that not be possible, homeowners could rebuild up to their existing square footage in the buffer zone.

“For constrained lots where application of the buffer regulations would result in an unconstitutional taking of property, prevent redevelopment of the property, or would prevent state-required housing types, the proposed ordinance allows the Planning Commission to approve a modification to the required buffer regulations,” the city says.

However, this modification could only be granted if supported by findings from hydrological, geological and biological technological reports.

Gorin also saw a problem with the ordinance’s impact on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), aka “granny flats,” saying that it puts them up to “discretionary review,” which may violate state law.

ADUs would be allowed outside buffer zones. If state-mandated ADUs can’t fit outside the buffer zone, they would be allowed inside the buffer zone with a geologist report “addressing safety,” according to the city. But that doesn’t sit well with Gorin.

This map shows how the city’s proposed creek ordinance may encroach on properties neighboring Arroyo Burro Creek, with the city’s approximation in light red, and resident Joan Fargas’s approximation in dark red. “These are approximations because in order to determine how far a buffer goes into a property you need to locate the ‘top of the bank,’ which isn’t easy to begin with, and much less on a map,” Fargas said. Credit: Courtesy

“That would stop most people from even trying to do one,” he said. “And that’s a huge problem because ADUs are one of the best ways that we’re providing rental units in Santa Barbara right now. We do tons of ADUs in my company, and a lot of times, people are doing ADUs for their kids to be able to move back to town.”

He also questioned how it may impact peoples’ ability to receive home loans. “How can a bank give me a loan if they see that I can’t rebuild my house after a disaster?” he said.

This isn’t the first time the city has sought out a better creek buffer. The city tried to propose a similar ordinance back in the ’90s, but it faced a major degree of opposition. Back then, though, they were proposing a buffer of up to 100 feet.

“But 50 feet is just as bad,” Gorin said. “It’s just a massive government overreach.”

In the new ordinance, in addition to major creeks, a 35-foot buffer would be required for “Flood Control Project” areas, defined as Arroyo Burro (reach between Hope Avenue and Highway 101); Las Positas Creek (reach between Las Positas Place and Veronica Springs Road); San Roque Creek from State Street to 350 feet upstream of State Street; and Mission Creek – Caltrans Channels (approximately Los Olivos Street to Mission Street and Arrellaga Street to Canon Perdido) and the concrete-lined and walled portions of the Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project.

The ordinance would also apply to minor creeks, which are defined as “any creek that is not a major creek or a flood control project reach.” Any new development would have to be set back 15 feet from these minor creeks.

However, due to public concerns, such as what may be considered minor creeks (e.g., small drainage ditches), the city is looking at changes to the minor-creeks portion of the ordinance, according to Resilience Program Supervisor Melissa Hetrick.

“Really, we’re just trying to make sure the flow isn’t blocked in some way for the minor creeks,” Hetrick said during the city’s Q&A on April 2.

She also noted that they are working on edits to make it clear that any home hardening and vegetation maintenance associated with fire insurance rates would be exempt, and that they are “looking at the fire rebuild exception, so it is definitely clear that you can rebuild.”

Additionally, she said the city is considering more uses allowed in the buffers, including gardens and patios, among other concerns and comments that they are addressing to make the ordinance more palatable for residents.

To learn more about the ordinance and to contact the city to discuss how your property may be impacted, visit https://sustainability.santabarbaraca.gov/projects/adaptation-resilience-program/creek-buffer-ordinance.