Santa Barbara City Council
April 14, 2026

materials are not removed or burned off in prescribed fires, provide ample opportunities for wildland fires to occur and to spread.  Road Systems. Many of the roads in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones do not meet current Fire Department access and vegetation road clearance standards, and many are made even more narrow due to the encroachment of vegetation. A number of the bridges have weight requirements that are below Fire Department weight standards. In addition, many driveways are long and steep, posing a safety hazard. All of these factors make it more difficult and more hazardous for the Fire Department to provide fire suppression services in these areas.
 Water Supply. In the Extreme Foothill Zone, the City water supply is limited in some areas, and not available in others. These factors increase the risks associated with fires, due to the reduced availability of water to fight any fires that occur.  Fire Response Time. Much of the Extreme Foothill Zone, and some of the Foothill Zone, is outside the City’s 4 minute Fire Department response time. As a result, fires in these areas may have more time to spread and to increase in severity before fire suppression equipment can reach them.
 Proximity to the Los Padres National Forest. The Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) is a large forest to the north of the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones. The LPNF provides a great deal of potential fuel for any wildland fire in the area. Wildland fires that start in the LPNF have the potential to move south toward the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones.

This Engineer’s Report (the "Report") was prepared to: 1) contain the information required by Government Code Section 50078.4, including a) a description of each lot or parcel of property to be subject to the assessment, b) the amount of the assessment for each lot or parcel for the initial fiscal year, c) the maximum amount of the assessment which may be levied for each lot or parcel during any fiscal year, d) the duration of the assessment, e) the basis of the assessment, f) the schedule of the assessment, and g) a description specifying the requirements for protest and hearing procedures for the assessment pursuant to Section 50078.6; 2) establish a budget to provide services to reduce the severity and damage from wildland fires (the "Services") that will be funded by the 2026-27 assessments; 3) determine the benefits received from the Services by property within the City of Santa Barbara Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District (the "Assessment District") and; 4) assign a method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels within the Assessment District. This Report and the assessments have been made pursuant to the California Government Code Section 50078 et. seq. (the "Code") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”).

In Fiscal Year 2006-07, the City of Santa Barbara City Council (the “Council”) by Resolution called for an assessment ballot proceeding and public hearing on the then-proposed establishment of a wildland fire suppression assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

On May 5, 2006 a notice of assessment and assessment ballot was mailed to property owners within the proposed Assessment District boundaries. Such notice included a description of the Services to be funded by the proposed assessments, a proposed assessment amount for each parcel owned, and an explanation of the method of voting on the assessments. Each notice also included a postage prepaid ballot on which the property owner could mark his or her approval or disapproval of the proposed assessments as well as affix his or her signature.

After the ballots were mailed to property owners in the Assessment District, the required minimum 45 day time period was provided for the return of the assessment ballots. Following this 45 day time period, a public hearing was held on June 20, 2006 for the purpose of allowing public testimony regarding the proposed assessments. At the public hearing, the public had the opportunity to speak on the issue. After the conclusion of the public input portion of the hearing, the hearing was continued to July 11, 2006 to allow time for the tabulation of ballots.

With the passage of Proposition 218 on November 6, 1996, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution, the proposed assessments could be levied for fiscal year 2006-07, and continued in future years, only if the ballots submitted in favor of the assessments were greater than the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments. (Each ballot is weighted by the amount of proposed assessment for the property that it represents).

After the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing held on June 20, 2006, all valid received ballots were tabulated by the City of Santa Barbara Clerk. At the continued public hearing on July 11, 2006, after the ballots were tabulated, it was determined that the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments did not exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments (weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which ballots are submitted).

As a result, the Council gained the authority to approve the levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2006-07 and to continue to levy them in future years. The Council took action, by a Resolution passed on July 31, 2006, to approve the first year levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2006-07.

The authority granted by the ballot proceeding was for a maximum assessment rate of $65.00 per single family home, increased each subsequent year by the Los Angeles Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) not to exceed 4% per year. In the event that the annual change in the CPI exceeds 4%, any percentage change in excess of 4% can be cumulatively reserved and can be added to the annual change in the CPI for years in which the CPI change is less than 4%.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

In each subsequent year for which the assessments will be continued, the Council must preliminarily approve at a public meeting a budget for the upcoming fiscal year’s costs and services, an updated annual Engineer’s Report, and an updated assessment roll listing all parcels and their proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. A new Engineer’s Report is prepared each year in order to establish the CPI adjustment for that year; the new maximum authorized assessment rate for that year; the budget for that year; and the amount to be charged to each parcel in the District that year, subject to that year’s assessment rate and any changes in the attributes of the properties in the District, including but not limited to use changes, parcel subdivisions, and/or parcel consolidations. At this meeting, the Council will also call for the publication in a local newspaper of a legal notice of the intent to continue the assessments for the next fiscal year and set the date for the noticed public hearing. At the annual public hearing, members of the public can provide input to the Council prior to the Council’s decision on continuing the services and assessments for the next fiscal year.

If the assessments are so confirmed and approved, the levies will be submitted to the Santa Barbara County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

The levy and collection of the assessments will continue year-to-year until terminated by the City Council.

If the City Council approves this Engineer's Report for fiscal year 2026-27 and the assessments by Resolution, a notice of assessment levies must be published in a local paper at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Following the minimum 10-day time period after publishing the notice, a public hearing will be held for the purpose of allowing public testimony about the proposed continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2026-27.

A Public Hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2026. At this hearing, the Council will consider approval of a resolution confirming the assessments for fiscal year 2026-27. If so confirmed and approved, the assessments will be submitted to the Santa Barbara County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

The Assessment District is narrowly drawn to include only properties that benefit from the additional fire protection services that are provided by the assessment funds. The Assessment Diagram included in this report shows the boundaries of the Assessment District.

In 2008 per California Public Resource Code 4201-4204 and Government Code 51175 -89, the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) completed an analysis to identify Local Responsibility Area areas of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) within the City of Santa Barbara.

Discussions between OSFM and the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department were concluded in 2010. As a result, additional parcels have been added to the 2004 City of Santa Barbara high fire hazard area, Foothill Zone. These additional parcels are not included in the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District at this time, and Services provided to these parcels are not funded from this assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Proposition 218
This assessment was formed consistent with Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996, and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.

Proposition 218 describes a number of important requirements, including a property-owner balloting, for the formation and continuation of assessments, and these requirements were satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment.

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA vs. SCCOSA”) case. This ruling is the most significant legal decision clarifying Proposition 218. Several of the most important elements of the ruling included further emphasis that:
 Benefit assessments are for special, not general benefit  The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined  Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the SVTA vs. SCCOSA decision and with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution because the Services to be funded are clearly defined; the Services are available to all benefiting property in the Assessment District, the benefiting property in the Assessment District will directly and tangibly benefit from improved protection from fire damage, increased safety of property and other special benefits and such special benefits provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District that is not enjoyed by the public at large or other property. There have been a number of clarifications made to the analysis, findings and supporting text in this Report to ensure that this consistency is well communicated.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property
On June 8, 2009, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California amended its original opinion upholding a benefit assessment district for property in the downtown area of the City of Pomona. On July 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied review and the court's decision in Dahms became binding precedent for assessments. In Dahms, the court upheld an assessment that conferred a 100% special benefit to the assessed parcels on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were provided directly and only to property in the assessment district over and above those services or improvements provided by the city generally.

Bonander v. Town of Tiburon
On December 31, 2009, the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon. The Court invalidated the assessments on the ground that the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based, in part, on relative costs within sub-areas of the assessment district instead of proportional special benefits.

Beutz v. County of Riverside
On May 26, 2010 the 4th District Court of Appeals issued a decision on the Steven Beutz v. County of Riverside (“Beutz”) appeal. This decision overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.

Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego On September 22, 2011, the San Diego Court of Appeal issued a decision on the Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego appeal. This decision overturned an assessment for street and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The court described two primary reasons for its decision. First, like in Beutz, the court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits. Second, the court found that the City had failed to record the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Compliance with Current Law
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the Services to be funded are clearly defined; the Services are available to and will be directly provided to all benefiting property in the Assessment District; and the Services provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Dahms because, similar to the Downtown Pomona assessment validated in Dahms, the Services will be directly provided to property in the Assessment District. Moreover, while Dahms could be used as the basis for a finding of 0% general benefits, this Engineer’s Report establishes a more conservative measure of general benefits.

The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander because the Assessments have been apportioned based on the overall cost of the Services and proportional special benefit to each property. Finally, the Assessments are consistent with Buetz because the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Description of Services
The City of Santa Barbara Fire Department provides a range of fire protection, prevention, and educational services to the City and its residents.

The following is a description of the wildland fire suppression Services that are provided for the benefit of property within the Assessment District. Prior to the passage of the assessment in 2006, the baseline level of service was below the standard described in the City’s 2004 Wildland Fire Plan. Due to inadequate funding, the level of service continued to diminish and would have diminished further had this assessment not been instituted. With the passage of this assessment, the services were enhanced significantly. The formula below describes the relationship between the final level of improvements, the baseline level of service (pre 2006) had the assessment not been instituted, and the enhanced level of improvements funded by the assessment.

Note: Baseline level of service is pre-2006.

The services (the “Services”) undertaken by the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department and the cost thereof paid from the levy of the annual assessment provide special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the Assessment District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. In addition to the definitions provided by the California Government Code Section 50078 et. seq., (the “Code”) the Services are generally described as follows:
 Implementation of the vegetation road clearance program to cover all public roads within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones. This program reduces fuel, enhances evacuation routes, and decreases fire response times
 Implementation of a defensible space and fire prevention inspection and chipping assistance program for all properties in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones  Implementation of a vegetation management program in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones
As applied herein, “vegetation road clearance” means the treatment, clearing, reducing, or changing of vegetation near roadways in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones where vegetation poses a fire hazard and does not meet Fire Department Vegetation Road Clearance Standards within the high fire hazard area (As provided in Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section

8.04).

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

“Defensible space” is a perimeter created around a structure where vegetation is treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards a structure, reduce the chance of a structure fire burning to the surrounding area, and provides a safe perimeter for firefighters to protect a structure (As provided in Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Santa Barbara pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 8.04). “Vegetation management” means the reduction of fire hazard through public education, vegetation hazard reduction, and other methods as needed to manage vegetation in areas with unique hazards such as heavy, flammable vegetation, lack of access due to topography and roads, and/or firefighter safety.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Budget
Services Costs
Evacuation Planning - Evacuation Roadway Clearing1 Staffing $64,000 Materials $5,500
Project Costs $57,000
Defensible Space2 Staffing $48,000
Materials $7,500
Chipping Program $106,584
Vegetation Management3 Staffing $62,000
Project Costs $19,500
Totals for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $370,084 Less: District Contribution for General Benefits ($28,496) Net Cost of Installation, Maintenance and Servicing to Assessment District $341,587 Incidental Costs:

District Administration and Project Management $6,485
Allowance for County Collection $3,450
Subtotals - Incidentals $9,935
Total Wildland Fire Suppression District Budget $351,522 (Net Amount to be Assessed)
Assessment District Budget Allocation to Parcels
Total Assessment Budget $351,522
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units in District 3,310 Assessment per Single Family Equivalent Unit (SFE) $106.20

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Estimate of Costs
Cost and Budget
Figure 2 - Cost and Budget FY 2026-27
Notes:

1. Evacuation Planning - Evacuation Roadway Clearing: Staffing costs include City Fire Department staff. Materials Costs includes traffic signage, notification letters, and door hangers to inform homeowners of start dates. Project costs include the utilization of contractors, equipment and manpower required to complete Roadway Clearance.

2. Defensible Space: Staffing costs include City Fire Department staff and inputting Defensible Space Evaluation reports into Accela.

Materials Costs for Annual Chipping includes traffic signage, notification letters, door hangers and sandwich boards to inform homeowners of start dates. Chipping program includes direct costs to coordinate, communicate and provide equipment and manpower in support of chipping program. This includes the cost of contracting a chipper and truck to dispose of chipped material.

3. Vegetation Management: Staffing costs include City Fire Department staff including the coordination, communication and cooperation of homeowners involved in projects. Project costs include contractor, roll-off dumpster, porta-potty, on-site signage and notification to homeowners on starting dates.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Method of Apportionment
Method of Apportionment
This section includes an explanation of the special benefits derived from the Services, the criteria for the expenditure of assessment funds and the methodology used to apportion the total assessments to properties within the Assessment District.

The Assessment District area consists of all Assessor Parcels within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones of the High Fire Hazard Area as defined by the 2004 Wildland Fire Plan. The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits from the Services derived by the properties in the assessment area over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. Special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the Assessment District using the following process:

1. Identification of all benefit factors derived from the Improvements

2. Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general

3. Determination of the relative special benefit within different areas within the Assessment District

4. Determination of the relative special benefit per property type

5. Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based upon special vs. general benefit; location, property type, property characteristics, improvements on property and other supporting attributes
Discussion of Benefit
California Government Code Section 50078 et. seq. allows agencies which provide fire suppression services, such as the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department, to levy assessments for fire suppression services. Section 50078 states the following:
“Any local agency which provides fire suppression services directly or by contract with the state or a local agency may, by ordinance or by resolution adopted after notice and hearing, determine and levy an assessment for fire suppression services pursuant to this article.”
In addition, California Government Code Section 50078.1 defines the term “fire suppression” as follows:
“(c) "Fire suppression" includes firefighting and fire prevention, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal or management undertaken, in whole or in part, for the reduction of a fire hazard.”
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Therefore, the Services provided by the Assessment District fall within the scope of services that may be funded by assessments under the Code.

The assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property. This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. Moreover, such benefit is not based on any one property owner’s specific use of the Services or a property owner’s specific demographic status. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 50078.5 of the California Government Code states:
"(b) The benefit assessment shall be levied on a parcel, class of improvement to property, or use of property basis, or a combination thereof, within the boundaries of the local agency, zone, or area of benefit.”
“The assessment may be levied against any parcel, improvement, or use of property to which such services may be made available whether or not the service is actually used." Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Since assessments are levied on the basis of special benefit, they are not a tax and are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

The following section describes how and why the Services specially benefit properties. This benefit is particular and distinct from its effect on property in general or the public at large.

Benefit Factors
In order to allocate the assessments, the Engineer identified the types of special benefit arising from the Services that are provided to property in the Assessment District. These benefit factors confer a direct advantage to the assessed properties; otherwise they would be general benefit.

The following benefit categories have been established that represent the types of special benefit conferred to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other lots and parcels resulting from the services to reduce the severity and damage from wildland fires that are provided in the Assessment District. These categories of special benefit are derived from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and other studies, which describe the types of special benefit received by property from the Services of the Assessment District. These types of special benefit are summarized as follows:

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Increased safety and protection of real property assets for all property owners within the Assessment District.

As summarized previously, properties in the Assessment District are currently at higher risk for wildland fires. Uncontrolled fires would have a devastating impact on all properties within the Assessment District. The assessments fund an increase in services to mitigate the wildland fire threat, and thereby can significantly reduce the risk of property damage associated with fires.

Clearly, fire mitigation helps to protect and specifically benefits both improved properties and vacant properties in the Assessment District.
"Fire is the largest single cause of property loss in the United States. In the last decade, fires have caused direct losses of more than $120 billion and countless billions more in related cost."1
“Over 140,000 wildfires occurred on average each year, burning a total of almost 14.5 million acres. And since 1990, over 900 homes have been destroyed each year by wildfires.”2
“A wildfire sees your home as just another fuel source. The survivable space you construct around your home will keep all but the most ferocious wildfires at bay.” 3 “A reasonably disaster-resistant America will not be achieved until there is greater acknowledgment of the importance of the fire service and a willingness at all levels of government to adequately fund the needs and responsibilities of the fire service.” 4 “The strategies and techniques to address fire risks in structures are known. When implemented, these means have proven effective in the reduction of losses.” 5 “Statistical data on insurance losses bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection…and low fire losses.” 6
Protection of views, scenery and other resource values, for property in the Assessment District
The Assessment District provides funding for the mitigation of the wildland fire threat to protect public and private resources in the Assessment District. This benefits even those properties that are not directly damaged by fire by maintaining and improving the aesthetics and attractiveness of public and private resources in the community, as well as ensuring that such resources remain safe and well maintained.
“Intensely burned forests are rarely considered scenic.” 7 “Smoke affects people…for example; in producing haze that degrades the visual quality of a sunny day…The other visual quality effect is that of the fire on the landscape. To many people, burned landscapes are not attractive and detract from the aesthetic values of an area.”8
“A visually preferred landscape can be the natural outcome of fuels treatments.” 9 City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Enhanced utility and desirability of the properties in the Assessment District.

The assessments fund Services to reduce the severity and damage from wildland fires in the Assessment District. Such Services enhance the overall utility and desirability of the properties in the Assessment District.
“Residential satisfaction surveys have found that having nature near one’s home is extremely important in where people choose to live…This is especially true at the wildlandurban interface where some of the most serious fuels management must occur.” 10 “People are coming to the [Bitterroot] valley in part because of its natural beauty which contributes to the quality of life that so many newcomers are seeking.” 11 Benefit Finding
In summary, real property located within the boundaries of the Assessment District distinctly and directly benefits from increased safety and protection of real property, increased protection of scenery and views, and enhanced utility of properties in the Assessment District. These are special benefits to property in much the same way that sewer and water facilities, sidewalks and paved streets enhance the utility and desirability of property and make them more functional to use, safer and easier to access.

General Versus Special Benefit
Article XIIIC of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. The assessment can fund special benefits but cannot fund general benefits. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.

In other words:

Total
Benefit =
General
Benefit + Special Benefit
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

There is no widely-accepted or statutory formula for general benefit. General benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits received by other properties. SVTA vs.

SCCOSA provides some clarification by indicating that general benefits provide “an indirect, derivative advantage” and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.

The starting point for evaluating general and special benefits is the pre 2006 baseline level of service, had the assessment not been approved by the community. The assessment will fund Services “over and above” this general, baseline level and the special benefits estimated in this section are over and above the baseline.

A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:

Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in the state constitution as “a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.” The SVTA v. SCCOSA decision indicates that a special benefit is conferred to a property if it “receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to a park).” In this assessment, as noted, the improved Services are available when needed to all properties in the Assessment District, so the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property is special, and are only minimally received by property outside the Assessment District or the public at large.

Proposition 218 twice uses the phrase “over and above” general benefits in describing special benefit. (Art. XIIID, sections 2(i) & 4(f).) Arguably, all of the Services being funded by the assessment would be a special benefit because the Services particularly and distinctly benefit the properties in the Assessment District over and above the baseline benefits.

Nevertheless, arguably some of the Services benefit the public at large and properties outside the Assessment District. In this report, the general benefit is conservatively estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

(In the 2009 Dahms case, the court upheld an assessment that conferred a 100% special benefit to the assessed parcels on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were provided directly and only to property in the assessment district over and above those services or improvements provided by the city generally. Similarly, the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report fund wildland fire services directly and only to the assessed parcels located within the assessment area. Moreover, every property within the Assessment District will receive the Services. While the Dahms decision would permit an assessment based on 100% special benefit and zero or minimal general benefits, in this report, the general benefit is estimated and described and budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.) City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Calculating General Benefit
This section provides a measure of the general benefits from the assessments Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District
Properties within the Assessment District receive almost all of the special benefits from the Services because the Services will be provided solely in the Assessment District boundaries.

Properties proximate to, but outside of, the boundaries of the Assessment District receive some benefit from the Services due to some degree of indirectly reduced fire risk to their property.

These parcels that are proximate to the boundaries of the Assessment District are estimated to receive less than 50% of the benefits relative to parcels within the Assessment District because they do not directly receive the improved fire protection resulting from the Services funded by the Assessments.

At the time the Assessment District was formed, there were approximately 550 of these “proximate” properties.

Although it can reasonably be argued that properties protected inside, but near the Assessment District boundaries are offset by similar fire protection provided outside, but near the Assessment District’s boundaries, we use the more conservative approach of finding that 6.7% of the Services may be of general benefit to property outside the Assessment District.

Benefit to Property Inside the District that is Indirect and Derivative The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the Assessment District is particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the Assessment District is special, because the Services are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the pre-2006 baseline level of Services, had the assessment district not passed.

Assumptions:
550 parcels outside the district but proximate to the District Boundaries 3,550 parcels in the Assessment District.
50% relative benefit compared to property within the Assessment District.

Calculation:

General Benefit to property outside the Assessment District = (550/(550+3,550))*0.5=6.7%
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

In determining the Assessment District boundaries, the District has been careful to limit it to an area of parcels that will directly receive the benefit of the improved Services. All parcels will directly benefit from the use of the improved Services throughout the Assessment District in order to achieve the desired level of wildland fire suppression and protection throughout the Assessment District. Fire protection and suppression will be provided as needed throughout the area.

The SVTA vs. SCCOSA decision indicates that the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the Assessment District area does not make the benefit general rather than special, so long as the Assessment District is narrowly drawn and limited to the parcels directly receiving shared special benefits from the service. This concept is particularly applicable in situations involving a landowner-approved assessment-funded extension of a local government service to benefit lands previously not receiving that particular service. The Fire Department therefore concludes that, other than the small general benefit to properties outside the Assessment District (discussed above) and to the public at large (discussed below), all of the benefits of the Services to the parcels within the Assessment District are special benefits and it is not possible or appropriate to separate any general benefits from the benefits conferred on parcels in the Assessment District.

Benefit To The Public At Large
With the type and scope of Services provided to the Assessment District, it is very difficult to calculate and quantify the scope of the general benefit conferred on the public at large. Because the Services directly serve and benefit all of the property in the Assessment District, any general benefit conferred on the public at large would be small. Nevertheless, there may be some indirect general benefit to the public at large.

The public at large uses the public highways and other regional facilities when traveling in and through the Assessment District and they may benefit from the services without contributing to the assessment. Although the protection of this critical infrastructure is certainly a benefit to all the property within the Assessment District, it is arguably “indirect and derivative” and possibly benefits people rather than property. A fair and appropriate measure of the general benefit to the public at large therefore is the amount of highway, and regional facilities within the Assessment District relative to the overall land area. An analysis of maps of the Assessment District shows that less than 1.0% of the land area in the Assessment District is covered by highways and regional facilities. This 1.0% therefore is a fair and appropriate measure of the general benefit to the public at large within the Assessment District Summary of General Benefits
Using a sum of the measures of general benefit for the public at large and land outside the Assessment District, we find that approximately 7.7% of the benefits conferred by the Assessment District may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

The Assessment District’s total budget for 2026-27 is $370,084. The Assessment District must obtain funding from sources other than the assessment in the amount of at least $28,496 ($370,084*7.7%) to pay for the cost of the general benefits. This is because the assessments levied by the Fire Department may not exceed the special benefits provided by the Services, and the Assessment Engineer concluded that a combined total of 7.7% of the cost of Services provide a general benefit to properties outside the Assessment District and a benefit to the public at large.

For Fiscal Year 2026-27, the City will contribute at least $28,496, or 7.7% of the total Assessment District budget, to the Assessment District from sources other than this assessment to cover the cost of the general benefits.

Zones of Benefit
Initially, the Fire Department evaluated the geographic area within and around the City limits (including the City of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County, Montecito and National Forest lands) based upon three fire hazard risk variables: vegetation (fuel), topography and weather. This analysis was used to narrowly determine the boundaries of the “high fire hazard area.” Further, zones were narrowly drawn within the high fire hazard area and graded “extreme,” “high,” “moderate” or “low”. Next, the Fire Department evaluated the roof type, proximity of structures, road systems, water supply, fire response times and historic fire starts within the high fire hazard area and developed 4 specific zones:
 Extreme Foothill Zone
 Foothill Zone
 Coastal Zone
 Coastal Interior Zone
These zones were used to apply appropriate policies and actions based upon hazard and risk. The results of this analysis were tabulated and presented in Tables 2 through 4 in the 2004 Wildland Fire Plan.

General Benefit Calculation

6.7% (Outside the Assessment District)
+ 0.0% (Inside the district – indirect and derivative)
+ 1.0% (Public at Large)
= 7.7% (Total General Benefit)
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Extreme
Foothill Zone Foothill Zone
Combined Hazard
Assessment - vegetation
(fuel), topography, weather*
40 30
Roof Type 1 2
Proximity 1 3
Road 3 3
Water 3 1
Response 3 2
Ignitions 1 1
Total Score 52 42
Qualititative
Score
Numeric
Score
Very High 4
High 3
Moderate 2
Low 1
Accordingly, “Zones of Benefit” corresponding to the fire risk zones are used to equitably assign special benefit, and are used for the basis of the “Fire Risk Factors” discussed below. Each zone was narrowly drawn, and has been given a score, based upon the evaluated risk criteria, as shown in Figure 3. (The assessment provides Services in the Extreme Foothill Zone and the Foothill Zone only.)
Figure 3 - Relative Hazard/Risk Scoring for High Fire Hazard Area Zones * The Hazard Assessment element of this analysis is the most significant. Scores have been “weighted” by a factor of 10.
** In the Extreme Foothill Zone fire retardant roofing materials are more prevalent, resulting in lower risk in this area.

Figure 4 shows the numeric scoring system used to develop the relative total scores.

Figure 4 - Scoring System
The total relative scores for each zone are tabulated and normalized, based up the Foothill Zone, and shown in Figure 5.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Wildland Fire Risk
Factor
Extreme Foothill Zone 52 1.24
Foothill Zone 42 1.00
Figure 5 - Wildland Fire Risk Factors
Assessment Apportionment
In the process of determining the appropriate method of assessment, the Assessment Engineer considered various alternatives. For example, an assessment only for all residential improved property was considered but was determined to be inappropriate because vacant, commercial, industrial and other properties also receive special benefits from the assessments.

Moreover, a fixed or flat assessment for all properties of similar type was deemed to be inappropriate because larger commercial/industrial properties and residential properties with multiple dwelling units receive a higher degree of benefit than other similarly used properties that are significantly smaller. For two properties used for commercial purposes, there clearly is a higher benefit provided to the larger property in comparison to a smaller commercial property because the larger property generally supports a larger building and has higher numbers of employees, customers and guests that benefit from reduced wildland fire risk. This benefit ultimately flows to the property. Larger parcels, therefore, receive an increased benefit from the assessments.

The Assessment Engineer determined that the appropriate method of assessment should be based on the type of property, the relative size of the property and the potential use of property by residents and employees. This method is further described below.

Method of Assessment
The next step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a "benchmark" property, a single family detached dwelling on one parcel of one acre or less in the Foothill Zone (one “Single Family Equivalent Benefit Unit” or “SFE”). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefits and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. In this Engineer’s Report, all properties are assigned an SFE value, which is each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single family home on one parcel.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

The relative benefit to properties from fire related Services is:

Equation 1 – Relative Benefit to Properties
Benefit ≈ ∑ (Fire Risk Factors) ∗ ∑ (Structure Value Factors) That is, the benefit conferred to property is the “sum” the risk factors multiplied by the “sum” of the structure values factors.

Fire Risk Factors
Typical fire assessments (non-wildland) are evaluated based upon the fire risk of a certain property type. These evaluations consider factors such as use of structure (e.g. used for cooking), type of structure (centralized heating), etc.

Wildland fires, on the other hand, are initiated largely from external ignitions and are far less affected by structural, mechanical and electrical systems inherent to the building (except roof type). The principle Wildland fire risk factors are:
 Vegetation (fuel)
 Topography
 Weather
 Roof type
 Proximity of Structure
 Road Systems
 Water Supply
 Response
 Ignitions
These factors were fully evaluated in the 2004 Wildland Fire Plan and are manifested in the relative zone scores as shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5, above. Hence, the Fire Risk Factor for all properties within the Foothill Zone is 1.00 and the Fire Risk Factor for all properties in the Extreme Foothill Zone is 1.24.

Structure Value Factors
The relative value of different property types was evaluated within the high fire hazard area to determine the Structure Value Factor according to the following formula:

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Equation 2 - Structure Value Factors
∑ (Structure Value
Factors)
≈
(Structure Weighting
Factor
∗
Average Improved
Value)
∗
(Land Weighting
Factor
∗
Average Total
Value)
∗
(Unit Density
Factor)
Where:
“Structure Weight Factor” = 10 to “weight” relative importance of structure over land. “Average Improved Value” is average of value of all improvements (e.g. structures), per property type, as provide by County Assessor records.

Land Weighting Factor = 1
“Average Total Value” is average of value of all land + improvements (e.g. structures), per property type, as provide by County Assessor records. County assessor land values were not used directly because experience has shown total values to be more comprehensive. “Unit Density Factor” corresponds values with units (i.e. “per residential unit” or “per acre”) based upon effective density of structure on parcel.

Figure 6 below is a tabulation of the Structure values for each property type as defined by Equation 2, above.

Figure 6 – Structure Value Factors
*For homes on an acre or less. For homes on more than one acre, the Structure Value Factor is increased by 0.0809 per acre
Residential Properties
All improved residential properties with a single residential dwelling unit on one acre or less are assigned one Single Family Equivalent or 1.0 SFE in the Foothill Zone. In the Extreme Foothill Zone, all improved residential properties on one acre or less are assessed 1.24 SFEs (See Table 5).

Residential properties on parcels that are larger than 1 acre receive additional benefit and are assigned additional SFEs on a “per acre” basis. Detached or attached houses, zero-lot line houses and town homes are included in this category.

Property Type Structure Value Factor Unit
Single Family 1.0000 per each*
Multi-Family 0.3683 per res. unit
Commercial/Industrial 0.8187 per acre
Office 0.7058 per acre
Institutional 0.3841 per each
Storage 0.0952 per acre
Agricultural 0.0809 per acre
Rangeland 0.0181 per acre
Vacant 0.0324 per each
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Properties with more than one residential unit are designated as multi-family residential properties. These properties benefit from the Services in proportion to the number of dwelling units that occupy each property. The relative benefit for multi-family properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.3683 SFEs per residential unit in the Foothill Zone and 0.4567 per residential unit in the Extreme Foothill Zone. This rate applies to condominiums as well.

Commercial/Industrial & Office Properties
Commercial and industrial properties are assigned benefit units per acre, since there is a relationship between parcel size, structure size and relative benefits. The relative benefit for commercial and industrial properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.8187 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 1.0151 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone. The relative benefit for office properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.7058 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.8751 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone.

Vacant/Undeveloped, Open Space and Agricultural Properties The relative benefit for vacant properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0324 SFEs per parcel in the Foothill Zone and 0.04012 per parcel in the Extreme Foothill Zone. Open space and agricultural land have minimal improvements and few, if any; structures that require defensible space, and are assigned benefit “per acre.” The relative benefit for open space properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0181 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.0224 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone. The relative benefit for agricultural properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0809 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.1002 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone.

Other Properties
Institutional properties, such as publicly owned properties (and are used as such), for example, churches, are assessed at 0.3841 per parcel in the Foothill zone and 0.4762 per Parcel in the Extreme Foothill zone. The relative benefit for storage properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0952 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.1180 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone.

Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution states that publicly owned properties shall not be exempt from assessment unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit.

All public properties that are specially benefited are assessed. Publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses is benefited and assessed at the same rate as such privately owned property.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Summary of Benefits for Each Property Type
Figure 7 summarizes the relative benefit for each property type.

Figure 7 - Relative Benefit Factors for Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones Foothill Zone
Extreme Foothill
Zone
Property Type
Benefit Factors
(SFEs) Unit
Benefit Factors
(SFEs) Unit
Single Family 1.0000 per each 1.2400 per each
Multi-Family 0.3683 per unit 0.4567 per unit
Commercial/Industrial 0.8187 per acre 1.0152 per acre
Office 0.7058 per acre 0.8752 per acre
Institutional 0.3841 per each 0.4763 per each
Storage 0.0952 per acre 0.1181 per acre
Agricultural 0.0809 per acre 0.1003 per acre
RangeLand 0.0181 per acre 0.0225 per acre
Vacant 0.0324 per each 0.0402 per each
Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property
Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment may file a written appeal with the Fire Chief of the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Chief or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Chief or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the Chief or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the Chief or his or her designee shall be referred to the City Council and the decision of the Council shall be final.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Additional Background on Relative Benefit
In essence, when property owners are deciding how to cast their ballot for a proposed assessment, each property owner must weigh the perceived value of the Services proposed to them and their property with the proposed cost of the assessment to their property. If property owners of a certain type of property are either opposed or in support of the assessment in much greater percentages than owners of other property types, this is an indication that, as a group, these property owners perceive that the proposed assessment has relatively higher or lower “utility” or value to their property relative to owners of other property types. One can also infer from these hypothetical ballot results, that the apportionment of benefit (and assessments) was too high or too low for that property type. In other words, property owners, by their balloting, ultimately indicate if they perceive the special benefits to their property to exceed the cost of the assessment, and, as a group, whether the determined level of benefit and proposed assessment (the benefit apportionment made by the Assessment Engineer) is consistent with the level of benefits perceived by the owners of their type of property relative to the owners of other types of property.

Duration of the Assessment
The duration of the assessment is one year, and may be continued each year by a vote of the City Council. The assessment cannot be increased in future years without approval from property owners in another assessment ballot proceeding, except for an annual adjustment tied to the change in the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 4% per year.

Criteria and Policies
This sub-section describes the criteria that shall govern the expenditure of assessment funds and ensures equal levels of benefit for properties of similar type. The criteria established in this Report, as finally confirmed, cannot be substantially modified; however, the Council may adopt additional criteria to further clarify certain criteria or policies established in this Report or to establish additional criteria or policies that do not conflict with this Report.

Assessment Funds Must Be Expended Within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones
The net available assessment funds, after incidental, administrative, financing and other costs, shall be expended exclusively for Services within the boundaries of the Assessment District, namely, the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Existing General Funds
Prior to formation of the assessment, these Wildland Fire Services were funded with approximately $200,000 from the City of Santa Barbara general fund. A general fund contribution of at least $200,000 has been provided each year, and will continue to be provided in future years by the City, to the extent feasible.

This $200,000+ contribution, which comes in the form of direct funds and manpower, is used to support Wildland Fire Services throughout the City including the Coast area, as well as broad, citywide public outreach, planning and policy etc., and to pay for any and all general benefits from the assessment-related services, as required and as described on page 18, above.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Evacuation Planning – Evacuation Roadway Clearing $126,500 Defensible Space $162,084
Vegetation Management $81,500
Total for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $370,084 Less: Contribution for General Benefits ($28,496)
Incidental Costs:

Administration and Project Management $6,485
Allowance for County collection $3,450
Subtotal – Incidentals $9,935
Total Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment Budget $351,522 Budget
Assessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara is proceeding with the proposed levy of assessments under California Government Code sections 50078 et seq. (the “Code”) and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”);
WHEREAS, the undersigned Engineer of Work has prepared and filed a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Services upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Code and Article and the order of the Council of said City, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said Services, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

The amount to be paid for said Services and the expense incidental thereto, to be paid by the Assessment District for the fiscal year 2026-27 is generally as follows:

Summary Cost Estimate FY 2026-27
An Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of said Assessment District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in said Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of said Services, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Services, and more particularly set forth in the Cost Estimate and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area as of January of each succeeding year, with the maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 4%.

In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the maximum of 4% or the yearly CPI change plus any CPI change in previous years that was in excess of 4%, the maximum authorized assessment shall increase by this amount. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years. The CPI change above 4% can be used in a future year when the CPI adjustment is below 4%. From December 2024 to December 2025, the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area CPI increase is 3.01%.

Based upon this CPI increase, the proposed rates for 2026-27 will increase by 3.01% from the 2025-26 rates – from $103.10 to $106.20 per single family home in the Foothill Zone and from $127.84 to $131.69 per single family home in the Extreme Foothill Zone. The total revenue derived from the assessment is $351,522 for 2026-27.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the City of Santa Barbara for the fiscal year 2026-27. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Barbara County.

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2026-27 for each parcel or lot of land within the said Assessment District.

Dated: March 20, 2026
Engineer of Work
By
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Assessment Diagram
The Assessment District includes all properties within the boundaries of the Wildland Fire Suppression District. The boundaries of the Assessment District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Santa Barbara, for fiscal year 2026-27, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment Roll, FY 2026-27
The Assessment Roll is made part of this report and is available for public inspection during normal office hours. Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference, made part of this report. These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots of parcels.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Appendix B – California Government Code Section 50078 et seq. 50078. Any local agency which provides fire suppression services directly or by contract with the state or a local agency may, by ordinance or by resolution adopted after notice and hearing, determine and levy an assessment for fire suppression services pursuant to this article. The assessment may be made for the purpose of obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression equipment or apparatus or for the purpose of paying the salaries and benefits of firefighting personnel, or both, whether or not fire suppression services are actually used by or upon a parcel, improvement, or property.
50078.1. As used in this article:
(a) "Legislative body" means the board of directors, trustees, governors, or any other governing body of a local agency specified in subdivision (b).
(b) "Local agency" means any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, or special district, including a county service area created pursuant to the County Service Area Law, Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 25210.1) of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3. (c) "Fire suppression" includes firefighting and fire prevention, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal or management undertaken, in whole or in part, for the reduction of a fire hazard.
50078.2. (a) The ordinance or resolution shall establish uniform schedules and rates based upon the type of use of property and the risk classification of the structures or other improvements on, or the use of, the property. The risk classification may include, but need not be limited to, the amount of water required for fire suppression on that property, the structure size, type of construction, structure use, and other factors relating to potential fire and panic hazards and the costs of providing the fire suppression by the district to that property. The assessment shall be related to the benefits to the property assessed.
(b) The benefit assessment levies on land devoted primarily to agricultural, timber, or livestock uses, and being used for the commercial production of agricultural, timber, or livestock products, shall be related to the relative risk to the land and its products. The amount of the assessment shall recognize normal husbandry practices that serve to mitigate risk, onsite or proximate water availability, response time, capability of the fire suppression service, and any other factors which reflect the benefit to the land resulting from the fire suppression service provided. A benefit assessment shall not be levied for wildland or watershed fire suppression on land located in a state responsibility area as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code. This subdivision is not applicable to any benefit assessment levied prior to January 1, 1984, on land devoted primarily to agricultural, timber, or livestock uses.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

50078.3. Any ordinance or resolution adopted by a local agency pursuant to this article establishing uniform schedules and rates for assessments for fire suppression services which substantially conforms with the model ordinance which the State Fire Marshal is authorized to adopt pursuant to Section 13111 of the Health and Safety Code shall be presumed to be in compliance with the requirements of Section 50078.2.
50078.4. The legislative body of the local agency shall cause to be prepared and filed with the clerk of the local agency a written report which shall contain all of the following:
(a) A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the assessment. (b) The amount of the assessment for each lot or parcel for the initial fiscal year. (c) The maximum amount of the assessment which may be levied for each lot or parcel during any fiscal year.
(d) The duration of the assessment.
(e) The basis of the assessment.
(f) The schedule of the assessment.
(g) A description specifying the requirements for protest and hearing procedures for the proposed assessment pursuant to Section 50078.6.
50078.5. (a) The legislative body may establish zones or areas of benefit within the local agency and may restrict the imposition of assessments to areas lying within one or more of the zones or areas of benefit established within the local agency.
(b) The benefit assessment shall be levied on a parcel, class of improvement to property, or use of property basis, or a combination thereof, within the boundaries of the local agency, zone, or area of benefit. The assessment may be levied against any parcel, improvement, or use of property to which such services may be made available whether or not the service is actually used. 50078.6. The clerk of the local agency shall cause the notice, protest, and hearing procedures to comply with Section 53753. The mailed notice shall also contain the name and telephone number of the person designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries regarding the protest proceedings.
50078.13. The local agency shall pay the county for costs, if any, incurred by the county in conducting the election. An election called by a legislative body pursuant to this article is subject to all provisions of the Elections Code applicable to elections called by the local agency. The local agency may recover the costs of the election and any other costs of preparing and levying the assessment from the proceeds of the assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

50078.16. The legislative body may provide for the collection of the assessment in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as, other fees, charges, and taxes fixed and collected by, or on behalf of the local agency. If the assessments are collected by the county, the county may deduct its reasonable costs incurred for that service before remittal of the balance to the local agency's treasury.
50078.17. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to any judicial action or proceeding to validate, attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution levying an assessment or modifying or amending an existing ordinance or resolution. If an ordinance or resolution provides for an automatic adjustment in an assessment, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of an assessment, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase shall be commenced within 90 days of the effective date of the increase. Any appeal from a final judgment in the action or proceeding brought pursuant to this section shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment.
50078.19. This article does not limit or prohibit the levy or collection of any other fee, charge, assessment, or tax for fire suppression services authorized by any other provisions of law. 50078.20. Any fire protection district may specifically allocate a portion of the revenue generated pursuant to this article to pay the interest and that portion of the principal as will become due on an annual basis on indebtedness incurred pursuant to Section 8589.13 of this code and Section 13906 of the Health and Safety Code.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Appendix C – Article XIIID of the California Constitution Proposition 218 was approved by voters as a Constitutional Amendment on November 6, 1996.

It became Article XIIIC and Article XIIID of the California State Constitution and has imposed additional requirements for assessment districts. Following is a summary of the Article.

SEC.1. Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments, fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIIIC shall be construed to:
(a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment, fee, or charge. (b) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.
(c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes.

SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article:
(a) "Agency" means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIC. (b) "Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. "Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment" and "special assessment tax." (c) "Capital cost" means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency. (d) "District" means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service. (e) "Fee" or "charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service. (f) "Maintenance and operation expenses" means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.
(g) "Property ownership" shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment, fee, or charge in question.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

(h) "Property-related service" means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership.
(i) "Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit." SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIIIA. (2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIA. (3) Assessments as provided by this article. (4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. (b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

(c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed.
(d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment.
(e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel.

At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.
(f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question.
(g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e).

SEC. 5. Effective Date.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on the effective date of this article shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4:
(a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control.

Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.
(b) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section

4. (c) Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(d) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

End Notes
1 Insurance Services Offices Inc.
http://www.rockwall.com/FireDepartment/Insurance%20Services%20Office%20Rating%20Infor mation.pdf
2 Institute for Business & Home Safety, “Protect Your Home Against Wildfire Damage,” http://www.ibhs.org/publications/view.asp?id=125
3 Institute for Business & Home Safety, “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Damage? A Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofit,” http://www.ibhs.org/publications/view.asp?id=130 4 U.S. Fire Administration, Department of Homeland Security, “America Burning, Recommissioned: Principal Findings and Recommendations,” p.1, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/abr-rep.PDF
5 U.S. Fire Administration, Department of Homeland Security, “America Burning, Recommissioned: Principal Findings and Recommendations,” p.2, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/abr-rep.PDF
6 Insurance Services Offices Inc., p. 1,
http://www.rockwall.com/FireDepartment/Insurance%20Services%20Office%20Rating%20Infor mation.pdf
7 Renewable Natural Resources Foundation, “Workshop on National Parks Fire Policy: Goals, Perceptions, and Reality,” Renewable Resources Journal, Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 1993, p. 6 8 Weldon, Leslie A. C., “Dealing with Public Concerns in Restoring Fire to the Forest,” General Technical Report INT-GTR-341 The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration, U.S. Forest Service, June 1996, p. 3
9 U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, “Social Science to Improve Fuels Management:

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management,” p. 1, http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc261.pdf
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Engineer’s Report, FY 2026-27

10 U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, “Social Science to Improve Fuels Management:

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management,” p. 25, http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc261.pdf
11 Weldon, Leslie A. C., “Dealing with Public Concerns in Restoring Fire to the Forest,” General Technical Report INT-GTR-341 The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration, U.S. Forest Service, June 1996, p. 2

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SANTA BARBARA DECLARING ITS INTENTION

TO CONTINUE THE WILDLAND FIRE

SUPPRESSION ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE
FOOTHILL AND EXTREME FOOTHILL ZONES;

DECLARING THE WORK TO BE OF MORE THAN

GENERAL OR ORDINARY BENEFIT AND

DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED
TO PAY THE COSTS AND EXPENSES THEREOF;

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE UPDATED
ENGINEER’S REPORT; STATING INTENTION TO

CONTINUE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2027 AND ESTABLISHING A TIME OF 2:00 P.M. ON
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026, IN THE CITY COUNCIL

CHAMBERS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara is authorized, pursuant to the authority provided in California Government Code Section 50078 et seq. and Article XIIID of the California Constitution, to levy assessments for fire suppression services; and WHEREAS, an assessment for fire suppression has been given the distinctive designation of the “Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment” (“Assessment”), and is primarily described as encompassing the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones as defined in the Wildland Fire Plan of 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Assessment was authorized by an assessment ballot proceeding conducted in 2006 and approved by 51% of the weighted ballots returned by property owners, and such assessments were levied by the City of Santa Barbara City Council by Resolution No. 06-064 passed on July 11, 2006;
WHEREAS, although the methodology by which the assessments are applied to properties in the District does not change from year to year, a new Engineer’s Report is prepared each year in order to establish the CPI adjustment for that year; the new maximum authorized assessment rate for that year; the budget for that year; and the amount to be charged to each parcel in the District that year, subject to that year’s assessment rate and any changes in the attributes of the properties in the District, including but not limited to use changes, parcel subdivisions, and/or parcel consolidations; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. SCI Consulting Group, the Engineer of Work, has prepared an engineer’s report in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution. The Report has been made, filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by the Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminarily approved. The Report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the foregoing resolution.

SECTION 2. It is the intention of this Council to continue to levy and collect assessments for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment for fiscal year 2026-27. Within the Assessment District, the proposed services to be funded by the assessments (“Services”) are generally described as including but not limited to, the following: (1) continuation of the vegetation road clearance program to cover all public roads within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones (continuing this program will reduce fuel, enhance evacuation routes, and decrease fire response times); (2) enhancing the defensible space fire prevention inspection and assistance program for all properties in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones; and (3) implementation of a vegetation management program in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones. As applied herein, “vegetation road clearance” means the treatment, clearing, reducing, or changing of vegetation near roadways in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones where vegetation poses a fire hazard and does not meet Fire Department Vegetation Road Clearance Standards within the high fire hazard area (as provided in Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 8.04.020.M). “Defensible space” is a perimeter created around a structure where vegetation is treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards a structure, reduce the chance of a structure fire burning to the surrounding area, and provides a safe perimeter for firefighters to protect a structure (as provided in Chapter 49, Section 4907 "Requirements For Wildland-Urban Interface Areas, Defensible Space" as adopted by the City of Santa Barbara pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section

8.04.010). “Vegetation management” means the reduction of fire hazard through public education, vegetation hazard reduction, and other methods as needed to manage vegetation in areas with unique hazards such as heavy, flammable vegetation, lack of access due to topography and roads, and/or firefighter safety.

SECTION 3. The estimated fiscal year 2026-27 cost of providing the Services is $351,522. This cost results in a proposed assessment rate of ONE HUNDRED AND SIX DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($106.20)
per single-family equivalent benefit unit in the Foothill Zone and ONE

HUNDRED AND THIRTY-ONE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-NINE CENTS
($131.69) in the Extreme Foothill Zone for fiscal year 2026-27. The

Assessments include a provision for an annual increase equal to the change in the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area Consumer Price Index (“CPI), not to exceed 4% (four percent) per year without a further vote or balloting process. The actual CPI for 2024-2025 is 3.01%.

The rates have been adjusted accordingly.

SECTION 4. The public hearing shall be held, before the City Council in the City of Santa Barbara City Council Chambers, located at 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 as follows: on Tuesday, June 2, 2026 at the hour of 2:00 p.m. for the purpose of this Council’s determination whether the public interest, convenience and necessity require the Services and this Council’s final action upon the Report and the assessments therein.

SECTION 5. The clerk of the council shall cause a notice of the hearing to be given by publishing a notice, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing above-specified, in a newspaper circulated in the City.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Sustainability & Resilience Department
SUBJECT: Resolution Affirming the City’s Commitment to Biodiversity Protection and Restoration [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of City of Santa Barbara Affirming the City of Santa Barbara’s Commitment to Biodiversity Protection and Restoration.

DISCUSSION:

The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden is celebrating its centennial anniversary and in commemoration of this milestone, is ramping up advocacy efforts in support of enhanced biodiversity and native plants regionwide. As part of this effort, they have asked multiple regional jurisdictions to voice support for biodiversity protection and restoration through resolutions such as the one proposed.

California has identified biodiversity protection as a key priority through statewide initiatives such as Executive Order N-82-20, which establishes a goal to conserve 30 percent of lands and coastal waters by 2030 (“30x30”). These initiatives recognize biodiversity as essential to climate resilience, ecosystem function, and community wellbeing.

The City of Santa Barbara is located within the California Floristic Province, a globally recognized area of significance for biodiversity. The region supports diverse terrestrial and marine ecosystems, including coastal sage scrub, wetlands, oak woodlands, and kelp forests, that provide critical ecological functions and support numerous native and sensitive species. These ecosystems also provide direct benefits to the community, including greenhouse gas reductions, climate resilience, wildfire risk reduction, water quality protection, and recreational opportunities.

These natural systems face increasing pressure from climate change, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and development, underscoring the importance of coordinated local conservation and restoration efforts.

Agenda Item No. 4
Council Agenda Report
Resolution Affirming the City’s Commitment to Biodiversity Protection and Restoration [Resolution]
April 14, 2026

The proposed Resolution affirms the City’s commitment to protecting and restoring biodiversity and aligning local efforts with state and regional conservation goals.

Specifically, the Resolution would:
 Recognize the ecological significance of the South Central Coast region;  Support the conservation and restoration of native habitats and green infrastructure;
 Encourage integration of biodiversity considerations into City planning and development practices;
 Promote partnerships with tribal governments, conservation organizations, educational institutions, and public agencies; and
 Direct staff to identify funding opportunities and potential actions to advance local biodiversity goals.

The Resolution establishes policy direction and supports voluntary, partnership-based approaches. It does not impose new regulatory requirements.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Adoption of the Resolution does not have direct fiscal impact. Any future actions related to the resolution would be evaluated through the City’s budget process and may be supported by grants, partnerships, or existing programs.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The proposed resolution supports implementation of the City’s Together to Zero Climate Action Plan and reinforces existing efforts to enhance climate resilience through naturebased solutions. Biodiversity protection complements the City’s climate mitigation and adaptation strategies by supporting carbon sequestration, improving ecosystem resilience, and reducing climate-related risks. The Resolution also aligns with the City’s broader sustainability priorities, including habitat restoration, urban forestry, creek restoration, and coastal resource protection.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed resolution is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it establishes policy direction and does not authorize a specific project.

PREPARED &
SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability & Resilience Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AFFIRMING THE CITY OF SANTA
BARBARA’S COMMITMENT TO BIODIVERSITY

PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
WHEREAS, the State of California has identified the protection and restoration of biodiversity as a critical priority through major initiatives such as the California Biodiversity Initiative (2018) and Executive Order N-82-20, which commits the state to conserving 30 percent of its lands and coastal waters by 2030 (“30x30”), and recognizes biodiversity as essential to climate resilience, food security, and human well-being; WHEREAS, California’s Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy recognizes biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration as essential components of the state’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals, encouraging local governments to integrate nature-based solutions into land-use planning and community resilience efforts; WHEREAS, local efforts to preserve native species, restore degraded ecosystems, protect pollinator habitats, and expand green infrastructure directly support California’s State Wildlife Action Plan, the Pathways to 30x30 strategy, and regional conservation frameworks such as the California Floristic Province Hotspot, of which the South Central Coast of California is a core part;
WHEREAS local efforts to preserve native species, restore degraded ecosystems, protect pollinator habitats, and expand green infrastructure are already part of some regional planning efforts, including the County’s Comprehensive General Plan (Land Use Element, Open Space Element, Agricultural Element, etc.), the Gaviota Coastal Plan, local climate action plans, and others;
WHEREAS, California’s Central Coast region—stretching from the north end of Santa Barbara County to the northern section of Los Angeles County, and including the City of Santa Barbara—sits at a critical biogeographic boundary where northern and southern ecosystems overlap, creating a unique and ecologically rich environment with exceptional levels of species diversity;
WHEREAS, the region’s diverse terrestrial ecosystems—including, but not limited to oak woodlands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, serpentine outcrops, and riparian corridors and wetlands—are home to numerous rare, threatened, and endemic plant species such as Hoffman's bitter gooseberry, salt marsh birds beak, Santa Barbara jewel flower, and lateflowered mariposa lily; WHEREAS, the marine and coastal environments off our shores—including kelp forests, rocky intertidal zones, upwelling zones, and offshore areas such as the Channel Islands and the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary—support vital biodiversity, including endangered species such as the southern sea otter, leatherback sea turtle, and migratory whale populations;
WHEREAS, these ecosystems are not only ecologically valuable but also essential to our local communities’ health, cultural heritage, climate resilience, and economy—providing clean air and water, protection from erosion and wildfire, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, fishing, and education; and
WHEREAS, the continued health of these biodiversity-rich systems is threatened by habitat fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, climate change, and unsustainable development, underscoring the need for urgent, coordinated action at the local level.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara hereby:

SECTION 1. Recognizes the ecological significance of California’s south central coast as a global biodiversity hotspot and affirms its commitment to protecting the region’s native flora, fauna, and marine ecosystems;
SECTION 2. Supports the expansion and stewardship of local protected areas, greenbelts, habitat corridors, and marine protected zones—including voluntary conservation easements, native habitat restoration projects, and urban biodiversity initiatives;
SECTION 3. Commits to integrating biodiversity considerations into city planning, zoning, and development decisions, including the use of native plant landscaping, wildlife-friendly design, and nature-based solutions to climate resilience whenever possible; SECTION 4. Encourages partnerships with Chumash community members, state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, land trusts, marine sanctuaries, K-12 and higher educational institutions, and scientists to advance habitat restoration, communityled science, and biodiversity education in our communities; and SECTION 5. Directs staff to identify funding sources (including grants, state/federal programs, and private partnerships) and to report back with recommendations for advancing local biodiversity goals in alignment with state and regional conservation plans.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Sustainability & Resilience Department
SUBJECT: Adoption of Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

DISCUSSION:

The Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan (Plan) evaluates strategies to increase the resilience of the City’s wastewater and water systems to climate-related hazards such as flooding. The project is jointly funded by the California Coastal Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, and the City. Strengthening the resilience of the wastewater system was identified as the highest-priority implementation action in the 2021 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. The Plan also fulfills State waste discharge permit regulatory requirements for El Estero Water Resources Center.

Between December 9, 2025 and February 10, 2026, the City conducted public outreach on the Draft Plan that included presentations and comments from the City Council, Water Commission, Planning Commission, and Creeks Advisory Committee.

The Plan has been revised in response to comments and is available at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WWCAP. An executive summary is included as Attachment A. On March 19, 2026, the Water Commission reviewed the revised Final Draft Plan and unanimously voted to forward a recommendation to Council to adopt the Plan.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE PLAN
The Plan analyzes impacts from flooding, erosion, sea level rise, changing rainfall, wildfire, drought, extreme heat, and groundwater rise on all parts of the wastewater and water systems. Among all the vulnerabilities identified in the plan, the highest risks are associated with the impacts of flooding to the wastewater system in the low-lying area running between the Waterfront to just north of Highway 101. During storms, floodwater Agenda Item No. 5
Council Agenda Report
Adoption of Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan [Resolution] April 14, 2025

enters the sewer collection system and can overwhelm pipes and treatment plant capacity, leading to sanitary sewer overflows.

Analysis of local climate changes shows storms are increasingly producing heavier rainfall over shorter periods of time. Rising sea levels and coastal storm surge also increase the chance of saltwater entering the system, which can cause significant disruptions to the sewage treatment process that depends on bacteria that are intolerant to saline conditions. El Estero Water Resource Center was purposely built to a higher elevation than the surrounding areas. Currently, the access roads surrounding El Estero Water Resource Center flood during heavy rainfall events. Over time, the combination of increased rainfall rates and sea level rise will worsen flooding of access roads into the plant and increase flood risk on the plant site itself due to its proximity to Laguna Creek.

The plan identifies high-priority adaptation measures for the next 25 years, including:

Wastewater Collection System Measures Include: Seal manholes in vulnerable areas, rehabilitate flood-prone sewer lines, and increase storage capacities in the collection system and at the treatment plant to handle increased flows during heavy rainstorms.

The plan also calls for a phased transition from gravity-fed to low-pressure sewer systems in flood-prone areas over the next 25 to 50 years. Low-pressure systems have been successfully implemented in many flood-prone areas throughout the nation to significantly reduce the inflow of floodwater and storm surge into sewer systems. Customer connections will need to be modified before the public sewer mains are pressurized therefore the City should consider an ordinance in the next five years to require new connections in the low-lying areas to include grinder pumps needed for pressurization, as well as incentives for customers to facilitate the conversion of existing sewer connections over the next 25 years.

El Estero Water Resource Center Measures Include: Develop operational plans for El Estero Water Resource Center during flooding events to prepare for limited access and implement flood protection strategies, such as floodwalls and elevating key infrastructure.

COMMENTS RECEIVED AND REVISIONS TO PLAN
The Draft Plan was presented to Council on December 9, 2025, after which several Commissions reviewed and commented on the Draft Plan including Water Commission, Planning Commission, and Creeks Advisory Committee. Below is a summary of the key themes of verbal and written comments received on the Draft Plan and associated revisions that were made.

Collection System Pressurization: Comments raised concerns about converting portions of the gravity sewer system to low-pressure systems, including impacts on property owners, whether pressurization is the only option, and interest in examples from other jurisdictions. In response, the Plan recommends that the upcoming Low-Pressure Conversion Study evaluate costs, phasing, alternatives, and potential incentives. While Council Agenda Report
Adoption of Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan [Resolution] April 14, 2025

low-pressure systems are commonly used in flood-prone areas and can reduce inflow and salinity impacts, other options such as advanced treatment can be considered but would not address capacity issues in the long term.

Inflow and Infiltration Reduction: Comments requested clarification regarding existing inflow and infiltration reduction efforts and calls to reduce sanitary sewer overflow now.

The Plan has been revised to provide more information on the City’s existing inflow and infiltration reduction efforts and to clarify that planning efforts to expand system capacity during wet weather events will be launched upon adoption of the Plan.

Regional Coordination: Several comments emphasized the importance of initiating discussions with regional partners regarding potential opportunities for regional wastewater treatment and infrastructure planning. City staff already meet regularly with regional partners regarding treatment and capacity issues. Completion of this Plan provides an important foundation for expanding those discussions to long term planning.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Implementation of the Plan over the next 25 years could require approximately $2–3 million for studies and design and $50–130 million for infrastructure improvements, in addition to increased staffing resources. Current water and wastewater rates allocate approximately $100,000 annually for climate adaptation work ($50,000 per year from the Water Fund and $50,000 per year from the Wastewater Fund). These funds can support some initial planning efforts. However, many infrastructure improvements identified in the Plan are not currently funded. Closing this funding gap will likely require a combination of funding sources, including grants, low-interest loans, increased utility rates, and other local funding mechanisms. As implementation proceeds, the City will further evaluate funding strategies and options for establishing a long-term funding source.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The Plan advances goals contained in the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Climate Action Plan, and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan address the impacts of climate change.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A feasibility or planning study for possible future actions does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration but does require the consideration of environmental factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262). Natural resource and water quality protection are key considerations in the Plan.

ATTACHMENT: Executive Summary of Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
PREPARED BY: Melissa Hetrick, Adaptation & Resilience Manager SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability & Resilience Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Wastewater and
Water Systems
Climate Adaptation
Plan
MARCH 2026 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINAL DRAFT

ATTACHMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate
Adaptation Plan
MARCH 2026
Final Draft
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. and
Environmental Science Associates

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the City of Santa Barbara. The primary contributors are listed below.

Melissa Hetrick, Adaptation and Resilience Manager
Kelly Bourque, Senior Project Engineer
Timmy Bolton, Senior Climate Adaptation Analyst
Joshua Haggmark, Director of Water Resources
Bradley Rahrer, Principal Project Manager
Thomas Welche, Wastewater System Manager
Amanda Flesse, former Wastewater System Manager
Matthew Ward, Water System Manager
The City would like to thank the California Coastal Conservancy and California Coastal Commission for providing grant funding for this report.

The Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. The primary authors are listed below.

Rob Morrow, PE
Patricia Parks, PE
Michelle Heinrichs
Adam Donald, PE
Michael Steele, PE
Cynthia Kahn
Erica Franklin
Nick Garrity, PE
Amber Inggs, PE
Annie Roberts, EIT
James Jackson, PE

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Table of Contents
City of Santa Barbara i
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Plan Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 Funding Sources....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Study Area................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.4 Approach .................................................................................................................. 1-5

1.5 Background............................................................................................................... 1-7

2.0 Hazards Approach...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Sea Level Rise Scenarios......................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Hazards Methodology ............................................................................................. 2-10

3.0 Systemwide Vulnerabilities and Impacts.................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Vulnerability & Risk Assessment Overview ............................................................... 3-1

3.2 Systemwide Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................... 3-5

3.3 Common Impacts.................................................................................................... 3-30

3.4 Stormwater Flooding Adaptation Options................................................................ 3-42

4.0 Wastewater Treatment ............................................................................................... 4-1 Vulnerability and Adaptation Summary ........................................................................... 4-2

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2 El Estero WRC Onsite Flooding................................................................................ 4-7

4.3 El Estero WRC Access during Offsite Flooding....................................................... 4-20

4.4 El Estero Outfall...................................................................................................... 4-24

4.5 Groundwater Rise................................................................................................... 4-31

4.6 Influent Wastewater Quality .................................................................................... 4-31

5.0 Wastewater Collection ............................................................................................... 5-1 Vulnerability and Adaptation Summary ........................................................................... 5-2

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 5-4

5.2 Collection System Capacity Limitations..................................................................... 5-7

5.3 West Beach Sewer ................................................................................................. 5-22

5.4 Cabrillo Blvd and Shoreline Drive Infrastructure...................................................... 5-28

5.5 Lift Stations............................................................................................................. 5-28

6.0 Potable Water Treatment ........................................................................................... 6-1 Vulnerability and Adaptation Summary ........................................................................... 6-2

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Table of Contents
City of Santa Barbara ii Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan

6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2 Desalination System ................................................................................................. 6-4

6.3 Ortega Groundwater Treatment Plant ..................................................................... 6-17

6.4 Groundwater Quality / Seawater Intrusion............................................................... 6-18

7.0 Potable Water Distribution......................................................................................... 7-1 Vulnerability and Adaptation Summary ........................................................................... 7-2

7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 7-3

7.2 Distribution Pipeline .................................................................................................. 7-4

7.3 Adaptation Options ................................................................................................... 7-8

7.4 Adaptation Recommendations .................................................................................. 7-8

8.0 Recycled Water System ............................................................................................. 8-1 Vulnerability and Adaptation Summary ........................................................................... 8-2

8.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 8-3

8.2 Recycled Water Treatment System........................................................................... 8-4

8.3 Recycled Water Distribution System ......................................................................... 8-6

8.4 Planned Potable Reuse System................................................................................ 8-9

9.0 Adaptation Strategy ................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Adaptation Strategy Approach .................................................................................. 9-2

9.2 Risk Assessment Results.......................................................................................... 9-2

9.3 Recommended Projects & Actions............................................................................ 9-3

9.4 Capital Improvement Plan....................................................................................... 9-19 References ....................................................................................................................... REF-1 Appendix A Vulnerability Maps...........................................................................................A Appendix B Risk Assessment Table ..................................................................................B Appendix C El Estero WRC Facilities Relocation Concept TM.........................................C Appendix D List of Recommended Projects and Actions.................................................D

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 List of Figures
City of Santa Barbara iii Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1. Citywide Study Area.........................................................................................ES-7 Figure ES-2. Focused Study Area.........................................................................................ES-7 Figure ES-3. Sea Level Rise Scenarios with Timing Based on 2024 OPC Guidance ..........ES-10 Figure ES-4. FEMA 100-Year Flood Map............................................................................ES-12 Figure ES-5. Highest Near-Term (Next 25 Years) and Mid-Term (25 to 50 Years) Infrastructure Risks from Climate Change.................................................................................................ES-18 Figure ES-6. Infiltration and Inflow Sources for Gravity and Low-Pressure Collection Systems ...........................................................................................................................................ES-24 Figure ES-7. Adaptation Measures for Highest Near-Term and Mid-Term Infrastructure Risks from Climate Change ..........................................................................................................ES-30 Figure ES-8. Implementation Plan.......................................................................................ES-31 Figure ES-9. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, Existing ............ES-32 Figure ES-10. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 0.8 ft SLR .......ES-33 Figure ES-11. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 1.6 ft SLR .......ES-34 Figure ES-12. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 2.5 ft SLR .......ES-35 Figure ES-13. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 3.3 ft SLR .......ES-36 Figure ES-14. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 4.1 ft SLR .......ES-37 Figure ES-15. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 4.9 ft SLR .......ES-38 Figure ES-16. Shoreline Erosion, East Beach and West Beach ..........................................ES-39 Figure ES-17. Shoreline Erosion, Leadbetter Beach ...........................................................ES-40 Figure 1-1. Plan Study Area.................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2. 2021 Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas ...................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-3. Focused Study Area ............................................................................................. 1-4 Figure 2-1. Sea Level Rise Projections and Plan Scenarios.................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-2. FEMA Flood Hazard Map.................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-3. Laguna Creek Tide Gate..................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-4. Existing Tide Gate Structure Section from City’s Design Plans ........................... 2-16 Figure 2-5. Shoreline Profile Locations for Erosion Analysis ................................................. 2-20 Figure 2-6. Annual Average Maximum Temperatures (Average of Daily Highs).................... 2-24 Figure 3-1. Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Approach ....................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2. FEMA 100-yr Flood Map, with City Infrastructure.................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-3. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, Existing ................... 3-9 Figure 3-4. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 0.8 ft SLR.............. 3-10 Figure 3-5. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 1.6 ft SLR.............. 3-11 Figure 3-6. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 2.5 ft SLR.............. 3-12 Figure 3-7. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 3.3 ft SLR.............. 3-13 Figure 3-8. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 4.1 ft SLR.............. 3-14

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 List of Figures
City of Santa Barbara iv Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
Figure 3-9. Coastal Hazards with Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, 4.9 ft SLR.............. 3-15 Figure 3-10. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, Existing ........................... 3-16 Figure 3-11. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, 0.8 ft SLR........................ 3-17 Figure 3-12. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, 1.6 ft SLR........................ 3-18 Figure 3-13. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, 2.5 ft SLR........................ 3-19 Figure 3-14. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, 3.3 ft SLR........................ 3-20 Figure 3-15. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, 4.1 ft SLR........................ 3-21 Figure 3-16. Groundwater Levels with Wastewater Infrastructure, 4.9 ft SLR........................ 3-22 Figure 3-17. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, Existing ... 3-23 Figure 3-18. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, 0.8 ft SLR 3-24 Figure 3-19. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, 1.6 ft SLR 3-25 Figure 3-20. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, 2.5 ft SLR 3-26 Figure 3-21. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, 3.3 ft SLR 3-27 Figure 3-22. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, 4.1 ft SLR 3-28 Figure 3-23. Groundwater Levels with Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure, 4.9 ft SLR 3-29 Figure 3-24. Shoreline Erosion, East Beach and West Beach............................................... 3-33 Figure 3-25. Shoreline Erosion, Leadbetter Beach................................................................ 3-34 Figure 3-26. Bluff Erosion, 2.5 ft SLR.................................................................................... 3-35 Figure 3-27. Bluff Erosion, 6.6 ft SLR.................................................................................... 3-36 Figure 3-28. Wildfire Risk in Santa Barbara .......................................................................... 3-39 Figure 4-1. El Estero WRC Site Map....................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-2. El Estero WRC and Desalination Facilities, FEMA 100-yr Flood with Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-3. Survey Points Measured Compared to Historical FEMA 100-year Flood Depth .. 4-10 Figure 4-4. Southern View from Point 149............................................................................. 4-13 Figure 4-5. Western Entrance to Electrical Systems below Aeration Basins (Point 108) ....... 4-13 Figure 4-6. Eastern Entrance to Electrical Systems below Aeration Basins (Point 113) ........ 4-14 Figure 4-7. Electrical Substation C........................................................................................ 4-15 Figure 4-8. Electrical Systems at the Brine Box..................................................................... 4-15 Figure 4-9. Self-Closing Flood Barriers Schematic................................................................ 4-17 Figure 4-10. El Estero WRC Area 100-yr Flood Depth Estimate Locations ........................... 4-21 Figure 4-11. Example of Yanonali Street and Calle Cesar Chavez – January 9, 2023 .......... 4-22 Figure 4-12. Example of Back Access Gate Flooding – January 9, 2023 .............................. 4-22 Figure 4-13. El Estero Outfall Location.................................................................................. 4-25 Figure 4-14. Manhole 1B at the El Estero WRC .................................................................... 4-27 Figure 4-15. Typical Manhole Section ................................................................................... 4-28 Figure 4-16. Erosion Potential with Sea Level Rise, El Estero Outfall ................................... 4-29 Figure 5-1. Near-Shore Collection System Facilities ............................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-2. El Estero WRC, Maximum Daily Flow (Oct. 2023 to Jun. 2024) ............................ 5-8 Figure 5-3. Estimated Length of Sewer Pipelines Submerged by Groundwater with SLR ....... 5-9 Figure 5-4. Number of SSOs within the City’s System between 2019 and 2023.................... 5-10

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 List of Figures
City of Santa Barbara v
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
Figure 5-5. Infiltration and Inflow Sources for Gravity and Low-Pressure Collection Systems 5-17 Figure 5-6. West Beach Sewer Location and Shoreline Profile Alignment............................. 5-22 Figure 5-7. Erosion Potential with Sea Level Rise, West Beach Sewer................................. 5-24 Figure 5-8. West Beach Sewer Relocation Alternatives ........................................................ 5-26 Figure 5-9. Braemar Lift Station and the FEMA National Flood Hazard Extent...................... 5-29 Figure 6-1. Desalination System Components ........................................................................ 6-5 Figure 6-2. Desalination Plant Site.......................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-3. Desal Survey Points Compared to Historical FEMA 100-yr Flood Depths ............. 6-8 Figure 6-4. Elevated Electrical Equipment at Desalination Plant (Survey Point 118)............... 6-9 Figure 6-5. Elevated Reverse Osmosis Modules..................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-6. Shoreline Erosion with Sea Level Rise, Desal Intake Infrastructure .................... 6-14 Figure 6-7. Production Wells, Ortega GWTP, and FEMA 100-year Floodplain...................... 6-19 Figure 7-1. Potable Distribution System Pipelines in FEMA 100-year Floodplain .................... 7-5 Figure 7-2. Distribution System Pipelines Submerged by Groundwater by SLR Scenario ....... 7-6 Figure 7-3. Near-Shore Potable Water Distribution Pipelines .................................................. 7-7 Figure 8-1. Recycled Water Distribution System ..................................................................... 8-3 Figure 8-2. Recycled Water Treatment Components [Located at El Estero WRC] .................. 8-5 Figure 8-3. Recycled Water Distribution System in Coastal Area ............................................ 8-7 Figure 8-4. Potable Reuse AWTF Location........................................................................... 8-10 Figure 8-5. Potable Reuse AWTF Site Plan .......................................................................... 8-10 Figure 8-6. Proposed Potable Reuse Conveyance System................................................... 8-11 Figure 9-1. Adaptation Measures for the Highest Near-Term and Mid-Term Infrastructure Risks from Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 9-4 Figure 9-2. Implementation Plan ............................................................................................. 9-5

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 List of Tables
City of Santa Barbara vi Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Sea Level Rise Scenarios with Timing Based on 2024 OPC Guidance ...........ES-10 Table ES-2. Projected 24-hour Rainfall Event Return Interval (and Percent Annual Chance of Occurrence) with Climate Change.......................................................................................ES-11 Table ES-3. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by Flooding During 100-Year Coastal Storm under SLR Scenarios....................................................................................................................ES-14 Table ES-4. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by Groundwater Rise under SLR Scenarios ..ES-16 Table ES-5. Summary of High Priority Actions ....................................................................ES-29 Table 2-1. State Guidance. Projected Sea Level Rise for Santa Barbara Area (Ft) ................. 2-6 Table 2-2. Sea Level Rise Scenarios with Timing Based on 2024 OPC Guidance .................. 2-9 Table 2-3. Summary of Available Hazard Mapping Data Organized by Hazard Type............ 2-10 Table 2-4. Projected 24-hour Rainfall Event Return Interval (and Percent Annual Chance of Occurrence) with Climate Change......................................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-5. Projected Mean Sea Level and High Tide Changes with Sea Level Rise ............. 2-18 Table 3-1. Risk Assessment Criteria ....................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by 1-Year Coastal Storm Flooding under SLR Scenarios................................................................................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-3. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by 100-Year Coastal Storm Flooding under SLR Scenarios................................................................................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-4. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by Groundwater Rise ........................................... 3-8 Table 3-5. Number of Creek Crossings by System................................................................ 3-31 Table 4-1. Risk Assessment for El Estero WRC and Outfall.................................................... 4-7 Table 4-2. Summary of El Estero WRC Flooding .................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-3. FEMA 100-Year Flood Depth with Sea Level Rise at El Estero WRC..................... 4-8 Table 5-1. Risk Assessment for the Wastewater Collection System........................................ 5-6 Table 6-1. Potable Water Treatment Risk Assessment ........................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2. FEMA 100-Year Flood Depth with Sea Level Rise at the Desalination Plant.......... 6-7 Table 7-1. Risk Assessment for the Potable Water Distribution System.................................. 7-3 Table 8-1. Risk Assessment for the Recycled Water System.................................................. 8-4 Table 9-1. Rough Costs for High Priority Projects through Mid-Term .................................... 9-20

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Acronyms & Abbreviations
City of Santa Barbara vii Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Description
AOP Advanced Oxidation Process
AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility
BFE Base Flood Elevation
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
CMIP6 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6
COMB Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board
COSMOS Coastal Storm Modeling System
DFE Design Flood Elevation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FT Feet
GCM General Circulation Model
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
IN Inch
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I&I Infiltration and Inflow
LOCA2 Localized Construction Analogue Version 2
MBR Membrane Bioreactor
MF Microfiltration
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MHHW Mean Higher High Water
MJHMP Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
MLLW Mean Lower Low Water

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Acronyms & Abbreviations
City of Santa Barbara viii Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
MSL Mean Sea Level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OPC Ocean Protection Council
OST Ocean Science Trust
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
PSCA Pump Station and Chemical Area
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QCM Quantitative Conceptual Model
RCAMP Regional Coastal Adaptation Monitoring Program
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
RO Reverse Osmosis
SAFE Stormwater Adaptive Filtration Equipment
SLIP Sewer Lateral Inspection Program
SLR Sea Level Rise
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSP Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
UV Ultraviolet
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WUCA Water Utility Climate Change Alliance
City of Santa Barbara ES-1
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
Executive Summary
This Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan evaluates impacts on the City's critical water and wastewater systems from hazards worsened by climate change. It is part of a broader City Adaptation and Resilience Program, which monitors changing conditions and adapts infrastructure in phases. Funded by the California Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, and the City itself, the Plan satisfies state requirements and supports City Council’s goals to prepare for the effects of climate change.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-2
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
What’s in the Plan:
• Analysis of impacts from flooding, erosion, sea level rise, changing rainfall, groundwater rise, wildfire, drought, and extreme heat on all parts of the wastewater and water systems.
• Focuses on low-lying coastal areas that face the greatest threat from flooding and erosion.
• Prioritization of vulnerabilities: the highest risks are impacts to the wastewater system from flooding during heavy rainfall events and coastal storms (high ocean waves and storm surge).
• Recommended actions to improve resilience in phases, based on defined thresholds.

Key Hazard Risks:
• Next 25 years: As the climate warms, rain becomes more intense, and the 100-year rain event is five times more likely and 10-year storm (e.g., January 2023 storm) is twice as likely. During heavy rainfall and high wave events, floodwater can enter the sewer collection system. This can overwhelm both the collection pipes and capacity at the treatment plant (El Estero Water Resource Center), potentially causing sewer overflows. Flooding from moderate rainfall events can also surround and affect access to the plant. During very large rainfall events, some equipment and treatment processes at the plant could also be at risk from onsite flooding.
• 25-50 years: Sea-level rise accelerates and, without intervention, the Waterfront area and Cabrillo Boulevard, including underlying utilities, faces significant erosion and flooding from coastal storms. El Estero Water Resources Center faces significant flooding risk from large rainfall events combined with sea level rise. Without intervention, low-lying areas north of Cabrillo Blvd and south of Highway 101 could also face flooding from coastal storm surge. This combined with groundwater rise increases the risk of significant amounts of seawater getting into the sewer system, which would

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-3
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
affect operation of the El Estero Water Resources Center as the plant treatment process relies on bacteria that can’t survive in saline conditions.
• 50+ years: Without intervention, low-lying areas north of Highway 101 could face flooding from coastal storm surge. Additionally, by

4.9 feet of sea level rise (~2100) flooding from regular high tides would extend into low-lying areas north of Highway 101. Significant seawater flows into the wastewater collection system would render the El Estero Water Resources Center unable to treat wastewater for extended periods following inundation events.

Priority Adaptation Actions for Near-Term (Next 25 Years) Implementation:
• Wastewater Collection System: Build on existing projects that address sewer infiltration and inflow to seal manholes in low-lying areas, rehabilitate flood-prone sewer lines, and increase collection system and treatment plant storage to handle increased flows from flooding and prevent infiltration of saline water. These actions will be defined as part of the proposed Wastewater System Wet Weather Capacity Study.

Make plans to pressurize the sewer system in low-lying areas in phases in the next 25 to 50 years as implementation triggers are met.

Customer connections will need to be modified prior to the public sewer mains being pressurized. The City should consider an ordinance in the next five years to require new connections in the low-lying areas to include facilities needed for pressurization and incentives to customers to facilitate conversion of existing sewer connections over the next 25 years. These actions will be defined as part of the proposed Low Pressure Sewer Conversion Study.
• El Estero WRC: Develop a formal operations plan for El Estero Water Resource Center during flooding events and implement additional flood protection measures (e.g., floodwalls and elevation of key

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-4
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
infrastructure). These actions will be defined as part of the proposed El Estero WRC Flood Protection Study.
• Coastal Erosion: Plan to protect or relocate infrastructure affected by shoreline erosion in near and mid-term (potable water line in Chase Palm Park, desalination weir box, and utilities in Cabrillo Boulevard and Shoreline Drive). Plan for long-term inland relocation of the West Beach sewer main.

Implementation:
• Regularly monitor changes in coastal features and groundwater depth and assess infrastructure in flood-prone and coastal areas. • Update this Plan every 10 years to address changed conditions and new information.
• Plan for funding needs and staff resources. In the next 25 years:
o $2 to 3 million for studies and design
o $50 to $130 million in infrastructure modifications
o Additional staff resources (i.e., engineers, project managers, operators)
• Long-term planning should consider the costs and impacts of protecting El Estero Water Resources Center in place and elevating access roads or relocating the plant by the end of this century. Any potential relocation decision will be informed by future monitoring and extensive coordination with the community and neighboring sanitary agencies to explore opportunities in and outside of the City for potential regional consolidation of treatment facilities. Among properties currently owned by the City that are not anticipated to be impacted by sea level rise, the municipal golf course is one possible location that is large enough to accommodate a new treatment plant.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-5
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
ES-1 Introduction
This Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan (Plan) assesses how hazards exacerbated by climate change could impact City of Santa Barbara’s (City) wastewater and water infrastructure and outlines a phased approach for adapting these systems over time.

Building on the City’s 2021 Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan (2021 SLR Adaptation Plan) (ESA, 2021) and the 2021 Santa Barbara County Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (County of Santa Barbara, 2021), it focuses on a range of climate hazards, including sea level rise, increased storm rainfall, coastal flooding and erosion, wave impacts, tidal inundation, and groundwater rise. It includes a detailed analysis of these threats, while providing a higher-level review of drought, extreme heat, and wildfire risks, which are already largely addressed through the City’s existing water supply planning and operations.

Asset-specific analysis was conducted for the following critical infrastructure:
• The wastewater collection system, including lift stations. • The wastewater treatment system, including El Estero Water Resource Center (El Estero WRC) and the treatment plant’s outfall system (El Estero outfall). • The potable water treatment systems, including the Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant (Desalination Plant) and the associated ocean intake pipeline. • The potable water distribution system.
• The recycled water system, including the planned potable reuse system.

While the Plan addresses the impacts of climate hazards on the entire wastewater and water systems in the City, special attention is paid to increasing the resilience of the wastewater collection system in the low-lying, prone flood areas of the City that are most at risk in the nearterm. Risks and adaptation options are structured into three timeframes: near-term (within the next 25 years), mid-term (25 to 50 years), and long-term (50+ years).

This Plan satisfies permitting and planning requirements of the California Coastal Commission and the City’s El Estero WRC National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Citywide Adaptation and Resilience Program
This Plan is part of a broader Citywide Adaptation and Resilience Program developed to implement policies in the City’s General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan that address adaptation to hazards worsened by climate change. The program collaborates across all City departments and with regional and state agencies to ensure a unified, proactive approach to climate adaptation. It also supports compliance with state requirements for climate analysis tied to permits, plans, and funding, positioning the City to secure funding and implement resilience projects effectively.

In 2021, City Council adopted the 2021 SLR Adaptation Plan, which outlined priority projects to address current and future coastal hazards. The Plan takes a phased approach, monitoring changing conditions and triggering adaptive actions as needed. Adapting the City’s wastewater and water systems was identified as a top priority in the 2021 plan.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-6
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
The Santa Barbara County Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (County of Santa Barbara, 2021), also completed in 2021, provides countywide analysis of climate change impacts, including analysis of changes in rainfall patterns and rising heat.

Since 2021, the City’s program has advanced implementation efforts and secured funding from the Coastal Conservancy and California Coastal Commission. Current funded projects include:
1) Regional Climate Adaptation Monitoring Program: Development of a regional coastal monitoring program in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties to track how soon actions are needed and the effectiveness of adaptation projects. 2) 30-Year Waterfront Adaptation Plan: A plan to prepare the waterfront for increased storm surges, erosion, and flooding by providing solutions that preserve and enhance recreation, commerce, beach access, habitat, and critical infrastructure for the near-term and future generations.
3) Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis: Preparation of a model of flows of the City’s stormwater system, analysis of flooding resulting from a range of intensity of storms including smaller, more frequent storms, and adaptation options for portions of the stormwater system.
4) Airport Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Plan: Evaluation of climate change vulnerability and potential adaptation options for the City’s airport.

Study Area
The study area for this Plan, shown in Figure ES-1, encompasses the City’s water and wastewater service areas. It does not include the portion of the City occupied by the Santa Barbara Airport, which is the subject of a climate adaptation plan specific to the Goleta Slough area. Based on the high priority water and wastewater infrastructure risks identified in the 2021 SLR Adaptation Plan, this Plan has more in-depth analysis of a “focused study area,” shown in red in Figure ES-2, that generally covers the low-lying waterfront and beach areas and low-lying flood areas between Castillo Street to Milpas Street and inland to the US-101 freeway. This focused study area already experiences flooding during major storm events and is the most atrisk area for increased hazards over time.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-7
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
Figure ES-1. Citywide Study Area
Figure ES-2. Focused Study Area

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-8
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
Adaptation Approach: Prioritization and Phasing
To create this Plan, the first step was identifying climate change hazards in Santa Barbara and assessing their impact on the City’s water and wastewater systems. These vulnerabilities were ranked based on the likelihood and severity of potential events, guiding the development of various adaptation options, from protecting existing infrastructure to relocating it. Some options may require further data and analysis for informed decision-making.

This Plan builds to an adaptation strategy that recommends immediate next steps and thresholds for implementation. Near-term (next 25 years) recommendations are the most prescriptive, while mid-term (25 to 50 years) and long-term (50+ years) recommendations provide higher-level guidance.

Projections for sea level rise and other climate changes are regularly updated and refined as new studies emerge, changing conditions are monitored, and models are refined. As a result, the recommendations in this Plan are structured to accommodate future changes to projections and the performance of adaptation measures. Monitoring of changing conditions is a key component to the City’s overall approach to planning for climate hazards. Because of the timing uncertainty and range of projections for sea level rise, this Plan provides a framework of planning based on amounts of sea level rise, rather than exactly when those amounts of sea level rise will occur. Adaptation recommendations are phased, with different actions recommended when certain thresholds or triggers are reached on the ground. Lead time to study, plan for, and implement adaptation actions is built into the triggers so that necessary improvements are made prior to major impacts occurring.

This plan is intended to be a living document and recommended to be reevaluated and updated roughly every decade based on:
• Observed climate change impacts and the latest climate change projections, new adaptation approaches, and legal/policy changes.
• Further refinement of the City’s overall adaptation plans. Future updates of this Plan will be coordinated with other City climate change planning and adaptation documents to ensure a comprehensive and consistent strategy is implemented over time.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-9
Wastewater and Water Systems
Climate Adaptation Plan
ES-2 Hazard Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis
The following hazards were analyzed in this Plan: stormwater flooding, coastal storm flooding, coastal storm wave run-up, tidal inundation, shoreline erosion, and groundwater rise. This executive summary predominantly focuses on flooding and erosion, due to their potential for high impacts to the City’s systems. These hazards were assessed and applied to water and wastewater assets to determine vulnerabilities. Figures were developed that overlay the City’s water and wastewater systems with different hazards. The hazards assessment considered both the impacts from rainfall events during storms (stormwater flooding) or from high ocean levels and waves during normal conditions and storm conditions (coastal hazards). Additional analyses estimated future stormwater flooding due to climate change and projected shoreline erosion with future sea level rise. Note that these hazards represent projected future conditions without taking action as a hypothetical “do nothing” baseline scenario to inform adaptation options, such as regional flood protection or beach nourishment.

The hazards assessment was completed using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps for stormwater flooding, United States Geological Survey Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) 3.0 for tidal inundation and groundwater rise, a shoreline erosion assessment performed for the City’s 30-year Waterfront Adaptation Plan (ESA, 2025b), and hydrodynamic modeling of coastal flooding performed for the City’s 30-year Waterfront Adaptation Plan (Stantec, 2025). To estimate changes in precipitation, data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 general circulation models was used.

Sea Level Rise Scenarios
Sea level rise near the City is influenced by factors like ocean thermal expansion, Antarctic ice sheet melting, ocean circulation, and land elevation changes. As research advances, sea level projections are updated based on new knowledge about these processes and greenhouse gas emissions forecasts. Table ES-1 and Figure ES-3 show the latest sea level rise scenarios from the 2024 Ocean Protection Council’s (OPC) guidance for Santa Barbara from the baseline year of 2000. These projections vary in likelihood. The analysis in this Plan focuses on the Intermediate-High Scenario, which offers a conservative estimate for sea level rise by 2100 and is appropriate for planning for water and wastewater systems. While cutting global emissions could slow sea level rise, some increase is already inevitable due to past emissions. The key difference between scenarios is the timing of specific sea level milestones, with likelihoods ranging from moderate (Intermediate Scenario) to very low (High Scenario). To address timing uncertainty, this Plan analyzes hazards at the specific sea level rise amounts shown in Table ES-1 because they represent key points relevant to vulnerabilities of the wastewater and water systems. Approximately just under an inch of sea level rise has already occurred relative to the baseline year of 2000.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-10 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Table ES-1. Sea Level Rise Scenarios with Timing Based on 2024 OPC Guidance Sea Level
Rise
Amount
Sea Level Rise Scenarios (Risk Aversion Application)
Projected Dates of Sea Level Rise Amount
Intermediate
Scenario
(Low Risk Aversion)
Intermediate-High
Scenario
(Med-High Risk Aversion)
High
Scenario
(Extreme Risk Aversion)

0.8 ft 2057 2048 2044

1.6 ft 2057 2063 2080

2.5 ft 2096 2076 2068

3.3 ft 2108 2087 2075

4.1 ft 2123 2096 2083

4.9 ft 2140 2105 2089

6.6 ft After 2150 2130 2103
Note: This Plan is based on the Intermediate-High sea level rise scenario (light blue highlight).

Figure ES-3. Sea Level Rise Scenarios with Timing Based on 2024 OPC Guidance Decreasing likelihood of occurrence

4.9 ft

4.1 ft

3.3 ft

2.5 ft

1.6 ft

0.8 ft

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-11 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Stormwater Flooding from High Rainfall Events
Figure ES-4 shows the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure and the extent of flooding from intense rainfall, as estimated by FEMA’s 100-year flood hazard maps. This flooding overlaps about 41 miles of sewer pipes, 537 manholes, 27 miles of potable water pipes, and 7 miles of recycled water pipes.

The FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone is an area with a 1% chance of flooding each year, based on past data. However, it doesn’t account for climate change impacts. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of rainfall. For instance, a storm that once had a 1% chance of occurring (a 100-year event) may soon occur with a 5% to 10% chance annually. These changes are already starting to take place and are expected to increase over time. Recent storms, which were considered 5- to 10-year rainfall events, caused significant flooding and are an example of the more frequent storms expected with climate change.

Table ES-2. Projected 24-hour Rainfall Event Return Interval (and Percent Annual Chance of Occurrence) with Climate Change
Scenario
24-hr Rainfall Event Return Interval
(% Annual Chance of Occurrence)
Past Precipitation
5-year
storm
(20%)
10-year
storm
(10%)
50-year
storm
(2%)
100-year
storm
(1%)
500-year
storm
(0.2%)
Future Precipitation
with Climate Change
(2030 to 2100)
2- to 3-year
storm
(33%-50%)
5-year
storm
(20%)
10-year
storm
(10%)
10- to 20-
year storm
(5%-10%)
30- to 50-
year storm
(2%-3%)
FEMA maps do not show flood extents or depths for smaller more frequent storms (e.g., the 5-, 10-, or 50-year storms). In addition, they do not show potential flooding from changes in rainfall patterns from climate change or flooding combining with sea level rise. Preliminary modeling and analysis completed as part of this Plan shows that, with future sea level rise, Mission Creek Lagoon water levels, Laguna Creek backfilling, and Laguna Creek flood frequency and extent are expected to increase due to increasing beach berm height during lagoon closures and increasing high tide levels.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026
Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-12 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan Figure ES-4. FEMA 100-Year Flood Map

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-13 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
The highest risk vulnerabilities of the wastewater and water systems from stormwater flooding in the future from climate changes include:
• More frequent and severe floods, along with groundwater rise, are likely to lead to higher flows into the wastewater collection system and at El Estero WRC. Excessive flows during high rainfall events could cause the system to be overwhelmed, resulting in increased possibilities of sanitary sewer overflows.
• Recent storms (approximately 5- and 10-year storms) have prevented access to El Estero WRC because of flooding in local streets surrounding the treatment plant. Larger, more intense storms would prevent access, risk operator safety, impact the timely delivery and export of materials, and reliable plant operations. • Looking at the combined 100-year rainfall stormwater flooding event with sea level rise, lower areas along the perimeter of El Estero WRC would flood during high rainfall events with 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050). By 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075), the entire site is projected to flood during the historic 100-year high rainfall event.

The City plans to conduct more detailed modeling through the Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis, focusing on smaller, more frequent storms and evaluating flood impacts and adaptation options, especially for Laguna Creek. Findings from this analysis will inform future updates to this Plan.

Coastal Hazards
Coastal hazards are those caused by high ocean levels and waves during normal and storm conditions. This Plan analyzes five categories of hazards with permanent and temporary impacts as discussed in the following sections.

City water and wastewater infrastructure overlaid with projected coastal storm flooding and tidal inundation for existing conditions through 4.9 ft of sea level rise (~2100) are provided in Figure ES-9 through Figure ES-15 (at the end of this Executive Summary) and compiled in Appendix A.

These figures show coastal hazards (but do not include stormwater flooding from high rainfall events or combined events) and are the level of hazard projected without any action taken at a citywide or regional level to reduce flooding and erosion impacts. Shoreline erosion for existing conditions through 4.9 ft of sea level rise (~2100) are provided in Figure ES-16 and Figure ES-17 (at the end of this Executive Summary) and are also compiled in Appendix A.

Coastal Storm Flooding
Coastal storm flooding is characterized by temporary flooding from high ocean water levels caused by coastal storm surge events resulting in significant consequences, such as infiltration of brackish water into unsealed manholes or other open structures designed to provide access into the wastewater systems.

Of the coastal hazards, coastal flooding from ocean storm surge impacts the largest amounts of coastal infrastructure, as summarized in Table ES-3. During the 100-year coastal storm and under existing conditions, the Leadbetter, West, and East beaches and Cabrillo Boulevard from Stearns Wharf to Andree Clark Bird Refuge experience flooding. With 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050), flooding of Cabrillo Boulevard is projected with a 1-year coastal storm. Coastal storm

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-14 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
flooding extends to the railroad under 1.6 ft of sea level rise (~2065) and extends to US-101 under 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075). By 3.3 ft of sea level rise (~2085), the 100-year coastal storm is projected to flood portions of downtown north of Highway 101.

Table ES-3. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by Flooding During 100-Year Coastal Storm under SLR Scenarios
SLR Scenario
Sewer
Pipe
(miles)
Sewer
Manholes
(number)
Sewer
Connections
(number)
Potable
Water Pipe
(miles)
Potable
Connections
(number)
Recycled
Water Pipe
(miles)
Current (2025) 1.7 16 39 2.6 49 2.7

0.8 ft (~2050) 4.3 44 101 4.0 96 3.4

1.6 ft (~2065) 4.6 64 120 4.9 137 3.6

2.5 ft (~2075) 6.0 81 214 6.8 187 3.8

3.3 ft (~2085) 10.8 148 572 11.6 449 4.7

4.1 ft (~2095) 13.2 177 809 14.0 663 4.9

4.9 ft (~2100) 15.5 223 1015 17.0 906 5.1
Tidal Inundation
Tidal inundation is characterized by areas regularly flooded by typical monthly spring high tides, leading to permanent impacts and significant consequences due to saltwater infiltration into the wastewater system.

Under existing conditions, developed areas are not tidally inundated under regular, non-storm conditions. By 4.1 ft of sea level rise (~2095), regular high tides are projected to flow up Laguna Creek adjacent to El Estero WRC and spring high tides (occurring approximately twice per month) with typical winter wave conditions are projected to inundate the coastal zone south of the UPRR. By 4.9 ft of sea level rise (~2100), low-lying areas adjacent to Laguna Creek north and south of US 101 are at risk of daily tidal inundation.

Shoreline Erosion
Shoreline erosion areas that may be lost due to erosion from wave action, causing permanent impacts and severe consequences as assets are washed away, damaged, undercut, or otherwise compromised structurally. The shoreline erosion analysis is based on long-term erosion each year as well as erosion from a 100-year storm to project shoreline profiles at key pipelines (El Estero outfall, Desalination Plant intake, and the West Beach sewer main). Erosion amounts were projected based on historic erosion rates with additional projected erosion due to sea level rise.

If no action is taken, shoreline erosion along East Beach is projected to reach Cabrillo Boulevard, east of Calle Cesar Chavez, by 1.6 ft of sea level rise (~2065), risking exposure and failure of utilities buried under Cabrillo Blvd. By 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075), shoreline erosion

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-15 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
risks exposure and failure of utilities buried under Shoreline Drive and erosion into Chase Palm Park will require relocation of the potable water line in the park.

At the current sea level, the El Estero outfall manhole is projected to be exposed with a 100- year storm. The manhole is projected to be exposed 5 ft above the beach surface with 0.8 ft sea level rise (~2050) due to erosion. The El Estero outfall pipeline has the potential to be exposed at 2.5 ft sea level rise (~2075) but is not projected to be undercut by erosion.

The Desalination Plant intake weir box is currently exposed a few feet above the beach and protected by rip rap. During the 100-year storm, the weir box may be fully exposed and the Desalination intake pipeline has the potential to be exposed. With 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050), the weir box and pipeline are projected to be exposed.

The West Beach shoreline analysis indicates that West Beach is stable. Future erosion projections show that the West Beach sewer will not be exposed through 4.9 ft of sea level rise (~2100). Monitoring of erosion is recommended to inform adaptation needs at West Beach. The analysis showed that coastal storm flooding and coastal storm wave runup may cause some erosion around the West Beach sewer manholes.

Groundwater Rise
Groundwater rise causes regular high groundwater levels with increased salinity from rising sea levels, causing permanent impacts and significant consequences due to infiltration and corrosion of wastewater and water infrastructure.

Groundwater levels were analyzed to identify the extent of shallow groundwater and potential impacts to City assets. Note that the available groundwater data was limited and future updates are recommended to be supplemented with locally collected data to improve data reliability.

Establishment of a monitoring program for depth and salinity of shallow groundwater should be established as soon as possible.

Buried infrastructure either fully or partially submerged by shallow groundwater in the coastal area under sea level rise is summarized in Table ES-4. The depth to groundwater decreases with sea level rise, becoming very shallow in much of downtown with 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075) and greater. With 4.1 ft of sea level rise (~2095), larger portions of downtown may experience emergent groundwater.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-16 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Table ES-4. Coastal Infrastructure Impacted by Groundwater Rise under SLR Scenarios SLR Scenario
Sewer Pipe
(miles)
Potable Water Pipe
(miles)
Recycled Water Pipe
(miles)
Current (2025) 18.7 9.8 2.6

0.8 ft (~2050) 19.6 12.2 3.0

1.6 ft (~2065) 20.2 12.8 3.0

2.5 ft (~2075) 21.2 13.6 3.0

3.3 ft (~2085) 22.0 14.0 3.0

4.1 ft (~2095) 22.5 14.0 3.0

4.9 ft (~2100) 22.6 15.6 3.0
Note: Values are for pipes estimated to be fully or partially submerged by shallow groundwater.

Note that groundwater depths were estimated using CoSMoS, which may be estimating groundwater levels shallower than current observations. As a result, shallow groundwater monitoring is recommended to update groundwater depth estimates.

Drought, Heat, and Wildfire
Drought, heat, and wildfire can pose significant challenges for water and wastewater infrastructure, such as:
• Droughts can lead to reduced water use, which results in lower wastewater flows with higher solids content, potentially resulting in buildup within pipelines and hydrogen sulfide corrosion. As pollutants build up, wastewater treatment processes may become strained, operate less efficiently, and require adjustments to meet discharge standards. • Heat and wildfires can strain electrical equipment that may overheat, reduce efficiency, increase maintenance needs, and potentially result in failure and impact service. • Heat and wildfires may also strain treatment processes by promoting the growth of microorganisms in raw water supplies that may require additional treatment to meet standards.

Because Santa Barbara has been experiencing extreme droughts and intense wildfires in the recent past, the City has largely already addressed these hazards through diversifying the water supply portfolio and employing additional maintenance and treatment methods.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-17 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Risk Assessment Results
A risk assessment matrix was employed to prioritize wastewater and water systems’ vulnerability to climate change of various coastal water and wastewater system components. A risk matrix is a tool used to assess the level of risk posed by an undesirable event by considering both the likelihood of the event taking place and the severity of the event’s consequences.

The highest infrastructure risks in the near-term (now through 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050)) are predominantly related to increased frequency and severity of stormwater flooding from high intensity rainfall events and include:
• Exceedance of capacities in the wastewater collection system and El Estero WRC, leading to increased sanitary sewer overflows and potential Clean Water Act violations. • On-site flooding at El Estero WRC could put wastewater treatment processes and equipment at risk of failures, leading to potential violations of the Clean Water Act. • Off-site flooding in neighborhoods surrounding El Estero WRC could prevent access to the plant, leading to staff safety and operational challenges.

The highest infrastructure risks in the mid-term (0.8 ft to 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2050 to ~2075)) are predominantly driven by shoreline erosion and wave action hazards that threaten the following assets:
• Buried utilities located in Cabrillo Blvd
• Potable water pipeline in Chase Palm Park
• Desalination intake system
These near-term and mid-term risks are spatially presented in Figure ES-5. More details on the vulnerability of each asset and potential adaptation options are below.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-18 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Figure ES-5. Highest Near-Term (Next 25 Years) and Mid-Term (25 to 50 Years) Infrastructure Risks from Climate Change

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-19 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
ES-4 Adaptation Strategy
The analysis of adaptation options for each piece of infrastructure includes information on the timeframe and conditions for triggering the action. Recommended actions are divided into four timeframes1:
• Immediate Next Steps (0 to 5 Years)
• Near-Term (5-25 years): now to 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)
• Mid-Term (25-50 years): 0.8 ft to 2.5 ft SLR (~2075)
• Long-Term (50+ years): 2.5 ft to 6.6 ft. SLR (~2130)
Mid-term adaptation options will generally be dependent upon the success of near-term water and wastewater system adaptation measures, success of citywide and regional adaptation measures to lessen erosion and flooding impacts, and changes in existing and projected conditions. The target time for implementation, as well as the steps required to implement an adaptation option, such as planning, design, and construction, are considered and included in the implementation plan.

This section outlines potential measures to protect assets if citywide adaptation (e.g., flood or shoreline protection) is insufficient. Future flooding in low-lying areas will be influenced by several sources, including rainfall and coastal flooding due to sea level rise, making full flood protection difficult. Further studies are needed to evaluate citywide flood and erosion control options. While citywide flood control efforts may delay the need for individual infrastructure adaptation projects, infrastructure-specific measures will likely still be necessary at some point due to ongoing flood risks and the critical nature of the wastewater and water systems.

Wastewater Treatment Adaptation Summary
The City’s wastewater treatment system consists of El Estero WRC for treatment of wastewater and the El Estero outfall to safely dispose of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. The highest near-term risks identified for El Estero WRC and El Estero outfall are:
• El Estero WRC Onsite Flooding: Portions of El Estero WRC are projected to flood during the 100-year storm at existing sea levels if flood water is allowed to find its way onsite.

Vulnerable areas include the primary and secondary clarifiers area which house electrical and controls systems; electrical equipment located throughout the plant in low elevation areas, and the front and back access gates. These areas are likely to flood during the 100-year storm by 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050), and most of the site is projected to flood during the 100-year storm by 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075). • El Estero WRC Access from Offsite Flooding: Recent 5- and 10- year storms have temporarily (less than 12 hours) prevented access to the plant due to flooding in local 1 Years included with sea level rise levels are associated with the Intermediate-High Sea Level Rise Scenario. As described in Section ES-2, sea level rise amounts could occur sooner or later.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-20 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
streets. Larger storms could prevent access for over 24 hours, which risks staff safety, timely delivery and export of materials, and reliable plant operations.

In addition, near-term onsite and offsite flooding risks to El Estero WRC are projected to worsen in the mid-term with higher intensity rainfall during storms and sea level rise. The highest risk for El Estero outfall is potential exposure and undercutting of the outfall pipeline in the mid-term due to offshore and beach erosion. Adaptation recommendations for these risks are summarized below.

El Estero WRC On-Site Flooding
• Immediate Next Steps (0-5 Years): Additional data collection and analysis are recommended to further define vulnerabilities and build confidence on a path toward adaptation, including:
o Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis: Study high frequency, lower-level rainfall events and associated flooding surrounding El Estero WRC to fill data gaps, such as extent and recurrence of flooding with climate change. Analyze options to modify stormwater system to reduce flooding. This effort is already funded. Findings from the stormwater analysis will be incorporated into other studies in this Plan that are recommended as immediate next steps. o El Estero WRC Flood Protection Study: Evaluate and recommend phasing of flood protection measures considering Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis findings. Compare the merits of protecting or elevating individual treatment processes and/or protecting the whole site with a floodwall system. The study would define a phased approach to provide flood protection through at least 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075).
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): Implement the recommendations from the El Estero WRC Flood Protection Study (e.g., floodwalls and/or elevation of infrastructure).

In addition, the City may consider reserving areas in City-owned property as potential sites for long term relocation of wastewater infrastructure due to the limited number of feasible locations.
• Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): Update the El Estero WRC Flood Protection Study considering: 1) updated hazard and vulnerability assessments, especially timing of sea level rise; 2) proficiency of flood protection measures implemented in and around El Estero WRC; and 3) long-term risks for El Estero WRC.

Implement the updated study recommendations.

Off-Site Flooding Limiting Access to El Estero WRC
• Immediate Next Steps (0-5 Years): Formalize an El Estero WRC Flood Conditions Operations Plan to document operation practices during flood conditions; shift schedule and plant access protocols; resources and accommodations for staff for prolonged shifts; expanded solids storage capacity; and protocols for solids hauling and chemical delivery schedules that account for extended lack of access to the plant.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-21 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): Reevaluate flood preparations following completion of the Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis, which will better characterize flood risks, to determine if larger investments in road infrastructure are needed to provide access to El Estero WRC up to 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050). • Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): Update the previous flood operations analysis considering: 1) updated hazard and vulnerability assessments, especially timing of sea level rise; 2) proficiency of implemented local and regional measures; and 3) longterm plans for El Estero WRC. Further study long-term options for elevating roads or providing alternate access to El Estero WRC in coordination with analysis of options for potential relocation of the plant.

El Estero Outfall
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): Shoreline erosion along East Beach is projected to expose the outfall’s onshore manhole up to about 5 ft by 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050). The outfall manhole could be surrounded by ocean water at low tide by 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075). Although the City has not used this manhole for routine pipeline inspections in recent history, it may be valuable for future access and is recommended to be protected in the near-term. Depending on changing climate conditions and operational needs further in the future, potential manhole relocation or abandonment may be investigated.
• Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): The portion of the outfall pipeline under East Beach is projected to be exposed by 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075), and it will be fully submerged when the pipeline is eventually exposed. The outfall pipeline is anticipated to be resilient to the impacts of shoreline erosion due to its depth of installation, existing sheet piles on both sides, and significant existing rock armor overlying the pipe. Regular condition assessments, which are required by the NPDES permit, are expected to continue and identify issues as they arise. Such assessments will serve as reoccurring monitoring and data collection points and will inform updated erosion projections to determine future needs for improvements.

El Estero WRC (Long-Term)
El Estero WRC sits at a higher elevation than the areas surrounding it and the more significant issues with the wastewater system in the near- and mid-term are related to flooding events that affect areas surrounding the plant. In the near-term, flood protection investments at the site will be needed and access during flood hazards can be managed with limited modifications to existing practices. In the mid-term, more substantial road and site access improvements may be required.

In the mid-term, the City will also need to further study and consider whether to relocate El Estero WRC in the long-term given the costs required to address safe, reliable access during recurrent flooding, and to protect the site from extreme flooding at high amounts of sea level rise. That decision will be part of future updates to this Plan that will benefit from more years of monitoring and additional information on how climate changes are affecting the region and possible adaptation options. Any relocation study would involve close coordination with regional

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-22 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
partners to explore opportunities for shared facilities and to identify potential sites of sufficient size across the region. Among properties currently owned by the City, the municipal golf course on Las Positas Road is large enough to accommodate a new wastewater treatment plant if needed.

Wastewater Collection Adaptation Summary
The City’s wastewater collection system includes approximately 254 miles of gravity sewer mains, approximately 5,900 manholes, 7 lift stations, and approximately 2 miles of force main (pressurized sewer main). The City already experiences difficulties managing flows within the existing collection system and capacities at El Estero WRC during high rainfall events due to stormwater inflows and infiltration into pipes and manholes.

The City utilizes a comprehensive Condition Assessment Program to monitor and evaluate the condition of its wastewater collection system. This program is designed to identify structural deficiencies, reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows, and support long-term asset management and capital planning. Core condition assessments are conducted using ClosedCircuit Television (CCTV) inspections. The City aims to inspect approximately 20% of the system annually, achieving complete coverage over a five-year cycle. Priority is given to highrisk areas, including those near surface waters, steep slopes, high groundwater elevations, environmentally sensitive zones, and locations listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List for bacterial impairment.

In addition to CCTV, the City employs complementary inspection tools and techniques such as SmartCover remote flow monitoring, visual inspections, smoke testing, dye testing, and hydraulic modeling. These methods help detect various issues, including cracks, sags, root intrusions, joint separations, inflow and infiltration, and structural failures. The integration of SmartCovers enables real-time monitoring of flow conditions, enhancing the City's ability to prioritize maintenance and capital projects based on actual system performance data.

While the City targets approximately 2.6 miles of sewer main annually for repair or replacement primarily to reduce I&I and address structural defects, capacity-related projects are prioritized separately based on evaluation results.

The City is expected to experience more frequent and severe floods from rain and coastal storms, along with groundwater rise, due to climate change. This is likely to lead to increased infiltration and inflow into the collection system that could lead to exceedance of wastewater treatment capacity and sanitary sewer overflows. In addition, the wastewater treatment system can manage limited volumes of saline water but the combination of increased flooding events with the potential for introduction of saline water - rising groundwater levels, coastal storm events, or tidal inundation - will eventually trigger the need for conversion to a low-pressure collection system in low-lying coastal areas.

The primary risks of climate change are:
• Increased frequency of exceedance of collection system and El Estero WRC capacities during storm events (both high rainfall events and coastal storms causing storm surge).

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-23 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
• In the mid-term, persistent inflow and infiltration of saline water into the collection system south of Highway 101 from rising groundwater levels, seawater intrusion into surficial groundwater, and ocean inundation during coastal storms and regular high tides due to sea level rise, causing corrosion of infrastructure and trouble treating saline water at El Estero WRC.

Recommended adaptation measures for the collection system include:

Immediate Next Steps (0-5 Years):
• Seal collection system manholes that could be regularly flooded, including West Beach sewer manholes, to prevent inflow and the possibility of the manhole covers being removed by members of the public during flooding events to act as a drain. • Complete a Wastewater System Capacity Study to identify the largest sources of existing infiltration and inflow during storms and evaluate options to reduce infiltration and inflow in the collection system and increase storage capacity at El Estero WRC.

Potential adaptation options include manhole sealing, sewer and manhole rehabilitation, customer lateral rehabilitation, investigation of illegal connections and removal, and increasing wet weather storage capacity with wastewater storage basins. • Complete a Low Pressure Sewer Conversion Study to plan for the mid-term conversion of the low-lying coastal portion of the collection system from a gravity fed system to a low-pressure system. This should include changing design and connection requirements in the near-term for new private and public projects in low-lying areas to accommodate a future conversion to a pressurized system. The City should consider an ordinance in the next five years to require new connections in the low-lying areas to include facilities needed for pressurization and incentives to customers to facilitate conversion of existing sewer connections over the next 25 years. The study should also analyze feasible and effective alternatives to pressurization that could achieve the same goals. A comparison of the City’s existing gravity collection system with a low-pressure collection is shown in Figure ES-6.
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): Implement additional recommended adaptation measures to manage capacity in the collection system and at El Estero WRC based on the proposed Wastewater System Capacity Study. Implement low-pressure sewer lateral ordinance and facilitate conversion of existing customer sewer connections to low-pressure connections in low-lying coastal areas. • Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): Update capacity analysis and implement the recommended measures to manage capacity in the collection system and at El Estero WRC. Ensure that Cabrillo Blvd and the utilities located under the street will be protected from shoreline erosion. Install initial phases of low-pressure collection system in areas most impacted by flooding from rain and coastal storms as implementation triggers are met.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-24 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Figure ES-6. Infiltration and Inflow Sources for Gravity and Low-Pressure Collection Systems These graphics show the typical infiltration and inflow (I&I) sources to two types of sewer collection systems. The City’s existing gravity system, shown on the left, has many I&I sources. During heavy rainfall and high wave events, floodwater can enter the sewer collection system, which can overwhelm both the collection pipes and capacity at the treatment plant (El Estero Water Resource Center), potentially causing sewer overflows. Low-pressure sewer collection systems, shown on the right, prevent almost all sources of I&I.

Example Gravity Collection System Example Low-Pressure Collection System

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-25 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
In the long-term, when flooding from tides is frequent, or elevated groundwater tables persist, the remainder of the existing gravity collection system in the low-lying coastal area should be converted to a low-pressure collection system if large-scale flood prevention measures, such as levees or service levels change, are not capable of fully mitigating flooding hazards from rain and coastal storms.

Converting the existing collection system in the coastal area to a low-pressure collection system is an expensive but highly reliable approach to reduce infiltration and inflow from tides, storms, and groundwater entering the existing gravity system. The City’s existing measures to reduce sewer inflow and infiltration are not as effective when facing higher flooding recurrence, higher groundwater levels, and more saline water. The City expects to monitor flooding and groundwater rise in these low-lying areas area to decide in the near-term how to address impacts to the wastewater collection system in the mid- and long-term.

West Beach Sewer Trunk Main Shoreline Erosion
The West Beach sewer trunk main conveys approximately half of the City’s dry weather sewer flows to El Estero WRC. It is located beneath West Beach, south of the bike path, crosses Mission Lagoon, and continues along the beach before turning north to follow Laguna Creek to El Estero WRC. Due to its critical role and vulnerable beachfront location, this Plan analyzed adaptation needs for the West Beach sewer main.

West Beach sewer is not projected to be exposed from shoreline erosion through 4.9 feet of sea-level rise. Projected exposure would prompt the need for relocation inland. This would be a major project due to the main’s size, importance, and gravity-based flow, and would require new infrastructure to lift flows from low-lying areas. One possible new alignment is from Pershing Park to inland of US 101 to avoid the projected climate vulnerabilities in the coastal area, although studies of impacts to recreational assets would be needed. Ideally, relocation would coincide with any future pressurization of the system and should be planned at least 10 years before projected exposure.

Potable Water System Adaptation Summary
While the vulnerabilities of the whole potable water system were assessed, particular attention was given to those portions of the system in the coastal low-lying areas. Potable water distribution assets in this area include buried distribution piping, valves, and equipment vaults, as well as above-ground components including valves, backflow preventers, and hydrants. The Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant (Desalination Plant) is also located within this area.

The highest near-term risk identified for the potable water system is damage to the desalination intake infrastructure caused by loss of cover of sand from erosion and offshore wave action.

The highest mid-term risk is damage to potable water pipeline segments under Cabrillo Blvd, Shoreline Drive, and Chase Palm Park from shoreline erosion and wave action. The highest long-term risks are loss of Desalination Plant site access and infrastructure damage from future flood events caused by high rainfall events, coastal storms or, eventually, tidal inundation.

Also, sea water flooding and brackish groundwater rise are likely to increase soil salinity and cause corrosion of metal pipes and metal pipe components, which could shorten infrastructure

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-26 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
lifespans. Consequently, the City should consider replacement of aging pipes in the coastal area with non-metallic materials, such as HDPE or PVC, and implement corrosion prevention methods where metallic pipe or fittings must be installed.

Seawater intrusion into the City’s groundwater wells, located inland of US 101, is an issue that City has historically monitored. The City typically increases groundwater pumping during extended droughts, which can cause the seawater / groundwater interface to move slightly inland. However, under normal periods of little or no pumping, the groundwater flow is toward the ocean, which stops intrusion and pushes the seawater interface seaward. Sea level rise will slightly increase to potential for seawater intrusion, but the predominant cause of seawater intrusion will continue to be heavy pumping of the City’s groundwater wells. The City will continue to monitor for seawater intrusion and adjust pumping based on observations.

Desalination Intake System Erosion
The weir box, intake pipeline, and intake structure for the desalination system are projected to be impacted by 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050). The City is currently designing an intake structure replacement.
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): The weir box at East Beach likely needs additional protection by 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050). The weir box could be abandoned, relocated, or protected as outlined in the Intake Structure Weir Box Relocation Erosion Protection Study (Carollo, 2019).
• Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): A portion of the intake pipeline is projected to be exposed and unsupported between 0.8 and 1.6 ft of sea level rise (~2065), which would require protection or replacement of the pipeline, depending on the planned Desalination Plant operations timeline. Inspection and monitoring of the pipeline will be important to inform decisions.

Potable Water Pipeline Segments Erosion
• Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): Relocate the potable water pipeline in Chase Palm Park further inland. Ensure protection measures are planned for Cabrillo Blvd and Shoreline Drive so that potable water infrastructure in Cabrillo Blvd is protected. The City should consider replacement of aging pipes in the coastal area with non-metallic materials, such as HDPE or PVC, and implement corrosion prevention methods where metallic pipe or fittings must be installed.

Desalination Plant Site Flooding
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): Determine if new flood protection measures are needed through 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075) based on the planned Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis findings. Consider need for flood protection measures for adjacent Annex Yard as well.
• Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): If the plant continues to operate in the mid-term, implement flood protection measures through 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075) and update the plant flood vulnerability analysis considering: 1) updated hazard and

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-27 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
vulnerability assessments; 2) proficiency of implemented local and regional measures; and 3) long-term plans for the Desalination Plant.

Recycled Water System Adaptation Summary
The City’s recycled water system consists of a tertiary treatment system and pump station at El Estero WRC, one recycled water reservoir, and approximately 13.4 miles of recycled water pipeline. In the focused study area, recycled water pipelines in Chase Palm Park may be impacted by shoreline erosion in the near-term (by 0.8 ft of sea level rise (~2050)).

Recycled Water Pipelines
• Near-Term (Through 0.8 ft SLR (~2050)): Evaluate and implement regional adaptation efforts such as beach nourishment to reduce erosion concerns in the beach area.

Consider and evaluate feasibility of relocation inland. • Mid-Term (0.8 to 2.5 ft SLR (~2050 to ~2075)): Relocate the recycled water pipeline in Chase Palm Park further inland.

General Citywide Adaptation Summary
Monitoring, Conditions Assessments, and Plan Updates
Implementation of this Plan will occur in phases based on changing conditions over time. As such, monitoring and regular updates of the plan are critical. This Plan is intended to be a living document and expected to be regularly updated every decade based on observed climate changes, observed impacts to the wastewater and water systems, new climate change projections, and further refinement of the City’s overall adaptation approach over time.

The City is partnering with the coastal cities and counties within BEACON’s jurisdiction spanning Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties to track and report shoreline erosion, bluff erosion, and flooding. The City is also working with the County of Santa Barbara on standardized flood and erosion documentation. This Plan highlights the need for the City to coordinate monitoring of salinity and elevations of surficial groundwater in the low-lying portions of the City, in addition to potable groundwater monitoring program that is already occurring. In addition, site specific shoreline erosion monitoring is a high priority given the location of buried infrastructure within West and East beaches. Modeling and monitoring of stormwater flooding in the low-lying area of the city associated with Laguna Creek are particularly important for future decision making regarding El Estero WRC and wastewater collection system assets. This work will begin with the Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis project already funded.

Given changing environmental conditions, the City will need to pay particular attention to condition assessments of wastewater and water infrastructure in the low-lying areas of the City.

For example, the City could conduct condition inspection of buried infrastructure opportunistically when they are exposed for other reasons, such as maintenance or repair.

Inspections could include visually assessing pipes, testing valves, measuring pipe corrosion, and performing soil corrosivity assessments and pipe failure analysis.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-28 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
ES-5 Summary of High Priority Actions
Table ES-5 summarizes the highest priority recommended projects and actions for the wastewater and water systems based on timing and phase of implementation. Prioritization is based on the level of associated risk, which considers impact of infrastructure vulnerability, likelihood of impact, and criticality of infrastructure. The highest priority recommendations are presented spatially in Figure ES-7 and shown within an implementation plan in Figure ES-8.

Rough costs for implementation – roughly $50 million to $130 million in wastewater and water infrastructure improvements over the next 25 years – were developed to support initial budgeting but should be updated once studies are completed that include project alternatives analysis and cost estimating. Project implementation will also require additional City staff resources, such as engineers, project managers, and operators.

Note that in the long-term, beyond 2.5 ft of sea level rise (~2075), coastal flooding from the ocean and regular tidal inundation are expected to occur and the pace of sea level rise is projected to increase. Many of the largest infrastructure investments to support climate change adaptation, such as relocation of El Estero WRC, are not projected to be needed until the longterm. Potential long-term adaptation measures will be evaluated as part of the proposed regular updates to this Plan, which will consider the latest climate change projections, monitoring data, effectiveness of adaptation measures, risk tolerance, and City priorities. Potential adaptation measures will also need to consider the useful life of the facilities they are protecting if relocation of El Estero WRC and the Desalination Plant are planned. Finally, large infrastructure projects can take 10 to 20 years from planning through construction, so planning will likely need for many projects to start during the mid-term. More specific timing is expected to be available in future Plan updates.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-29 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Table ES-5. Summary of High Priority Actions
Action Adaptation Recommendations
Immediate (0-5 Years)
Interim Adaptation
Measures
• Seal manholes in flood-prone areas (e.g., West Beach sewer). • Continue Mission Lagoon berm management to facilitate. stormwater flows reaching the ocean and reduce ponding time.

Improve
Understanding of
Flood Hazards
• 30-Year Waterfront Adaptation Plan: Develop a near-term strategy for coastal areas.
• Stormwater Model and Flood Analysis: Study flooding around El Estero WRC.
• Wastewater System Capacity Study: Characterize sources of infiltration and inflow and potential solutions.
• Low-Pressure Sewer Conversion Study: Define potential phasing of sewer conversions based on projected hazards.
• El Estero WRC Flood Protection Study: Identify flood protection measures with sea level rise.

Flood Access &
Protection for El
Estero WRC
• Formalize Flood Conditions Operations Plan.

Near-Term (5-25 Years, 0-0.8 ft SLR)
Wastewater System
Capacity
Improvements
• Implement improvements from the Wastewater System Capacity Study (e.g., manhole sealing, sewer rehabilitation, wastewater storage at El Estero WRC).
• Facilitate low-pressure customer connection conversions for lowlying properties and plan for pressurization of low-lying collection systems.

Flood Access &
Protection for El
Estero WRC
• Implement floodwall system protection for El Estero WRC. • Plan stormwater improvements for Laguna Creek.

Mid-Term (25-50 Years, 0.8-2.5 ft SLR)
Wastewater System
Capacity
Improvements
• Implement remaining recommendations from Wastewater
System Capacity Study.
• Implement initial phases of low-pressure collection system in low lying areas and plan for full pressurization of impacted collection system.

El Estero WRC Flood
Protection Measures
• Implement additional flood protection for El Estero WRC. • Conduct long-term El Estero Flood Protection, Flood Access, and Relocation Study.

Potable & Sewer
Pipeline Protection
• Protect utilities from shoreline erosion along Cabrillo Blvd and Shoreline Drive.
• Relocate potable water pipeline in Chase Palm Park.

Flood Access &
Protection for El
Estero WRC
• Improve access to El Estero WRC as flooding increases.

FINAL DRAFT
March 2026 Executive Summary
City of Santa Barbara ES-30 Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan
Figure ES-7. Adaptation Measures for Highest Near-Term and Mid-Term Infrastructure Risks from Climate Change Timeframes:

Immediate Next Steps (0 to 5 Years)
Near-Term (now through 0.8 ft SLR [~2050]; 5 to 25 years) Mid-Term (0.8 ft to 2.5 ft SLR [~2050 to ~2075]; 25 to 50 years) Long-Term (2.5+ ft SLR [~2075+]; 50+ years)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Legend
Figure ES-8
Implementation Plan
Hazard
Monitoring and Maintenance
Study
Design and Construct
30-Year Waterfront
Adaptation Study
Water and Wastewater Climate Adaptation Plan Updates
Identify
Vulnerable
Manholes Update
Study
Update
Study
Update
Road Access
Infrastructure
Study
Stormwater and Flood
Analysis Report
Stormwater System
Capacity and Laguna
Creek Improvements
Implement Phase 1
Study Recommendations
to reduce inflow
and infiltration and
increase capacity
during storm events.

Implement
Phase 2 Study
Recommendations
Implement Study
Recommendations
Implement Plan
Recommendations
Assess Need for
West Beach Sewer
relocation
Relocate West
Beach Sewer
Conduct Protection
Feasibility Study
Conduct Relocation
Feasibility Study
Potable Water Line
Relocation
Implement Study
Recommendations
(e.g., Floodwall
System)
Seal Manholes
Protect Cabrillo Blvd Protect Shoreline Drive
Coastal Largescale
Flood Protection Study
Assess needs
for additional
system capacity
improvements
Assess needs for
flood protection
and road access
improvements
Consider need
for El Estero WRC
relocation
Implement Coastal
Largescale Flood Protection
Implement recommended system
capacity improvements
Option A: Implement flood protection and
site road access improvements
Option B: Relocate El Estero WRC (Timing TBD)

GENERAL

WASTEWATER

SYSTEM WASTEWATER
SYSTEM

CAPACITY
DURING

FLOODING

EL ESTERO

WRC ACCESS
DURING

FLOODING

EL ESTERO

WRC ON-SITE

FLOODING

COASTAL

PIPELINES
Mission Lagoon Berm Management
Seal Collection
System Manholes
Consider changes in
requirements for flood
protection and utility
connections for new
development
Wastewater
System Wet Weather
Capacity Study
Low-Pressure Sewer
Conversion Study
Implement low-pressure
conversions for customer
connections in flood areas
Implement low-pressure collection system in flood areas Expand low-pressure collection system implementation El Estero WRC Flood
Protection Study
Formalize El Estero
WRC Flood Conditions
Operations Plan

NEAR-TERM
(Existing to 0.8 ft SLR)

MID-TERM
(0.8 - 2.5 ft SLR)

LONG-TERM
(2.5 ft+ SLR)
Flooding from rainfall
Limited flooding from
coastal storms
Increased flooding from rainfall and coastal storms
Coastal erosion reaching Cabrillo Blvd and Shoreline Drive Flooding
from coastal
storms
south of 101
Flooding
from coastal
storms
into downtown
Flooding
from regular
high tides
into downtown
IMMEDIATE NEXT STEPS (0-5 YEARS)
TODAY By 0.8 ft
(2047)
By 1.6 ft
(2063)
By 2.5 ft
(2076)
By 3.3 ft
(2087)
By 4.1 ft
(2096)
By 4.9 ft
(2105)
By 6.6 ft
(2130)
Implement Regional Coastal Adaptation Monitoring Program Conduct monitoring of flooding, erosion, and groundwater and regular infrastructure conditions assessments Regular Condition Assessments of Infrastructure in Low-Lying & Beach Areas

WEST BEACH SEWER

POTABLE WATER LINE IN CHASE PALM PARK
CABRILLO BLVD AND SHORELINE DR. UTILITIES

ONSET OF PREDOMINANT HAZARD
OR
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desalination Plant
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Tidal Inundation
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-9. Coastal Hazards,
Existing
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex Yard
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Tidal Inundation
Shoreline Retreat
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-10. Coastal Hazards,

0.8 ft SLR
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex Yard
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Tidal Inundation
Shoreline Retreat
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-11. Coastal Hazards,

1.6 ft SLR
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex Yard
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Tidal Inundation
Shoreline Retreat
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-12. Coastal Hazards,

2.5 ft SLR
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex Yard
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Shoreline Retreat
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Tidal Inundation
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-13. Coastal Hazards,

3.3 ft SLR
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex Yard
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Tidal Inundation
Shoreline Retreat
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-14. Coastal Hazards,

4.1 ft SLR
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex Yard
Pump Station & Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Hazards
Tidal Inundation
Shoreline Retreat
Coastal Storm Flooding (100-yr)
Coastal Storm Flooding (1-yr)
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-15. Coastal Hazards,

4.9 ft SLR
0 500 1,000
US Feet
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Vantor
Legend
El Estero WRC
Desal Plant & Annex
Yard
Pump Station &
Chemical Area
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
West Beach Sewer
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Shoreline Retreat

0.8 ft SLR

1.6 ft SLR

2.5 ft SLR

3.3 ft SLR

4.1 ft SLR

4.9 ft SLR
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-16. Shoreline Erosion,
East Beach and West Beach
0 420 840
US Feet
0 0.1 0.2
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

El Estero Outfall
Microsoft, Vantor
Legend
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Main
Water Main
Desalination Intake
Recycled Water Main
Shoreline Retreat

0.8 ft SLR

1.6 ft SLR

2.5 ft SLR

3.3 ft SLR

4.1 ft SLR

4.9 ft SLR
Water & Wastewater
Climate Adaptation Project
Figure ES-17. Shoreline Erosion,
Leadbetter Beach
0 137.5 275
US Feet
0 0.03 0.07
Miles
±
Notes

1. Erosion at West Beach is analyzed separately and
discussed further in the Wastewater and Water
Systems Climate Adaptation Plan.

RESOLUTION NO._____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

BARBARA ADOPTING THE WASTEWATER AND WATER

SYSTEMS CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the Santa Barbara City Council adopted and directed City implementation of a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan that identified forty-two high priority actions for the City to start within the next five years to prepare for the impacts of sea level rise, with eight of those actions considered at the highest priority level to initiate as soon as possible. Among those highest priority actions was a study of adaptation actions for the wastewater collections system and El Estero Water Resources Center; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies as a high priority the study and analysis to make the wastewater and water systems more resilient to climate related hazards; and
WHEREAS, Condition nine of the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements NPDES No.

CA0048143 for El Estero Water Resource Center requires the City to prepare a wastewater system specific climate adaptation plan; and WHEREAS, in 2022 the City received a $1,240,000 grant from the California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program Grant Program (Grant No. LCP-21-05) that included $600,000 for consultants and City staff to prepare a Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan; and
WHEREAS, in 2023 the City received a $1,370,000 grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy (Grant No. 23-033) for consultants and City staff to prepare a Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan and conduct some follow up implementation work recommended from the plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2022, the City issued a request for proposals for preparation of the Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Projectand ultimately awarded a contract to a team of consultants led by Water Systems Consulting Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, City Council approved Professional Services Contract No. 28,364 with Water Systems Consulting Inc. in the amount of $599,912 for preparation of the Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan. A first amendment to the contract was approved June 10, 2024, raising the total compensation to $689,836. A second amendment to the contract was approved August 19, 2025, increasing the total compensation to $789,826 under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan (Plan) evaluates strategies to increase the resilience of the City’s wastewater and water systems to climate-related hazards such as flooding, sea level rise, rising temperatures, and rising groundwater. The Plan identifies several high priority implementation actions to take within the next 5 years as well as the next 25 years; and WHEREAS, between December 9, 2025, and February 10, 2026, the City conducted public outreach on a Draft Plan that included presentations and comments from the City Council, Water Commission, Planning Commission, and Creeks Advisory Committee.

Santa Barbara Channelkeeper also sent written comments; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2026 the Water Commission reviewed the revised Final Draft Plan and unanimously voted to forward a recommendation to Council to adopt the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Environmental Analyst conducted environmental review and made a determination that Council actions to adopt the Plan and direct implementation of the Plan are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Sections 15262 and 15265 and California Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, which exempt feasibility studies, planning studies, and amendments to LCPs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Santa Barbara hereby adopts the City of Santa Barbara Wastewater and Water Systems Climate Adaptation Plan dated April 2026 and directs the recommended implementation of the plan.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Sustainability & Resilience Department
SUBJECT: Conceptual Design Contracts for Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project and Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Authorize the Sustainability & Resilience Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Mark Thomas and Company Inc. in the amount of $124,908 to prepare conceptual designs and an alternative analysis for the Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project and authorize up to $12,400 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $137,308; and B. Authorize the Sustainability & Resilience Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Waterways Consulting Inc. in the amount of $246,931 to prepare conceptual designs and an alternative analysis for the Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan and authorize up to $24,693 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $271,624.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Sustainability and Resilience Department is working on a coordinated watershed enhancement effort in the Mission Creek Watershed that integrates two complimentary pathway projects – one to improve pedestrian connectivity along the Mission Canyon corridor, and another to enhance fish passage for the endangered southern steelhead trout. Both efforts involve developing and evaluating conceptual design alternatives to assess feasibility and optimize environmental and community benefits. Where viable, future design and implementation will be combined at the Mission Canyon Bridge location to deliver an unified, multi-benefit project.

DISCUSSION:

Purpose and Scope
The Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project is intended to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility within the City’s portion of the Mission Canyon corridor while maintaining the existing historic Mission Canyon Bridge and preserving surrounding Agenda Item No. 6
Council Agenda Report
Conceptual Design Contracts for Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project and Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan [Agreement] April 14, 2026

historic and natural resources. Additionally, the project is being approached as a creekcorridor improvement that integrates pedestrian safety with enhanced awareness, visibility, and stewardship of Mission Creek.

The corridor serves residents, students, and visitors traveling between key community destinations including the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, the Mission Rose Garden, Old Mission Santa Barbara, Rocky Nook Park, and Roosevelt School. Existing conditions include narrow roadway widths, limited space, and complex intersections that create challenges for people walking through the area. Consistent with prior Council discussions and community feedback, the current scope focuses on evaluating pedestrian improvements independent of the vehicular bridge. The intent of this phase is to identify context-sensitive conceptual alternatives that improve pedestrian safety while respecting neighborhood character, historic resources, and the environmental setting of Mission Creek.

In addition, the City Creeks Division has identified opportunities to improve fish passage for the endangered southern California steelhead in the Mission Creek Watershed.

Recovery of steelhead in Mission Creek has long been a priority for the Creeks Division as Mission Creek is considered the most viable opportunity for steelhead recovery within the City of Santa Barbara and a high priority within the region (NOAA 2012)1. This project will build on previous grant funded efforts to improve fish passage in the watershed.

The Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan will develop conceptual designs for remediation options at four existing barriers in the watershed including the concrete obstruction located under the Mission Canyon Bridge. This project will help to inform the pedestrian improvement designs through the modeling of channel improvements and water surface elevations and ultimately allow the City to develop a holistic beneficial project that addresses both pedestrian and fish passage needs at the site.

Background and Prior Community Input
Over the past decade, several planning and design efforts have explored transportation improvements within the Mission Canyon corridor. Earlier concepts that included potential changes to the historic vehicular bridge generated significant community discussion and did not advance due to concerns related to historic preservation, neighborhood compatibility, and overall project approach.

In response, staff refined the project scope to focus on pedestrian-oriented improvements that can be evaluated separately from any future vehicular infrastructure decisions. This approach reflects prior Council direction to pursue incremental, community-supported improvements that prioritize safety while protecting historic resources and the character of the Mission Canyon area. As part of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget process, Council 1 https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15988
Council Agenda Report
Conceptual Design Contracts for Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project and Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan [Agreement] April 14, 2026

approved funding to advance conceptual analysis and alternative development for pedestrian improvements within the corridor.

Mission Creek is considered the most viable opportunity for steelhead recovery within the City of Santa Barbara and was ranked as a Core 1 watershed for the Conception Coast region in the Southern California Steelhead Federal Recovery Plan (NOAA 2012)2. In part because Mission Creek has an existing population of resident steelhead trout (rainbow trout), contains high quality spawning and rearing habitat within the stream channels in the upper watershed, has a documented historic run of steelhead, and has recent observations of anadromous adult steelhead attempting to migrate upstream.

The City of Santa Barbara has completed several fish passage barrier removals on Mission Creek to enable southern California steelhead to migrate up and downstream throughout the species’ life cycle, including projects at the Tallant Street Bridge and the Caltrans Fishway. Remediation of the Mission Canyon barrier has long been a priority of the Creeks Division as well as state and federal agencies tasked with the recovery of southern California steelhead. The Creeks Division is proposing to study feasible channel modifications at this location and others as part of a comprehensive plan to improve habitat conditions for endangered steelhead and allow for upstream migration to spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed.

Consultant Selection
The City issued a request for proposals in October 2025 seeking qualified firms to prepare conceptual alternatives for the pathways project. No proposals were received. Staff subsequently negotiated a scope of services with Mark Thomas and Company Inc., a firm with experience in multimodal transportation planning and context-sensitive infrastructure design. The negotiated scope allows the City to proceed with a focused conceptual analysis consistent with Council direction and available funding.

In January, the City issued a request for proposals from qualified firms to conduct site analysis and develop design alternatives for four fish passage projects within the Mission Creek Watershed. Four consulting firms submitted responsive proposals. Following evaluation of the proposals, staff determined that Waterways Consulting was the bestqualified firm for the project.

Separate design contracts were solicited for the transportation and instream restoration projects due to their distinct scopes and the specialized expertise required to address these environmentally sensitive and regulatory complex efforts.

Conceptual Design Phase
The proposed agreement with Mark Thomas and Company Inc. will support preparation of conceptual-level alternatives for pedestrian pathway improvements between Alameda Padre Serra and Puesta del Sol. The consultant will:
2 https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15988
Council Agenda Report
Conceptual Design Contracts for Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project and Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan [Agreement] April 14, 2026

 Develop up to two conceptual alternatives on the east side (upstream) of the Mission Canyon Bridge;
 Reevaluate and update a previously developed west-side (downstream) concept;  Analyze feasibility, accessibility, and context compatibility;  Evaluate opportunities to enhance public visibility and awareness of Mission Creek through sensitive design approaches; and
 Prepare visual materials to support community engagement and advisory board review.

Conceptual alternatives will consider pedestrian safety, accessibility, and compatibility with adjacent historic and natural resources, including opportunities for creek-sensitive design strategies that support long-term stewardship, minimize impacts to the creek corridor, and maximize opportunities for community connection to the creek. This phase will result in a comparative alternative analysis intended to inform future Council direction.

No final design or construction decisions are being made as part of this action.

The proposed agreement with Waterways Consulting, Inc. will support The Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan through the development of conceptual designs at four existing instream barriers in the watershed.

The four sites included for analysis are:

1. Mission Creek at the Pedregosa Street Bridge

2. Mission Creek at the Mission Canyon Road Bridge

3. Rattlesnake Creek at an abandoned City watermain crossing

4. Rattlesnake Creek at the Los Canoas Bridge
Conceptual alternatives will consider fish passage criteria, riparian and jurisdictional impacts, disturbance limits and need for encroachments, hydrologic modeling to ensure no impact to existing flood elevations, compatibility with adjacent historic resources and existing or proposed City infrastructure.

Creeks Program Benefits
Because the project is located adjacent to Mission Creek, the conceptual design phase will evaluate opportunities to enhance public awareness and appreciation of the creek corridor while protecting and enhancing its environmental function. Potential benefits include improved visibility to the creek, context-appropriate interpretive or educational opportunities, and evaluation of opportunities for storm water improvements. These elements align with the objectives of the Creeks Restoration and Water Quality Improvement Program by integrating public access, education, and environmental stewardship within a highly visible community corridor.

Council Agenda Report
Conceptual Design Contracts for Mission Canyon Pedestrian Pathways Project and Mission Creek Watershed Fish Passage Improvement Plan [Agreement] April 14, 2026

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The proposed agreement with Mark Thomas and Company Inc. sets compensation to $124,908. Staff request the authority to agree to additional services as needed up to the amount of $12,400 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $137,308.

The proposed agreement with Waterways Consulting Inc. sets compensation to $246,931.

Staff request the authority to agree to additional services as needed up to the amount of $24,693 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $271,624.

Sufficient expenditure appropriations exist in the Measure C Capital Fund and the Creeks Restoration and Water Quality Improvement Capital Fund budget in Fiscal Year 2026 to fund the costs of the agreements, and the costs of potential additional services.

A copy of the contracts may be requested from the Sustainability & Resilience Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This project supports City sustainability and creek program objectives by integrating pedestrian safety improvements with enhanced public awareness of Mission Creek and its ecological value. Conceptual alternatives will evaluate opportunities to improve alternative modes of transportation, strengthen connections between people and the creek corridor, and improve habitat conditions for endangered southern steelhead trout as well as other aquatic species in the Mission Creek Watershed.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project is for planning and design efforts, which does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration (Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines). The project will consider environmental factors related to future project implementation and CEQA compliance.

PREPARED BY: Erin Markey, Creeks Division Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability & Resilience Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Community Development and Human Services Committee Funding Recommendations and Fiscal Year 2027 Action Plan Public Hearing [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Approve the Fiscal Year 2027 funding recommendations of the Community Development and Human Services Committee (CDHSC) for use of Community Development Block Grant funds;
B. Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2026 Human Service and Public Service grants to renew a second year of grant funding for Fiscal Year 2027; C. Authorize the Deputy City Administrator to execute such agreements, amendments, and related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and D. Conduct a public hearing to obtain input on the City’s Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2026-2027.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Each year the, City awards grants to entities that provide services to City residents, with funding coming from the General Fund and federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Since 2023, Human/Public Service grants have been awarded as twoyear grants. Capital grants funded with CDBG are awarded as one year grants; thus the CDHSC has reviewed proposals for Fiscal Year 2027 capital projects and is recommending awards as described in this report.

Additionally, in order to receive federal funding, the City must submit an Annual Action Plan (AAP) that outlines its annual strategies and goals to address identified housing and Agenda Item No. 8
Council Agenda Report
Community Development and Human Services Committee Funding Recommendations and Fiscal Year 2027 Action Plan Public Hearing [Agreement] April 14, 2026

community development needs. At least two public hearings must be held during its development, and this meeting serves as the second public hearing.

DISCUSSION:

Each year, the City of Santa Barbara receives CDBG funds for activities that meet one of three national statutory objectives: 1) primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons, 2) eliminate/prevent slums or blight, or 3) meet other urgent local community development needs. CDBG funds may be used to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, or expanded economic opportunities to low- and moderate-income persons. By law, up to 15 percent of CDBG funds may be used for Public Service activities, and up to 20 percent may be allocated for administration of the CDBG and Fair Housing programs. The remaining 65 percent may be used for capital construction and economic development projects.

Additionally, since 1986, the City Council has provided General Fund dollars to the City’s Human Services Grants fund to support Human Service programs that provide direct services to low-income City residents. The Human Services fund is combined with CDBG Public Services dollars.

Starting in 2023, Human Service/Public Service grant funds have been awarded every other year as two-year grants. On March 18, 2025, Council approved 41 grant awards per the recommendation of the CDHSC for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for a grand total of $881,141 each year. Today’s action would authorize staff to renew the contract awards for the second year of the two-year period. A list of current grantees is provided as Attachment 1.

CDBG Capital and Economic Development grant allocations are awarded annually to efficiently allocate funding toward immediate community infrastructure needs. The CDHSC is recommending funding for four CDBG Capital grant awards for Fiscal Year 2027. Capital grants listed in this report are for a 12-month period beginning July 1, 2026, and are funded with CDBG dollars. A list of the recommended grants is included as Attachment 2.

A detailed description of the application process, including funding criteria and priorities and a complete listing of grant awards for CDBG capital funds, is provided in the CDHSC Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2027 and is attached to this report as Attachment 3. This report is also available on the City’s Human Services and CDBG web page, www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/humanservices.

Federal regulations require that the City of Santa Barbara prepare a Consolidated Plan, which outlines the City’s five-year strategy and goals to address identified housing and community development needs. The City’s current Consolidated Plan was submitted in Council Agenda Report
Community Development and Human Services Committee Funding Recommendations and Fiscal Year 2027 Action Plan Public Hearing [Agreement] April 14, 2026

2025.

In addition to the Consolidated Plan, the City must submit an Annual Action Plan (AAP), which identifies specific activities that will be undertaken to accomplish the goals stated in the five-year plan. The 2026–2027 AAP is the second program year of the five-year plan and incorporates the Fiscal Year 2027 funding recommendations described in this report.

HUD requires that at least two public hearings be held during development of the AAP; this meeting is the second public hearing. The first public hearing was held on September 23, 2026, before the CDHSC. Comments received during this hearing will be incorporated into the final AAP document, which will be brought before Council for final adoption prior to submittal to HUD.

Federal law requires that the draft AAP be available for public review for a minimum of 30 days. To that effect, the City’s Draft AAP will be available for public review starting April 15, 2026, on the City’s CDBG and Human Services web page, www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/humanservices. Comments can be submitted to City staff at (805) 564-2624 or at [email protected]. Comments must be received by May 18, 2026.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The recommendations in this report are based on the combination of $726,150 in City General Fund Human Services funds, $841,577 in estimated CDBG entitlement funds, $12,974.95 in prior-year unexpended CDBG funds, and $60,000 in CDBG Program Income funds. The total amount available is estimated at $1,640,701.95.

Of the total $1,640,701.95, the following is available per funding category:
 Public/Human Service: $852,386.551
 Capital: $560,000
 CDBG Administration/Fair Housing: $228,315.40
The recommendations in this report, including amendments to 2nd year Human/Public Service grants, are contingent upon the City’s allocation of federal CDBG funds. Although HUD has announced the City’s CDBG allocation for Fiscal Year 2027, there is always the possibility that unexpected budgetary changes occur. In the event that the award amount 1 During the FY 25–26 funding cycle, a grant was awarded to the nonprofit PATH. Since then, PATH has ceased operations in Santa Barbara County. The awarded funds have been used to bridge the gap between HUD funding levels in FY 25–26 and FY 26–27, as the FY 26–27 award was lower.

Council Agenda Report
Community Development and Human Services Committee Funding Recommendations and Fiscal Year 2027 Action Plan Public Hearing [Agreement] April 14, 2026

differs from the current allocation announcement, the CDHSC Committee formulated contingency plans. The contingency plans are detailed below.

In the event of increased funding:
 Public/Human Services – The excess available funds will be distributed equally to the five highest-scoring Priority 1 applicants who did not already receive full funding and then equally distributed thereafter to the next highest scoring applicants until the excess is depleted.
 Capital – The excess available funds will be equally distributed among all the applicants that did not already receive full funding.

Any remaining excess funds will be reprogrammed for future funding cycles.

Should funds be lower than expected, the recommended plan is as follows:
 Public/Human Services – The deficit funds will be divided equally among the ten lowest-scoring applicants regardless of priority, and reduced or eliminated, until the deficit is completely depleted. If, as a result of this contingency plan, the recommendation to a particular applicant is less than the City’s $9,000 minimum grant amount, that minimum will be waived.
 Capital – The funds will be taken from the lowest scoring applicant until the deficit is eliminated.

Fiscal Year 2027 Human Services Funding and Allocation (General Fund) On October 22, 2024, Council established a General Fund commitment of $726,150 for the Human Services Program for both Fiscal Year 2026 and Fiscal Year 2027. In the event Human Services funding is reduced or eliminated, all Human Services grant agreements include language stating that the award amount shall be adjusted based on available funding.

A copy of the contract/agreement may be requested from the Office of Housing and Homeless Services for public review by emailing [email protected].

Council Agenda Report
Community Development and Human Services Committee Funding Recommendations and Fiscal Year 2027 Action Plan Public Hearing [Agreement] April 14, 2026

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Human/Public Services Grants with Contract Number

2. CDHSC Capital Grant Recommendations by Rating

3. CDHSC Report on Funding Recommendations FY 2027
PREPARED BY: Caroline Paine, Housing and Homeless Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Anthony Valdez, Deputy City Administrator APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
ATTACHMENT 1
Human/Public Services Grants with Contract Number
Organization Name Program Name Contract Amount
Channel Islands YMCA Noah's Anchorage HS 28660 $ 22,500.00 Channel Islands YMCA My Home 28649 $ 22,500.00
Child Abuse Listening Mediation (CALM) CALM 28651 $ 23,700.00 Council on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse CADA 28653 $ 15,700.00 County Santa Barbara District Attorney Sexual Assault Response Team 28667 $ 9,000.00 Fr. Virgil Cordano Center Fr. Virgil Cordano Center 28648 $ 31,700.00 Freedom 4 Youth Culinary Training Program 28674 $ 31,300.00 Friendship Adult Day Care Center Continence Care Program 28654 $ 9,000.00 Friendship Center Friendship Adult Day Care Center 28673 $ 11,700.00 FSA - Family Service Agency Senior Services 28655 $ 23,700.00 FSA - Family Service Agency Family Resource Center 28672 $ 20,700.00 FSA - Family Service Agency Long-Term Care Ombudsman 28670 $ 23,700.00 Girls Inc. of Greater Santa Barbara Lunchtime Club 28679 $ 14,900.00 Good Samaritan Shelter Freedom Warming Centers 28643 $ 23,741.82 Hillside Direct Care Staffing 28662 $ 33,700.00
Hospice of Santa Barbara Hospice of SB 28658 $ 15,700.00 Independent Living Resource Center, Inc Community Living/Transition Services 28678 $ 10,200.00 Independent Living Resource Center, Inc. Youth Transition Services 28680 $ 26,500.00 Mental Wellness Center Mental Wellness Center 28668 $ 9,000.00 NBCC dba New Beginnings Community Counseling Clinic 28641 $ 39,741.82 NBCC dba New Beginnings EN Safe Parking Shelter and Rapid Rehousing 28640 $ 45,041.82 Organic Soup Kitchen Nutritional Security 28666 $ 23,500.00 Pacific Pride Foundation, Inc. Pacific Pride Foundation 28650 $ 23,700.00 Partners in Housing Solutions Partners in Housing Solutions 28661 $ 20,100.00 Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation Supportive Housing Program 28663 $ 9,000.00 Salvation Army, a California corporation Santa Barbara Hospitality House 28656 $ 9,000.00 Santa Barbara Meals on Wheels Meals on Wheels Santa Barbara 28657 $ 13,400.00 Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics Integrated Healthcare 28665 $ 27,500.00 Santa Barbara Police Activities League Youth Leadership Council 28675 $ 9,000.00 Santa Barbara Police Activities League Life After High School Academy 28676 $ 9,000.00 Sarah House Santa Barbara Home & Hospice Care 28652 $ 17,900.00 SBC Immigrant Legal Defense Center Urgent Removal Defense Legal Services 28669 $ 22,240.70 Showers of Blessing Santa Barbara Showers of Blessing Santa Barbara 28644 $ 17,741.82 St. Vincent's Family Strengthening Program (FSP) 28647 $ 21,300.00 STESA - Standing Together to End Sexual Assault Standing Together to End Sexual Assault 28646 $ 31,700.00 The Turner Foundation - Since 1958! Transitional Aged Youth 28659 $ 16,100.00 Transition House Homelessness Prevention Program 28677 $ 13,700.00 Transition House Family Shelter and Services 28642 $ 63,741.82 United Boys & Girls Clubs Santa Barbara County United Boys & GIrls Clubs 28671 $ 19,900.00 WillBridge of Santa Barbara Permanent Supportive Housing Program 28645 $ 17,900.00 Total* $ 850,149.80
*The total contracts awarded in FY27 is lower than FY26 awards due to the cancellation of the PATH Street Outreach contract. Savings from that contract will be used to replace one-time CARES Act funds which will not be available to support FY27 funding and to offset reduced CDBG allocation. Remaining unexpended funds will be reprogrammed for future funding cycles.

Pg. 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Capital Grant Recommendations by Rating
CDBG - Capital Grants
Organization Name Project Name Type
Amt.

Requested
Committee
Recommend Score
Transition House Casa Marianna Kitchen Rehab Housing Rehab $ 133,691 $133,691 91.71 Habitat for Humanity Home Repair Program Housing Rehab $ 75,000 $75,000 85.57 The Turner Foundation Electrical System Upgrades Housing Rehab $ 240,000 $105,803 80.57 Parks and Recreation Dept. Plaza Vera Cruz Improvements Public Facility $ 245,506 $245,506 76.60 Total 4 $ 694,197 $560,000
Pg. 1 of 1
City of Santa Barbara
Human Services and CDBG Programs
Community Development and Human Services Committee
Funding Recommendations
FY 2026-2027
April 2026
ATTACHMENT 3
i
City of Santa Barbara
Community Development and Human Services Committee
2026-2027

OFFICERS
Chair – Lyiam Galo
Vice-Chair – Angelica Diaz

MEMBERS
African American Community - Arielle Goodson
Business Community/Economic Development – Jennifer Lemberger Disabled Community – Jacob Lesner-Buxton
Downtown Neighborhood – Daniel Johnsen
Eastside Neighborhood - Vacant
Housing Authority – Jennifer Diaz
Homeless Services – Lyiam Galo
Human Services - Eileen Read
Latino Community - Vacant
Oak Park Neighborhood – Angelica Diaz
Senior Community – Robert Permut
Westside/Lower Westside Neighborhood - Joseph Evers
Youth-Oriented Services - Jenna Hamilton-Rolle
STAFF
Caroline Paine, Housing and Homeless Services Manager
Lindsey Drewes, Community Development Programs Specialist Liz Stotts, Administrative Analyst II
Ryan Bankes, Administrative Assistant
ii
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE.....................1 AVAILABLE FUNDS .......................................................................................................2 FUNDING CRITERIA......................................................................................................3 PUBLIC/HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING PRIORITIES...................................................5 CDBG ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING PRIORITIES.........................................................5 APPLICATION PROCESS FOR CAPITAL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS ......6 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................7 HUMAN/PUBLIC CONTRACT RENEWALS ..................................................................7 ADMINISTRATION AND FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES.................................................7 CONTINGENCY PLAN...................................................................................................8 STAFF COMMENTS ......................................................................................................8 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARIES ................................................................................10 1 INTRODUCTION
Each year, the City of Santa Barbara receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for activities that meet one of three national statutory objectives: 1. primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons; 2. eliminate/prevent slums or blight; or 3. meet other urgent local community development needs.

CDBG funds may be used to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, or expanded economic opportunities to low- and moderate-income persons. A portion of CDBG funds may be used for public service activities, and for administration of the program, and the remaining funds may be used for capital construction and economic development projects.

Additionally, since 1986, the City Council has provided General Fund dollars to the City’s Human Services Grants fund to support Human Service programs that provide direct services to lowincome City residents. The Human Services fund is combined with CDBG Public Services dollars and are awarded via a competitive funding cycle.

Starting in 2023, Human Service/Public Service grant funds have been awarded every other year as two-year grants. On March 18, 2025, Council approved 41 grant awards for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Thus, no solicitation was conducted in this category this year as it is the second year of the two year cycle.

CDBG Capital and Economic Development grant allocations are awarded annually to efficiently allocate funding toward immediate community infrastructure needs. The City solicited proposals from eligible applicants for use of these funds, and after an intensive and thorough review of the submitted applications, the recommended programs are outlined in this report.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
The Santa Barbara City Council appoints a thirteen-member Committee to review applications for Human Services and CDBG funds and make funding recommendations. The Community Development and Human Services Committee (CDHSC) is comprised of representatives of the following groups:
o Youth-Oriented Services
o Business Community/Economic Development
o Human Services Organization
o Latino Community
o African American Community
o Senior Community
o Housing Interests
o Four (4) Low Income Neighborhoods:
 Downtown, Eastside, Oak Park, Westside/Lower Westside o Disabled Community
o Housing Authority Representative
2 The Committee generally meets monthly to monitor program compliance, conduct site visits of agencies, review mandatory reports to HUD, hold public hearings, and discuss issues related to community development and human services within the community. They meet twice per week during the grant application review process in January and February each year.

AVAILABLE FUNDS
The recommendations in this report are based on the combined amounts of $726,150 in City Human Services funds (subject to Council approval), $841,577 in CDBG entitlement funds, $12,975 in prior-year (reprogrammed) CDBG funds, and $60,000 in CDBG Program Income funds. The total amount available is estimated at $1,640,702.

The total funds available are broken down as follows (Figure 1):

Figure 1
3 As Federal regulations allow, the available CDBG funds are broken down for allocation as follows (Figure 2):

FUNDING CATEGORIES
There are three separate categories under which the combined Human Services/CDBG funds are allocated:

1. Public/Human Service – City Human Services funds are combined with CDBG Public Service funds, 15% of which can be used for this purpose, to support direct social services to low-income person s. As shown in Figure 3, below, the majority of funds in this category derive from City funds.

2. Capital - The majority of CDBG funds go towards capital projects. A total of $ $560,000 is available for Capital projects in Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

3. Administration/Fair Housing - This category shall not exceed 20% of the total CDBG funds available to be programmed during the fiscal year. A total of $228,315 is allocated for this category.

FUNDING CRITERIA
The following standards apply to programs applying for Human Services and/or CDBG funds:

1. Proposed programs/projects must primarily benefit low- and moderate-income residents, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

2. Human Service, Public Service and Capital Project applicants must be tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations incorporated or organized in the State of California or another state of the United States, or local units of government, whose proposals directly benefit low- and moderateFigure 2 Human Service General Funds $ 726,150
Public Service CDBG (15%) $ 126,237
Total Public/Human Service Available $ 852,387
Figure 3
Eligible Use
Entitlement
Funds
Repayment *
Prior Year
Reprogram
Total
Public Service (15%) $126,237 $0 $0 $126,237
Capital $547,025 $0 $12,975 $560,000
Admin/Fair Housing (20%) $168,315 $60,000 $0 $228,315
$841,577 $60,000 $12,975 $914,552
Breakdown of CDBG Categories
* Program Income from the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is estimated at $300,000 for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Up to 20% can be used for Administration.
4 income City of Santa Barbara residents. Economic Development applicants may be for-profit entities if they provide technical assistance, advice, and business support services to owners of microenterprises and persons developing microenterprises per CFR 570.201(o)(1)(ii).

3. Proposals must address specific social or physical needs and conditions of the people they propose to serve. Documentation could include social indicators, demographic data, surveys, community plans and need as perceived by potential consumers.

4. Proposals must identify at least one, and no more than three, Measurable Outcome(s), defined as:

Specific and realistic results or changes that a client will experience from participating in the applicant’s program or receiving the applicant’s service.

5. Proposals must present a marketing
strategy, which includes specific efforts to
reach ethnic communities.

6. Proposals must demonstrate support
from the people for which the program is
proposed.

7. Applicants must clearly identify all
funding sources and justify their proposal if
services are available through another
source.

8. Applicants shall demonstrate financial
stability. Applicants shall seek funding or
demonstrate funding support from diverse
public/private sources. The City shall not
be committed to total support of a program, nor shall the City be committed to continuing funding in the case that other support is withdrawn. Administrative/overhead costs shall be held to reasonable levels. Additionally, applicants shall demonstrate sufficient net assets or operating reserves to cover the organization’s liabilities, operating deficits, or debt.

9. City CDBG/HS funds shall support only those services that directly benefit residents of the City of Santa Barbara. Programs operated on a countywide or regional basis must show documentation that: (a) services benefit City residents, and (b) sufficient funds are available to support non-city residents.

10. Proposals shall identify geographical areas where they propose to provide services.

11. Proposals that pay the local minimum wage (as described in Chapter 9.128 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code) to all staff for which CDBG/HS funds are requested shall receive an extra point in the rating process.

12. Human Service, Public Service and Economic Development proposals written for a two-year grant cycle will be given priority over one year grant requests in the funding recommendation process.

Figure 4 Parks and Recreation Alice Keck Park Improvements 2025 5 PUBLIC/HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING PRIORITIES
Public/Human Services funds shall be used to provide
direct services; funds shall not be used for capital
improvements, equipment purchases, or mortgage
payments.

Council-Adopted Priorities:

First Priority – Programs that help meet basic human
needs - specifically food, shelter/housing, and/or medical (physical and mental).

Second Priority – Proposals that reduce the impact of
violence including the prevention of gun violence and
suicide; and/or are preventative in nature; and/or promote the highest degree of functioning the individual is capable of achieving.

CDBG ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING

PRIORITIES
The City is required to meet one of the broad, national objectives of the CDBG program: (1) benefit low- and
moderate-income persons; (2) eliminate slums and urban
blight; and (3) meet community needs in the event of an emergency. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of a viable urban community by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities.

Council-Adopted CDBG Funding Priorities (no order of priority):
 Homeless Assistance – Provide services to homeless individuals and families and victims of domestic violence;
 Community Development Needs and Services – Support childcare centers and/or programs that provide childcare; community centers or agencies that provide youth educational/recreational and/or senior programs; and/or health centers that provide mental health services;
 Public Facilities and Infrastructure – Capital projects that improve facilities of organizations that serve low/ moderate-income residents, and public infrastructure and parks improvements in low/mod.-income neighborhoods; and
 Economic Development – Support of programs that provide self-employment training and small business loans.

Figure 5 Transition House Emergency Shelter for Families 6 APPLICATION PROCESS FOR CAPITAL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS On October 14, 2025, the Santa Barbara City Council approved the application process, including the schedule, criteria, and funding priorities.

A mandatory Application Online Workshop was held for all prospective applicants on November 13, 2025. The purpose of the workshop was to explain the application-submittal process, and to answer any questions.

An announcement of the funding availability was e-mailed to all agencies that expressed an interest in applying or have applied for funding in the past two years. Current grant recipients were also notified.

In addition, a notice was published in the Santa Barbara Independent and Voice Magazine, as well as posted on the home page of the City of Santa Barbara’s website and Facebook page, and on the Nonprofit Resource Network of Santa Barbara County website. Links to the application website, instructions, informational and educational materials, and Frequently Asked Questions were added to the website.

Four applications were submitted by the deadline of December 11, 2025. The total requested funding equaled approximately $695,000, which exceeded the available funding for Capital/Economic Development projects by more than $134,000. During the review process, one applicant reduced the amount of their request, which brought down the total amount requested. No applications for Economic Development activities were submitted.

As part of the review, Committee members analyzed each application package, which included a lengthy application form, project description, a client demographics page, a project and agency budget, construction timeline, photos and site plans. Applicants also submitted independently reviewed financial reports and tax returns, which staff evaluates in order to notify the Committee of any potential concerns.

Individually, the CDHSC spent numerous hours reading and scoring each submittal. CDHSC members also conducted site visits to currently funded programs and reviewed the performance reports of applicants that have previously received City funds.

The CDHSC interviewed all applicants on February 3, 2026. All meetings were noticed and open to the public. Each applicant presented their proposed program, and the CDHSC asked questions on various aspects such as the organization’s finances, targeted clientele, and project need.

SCORING
Proposals were scored in the following categories:

Agency: Track record/past performance, salaries too high or too low, large disparity between management staff and program staff;
Board: Composition, role, diversity, and level of involvement; Project Description: Scope of project clearly defined; meets federal, state and local requirements; feasibility;
7 Project Need: Who will benefit from the project; clear identification of need; will project satisfy demonstrated need, does the project align with the mission; Project Cost: Itemized cost estimate from a contractor; reasonableness; can project be completed without full City funding; leveraging of other funding; Measurable Outcomes: Project will result in identified realistic, measurable results or changes that a client will experience from receiving the organization’s services.

Each Committee member scored each application based on the written proposal and verbal presentation, from which an average score was determined. Applications were then sorted by Priority and then ranked by their average score.

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Committee members scored applicants based on their written proposals and verbal presentations.

Committee members that had a conflict of interest with an applicant were required to abstain from scoring, voting or recommending funding. Applicants’ average scores were determined using the Olympic method. Under this system, individual committee member scores are tallied, with the highest and lowest score/amount removed, and the resulting amount then divided by the remaining number of members who entered a score.

The committee formulated the recommended funding amounts for each application using the applicant’s Olympic score as a starting point, while considering other important factors such as priority, community need, feasibility, etc. The Committee approved the final recommendations on February 24, 2026.

TABLE 1, on page 9, lists the Capital grant applications by Scoring.

HUMAN/PUBLIC CONTRACT RENEWALS
Starting in 2023, Human Service/Public Service grant funds have been awarded every other year as two-year grants. After an intensive application review process in January - February 2025, the CDHSC recommended funding for 41 grant awards. On March 18, 2025, Council approved the recommended grant awards for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for a grand total of $881,1411 each year.

TABLE 2, on page 10, lists the Human/Public Services grants.

ADMINISTRATION AND FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
CDBG funds and 20% of anticipated program income funds are available to be used for Administration and Fair Housing activities. These funds will be used for the Administration of the 1 During the FY 25–26 funding cycle, a grant was awarded to the nonprofit PATH. Since then, PATH has ceased operations in Santa Barbara County. The awarded funds have been used to bridge the gap between HUD funding levels in FY 25–26 and FY 26–27, as the FY 26–27 award was lower. 8 CDBG program, which works to ensure that the City and all grantees are in compliance with CDBG regulations and the City’s Fair Housing Program.

CONTINGENCY PLAN
The recommendations in this report, including amendments to 2nd year Human/Public Service grants, are contingent upon the City’s allocation of federal CDBG funds. Although HUD has announced the City’s CDBG allocation for Fiscal Year 2027, there is always the possibility that unexpected budgetary changes occur. In the event that the award amount differs from the current allocation announcement, the CDHSC Committee formulated contingency plans. The contingency plans are detailed below.

In the event of increased funding:
 Public/Human Services – The excess available funds will be distributed equally to the five highest-scoring Priority 1 applicants who did not already receive full funding and then equally distributed thereafter to the next highest scoring applicants until the excess is depleted.  Capital – The excess available funds will be equally distributed among all the applicants that did not already receive full funding.

Any remaining excess funds will be reprogrammed for future funding cycles.

Should funds be lower than expected, the recommended plan is as follows:
 Public/Human Services – The deficit funds will be divided equally among the ten lowestscoring applicants regardless of priority, and reduced or eliminated, until the deficit is completely depleted. If, as a result of this contingency plan, the recommendation to a particular applicant is less than the City’s $9,000 minimum grant amount, that minimum will be waived.  Capital – The funds will be taken from the lowest scoring applicant until the deficit is eliminated.

STAFF COMMENTS
The Committee has thoroughly reviewed the applications and has diligently applied the specified criteria and funding priorities set by City Council to its recommendations. Council has the option, at its discretion, to recognize additional concerns and City interests in modifying the funding recommendations.
9 Table 1
Recommendations under Capital Project Category FY 2027
Organization
Name Project Name Type Amt. Requested
Committee
Recommend Score
Transition House Casa Marianna Kitchen
Rehab
Housing
Rehab $133,691 $133,691 91.71
Habitat for
Humanity Home Repair Program Housing Rehab $75,000 $75,000 85.57 The Turner
Foundation
Electrical System
Upgrades
Housing
Rehab $240,000 $105,803 80.57
Parks and
Recreation Dept.

Plaza Vera Cruz
Improvements Public Facility $245,506 $245,506 76.60
Totals $694,197 $560,000
10 Table 2
Public Service/Human Service Grants for Renewal
Organization Name Program Name Amount
Channel Islands YMCA Noah's Anchorage $22,500.00
Channel Islands YMCA My Home $22,500.00
Child Abuse Listening Mediation (CALM) CALM $23,700.00
Council on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse CADA $15,700.00
County Santa Barbara District Attorney Sexual Assault Response Team $9,000.00 Fr. Virgil Cordano Center Fr. Virgil Cordano Center $31,700.00 Freedom 4 Youth Culinary Training Program $31,300.00
Friendship Adult Day Care Center Continence Care Program $9,000.00 Friendship Center Friendship Adult Day Care Center $11,700.00 FSA - Family Service Agency Senior Services $23,700.00
FSA - Family Service Agency Family Resource Center $20,700.00 FSA - Family Service Agency Long-Term Care Ombudsman $23,700.00 Girls Inc. of Greater Santa Barbara Lunchtime Club $14,900.00 Good Samaritan Shelter Freedom Warming Centers $23,741.82 Hillside Direct Care Staffing $33,700.00
Hospice of Santa Barbara Hospice of SB $15,700.00
Independent Living Resource Center, Inc Community Living/Transition Services $10,200.00 Independent Living Resource Center, Inc. Youth Transition Services $26,500.00 Mental Wellness Center Mental Wellness Center $9,000.00 NBCC dba New Beginnings Community Counseling Clinic $39,741.82 NBCC dba New Beginnings Safe Parking Shelter and Rapid Rehousing $45,041.82 Organic Soup Kitchen Nutritional Security $23,500.00
Pacific Pride Foundation, Inc. Pacific Pride Foundation $23,700.00 Partners in Housing Solutions Partners in Housing Solutions $20,100.00 Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation Supportive Housing Program $9,000.00 Salvation Army Santa Barbara Hospitality House $9,000.00 Santa Barbara Meals on Wheels Meals on Wheels Santa Barbara $13,400.00 Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics Integrated Healthcare $27,500.00 Santa Barbara Police Activities League Youth Leadership Council $9,000.00 Santa Barbara Police Activities League Life After High School Academy $9,000.00 Sarah House Santa Barbara Home & Hospice Care $17,900.00 SBC Immigrant Legal Defense Center Urgent Removal Defense Legal Services $22,240.70 Showers of Blessing Santa Barbara Showers of Blessing Santa Barbara $17,741.82 St. Vincent's Family Strengthening Program (FSP) $21,300.00 Standing Together to End Sexual Assault Standing Together to End Sexual Assault $31,700.00 The Turner Foundation Transitional Aged Youth $16,100.00 Transition House Homelessness Prevention Program $13,700.00 Transition House Family Shelter and Services $63,741.82 United Boys & Girls Clubs Santa Barbara County United Boys & Girls Clubs $19,900.00 WillBridge of Santa Barbara Permanent Supportive Housing Program $17,900.00 Total* $850,149.80
*The total contracts awarded in FY 27 is lower than FY26 awards due to the cancellation of the PATH Street Outreach contract. Savings from that contract will be used to replace one-time CARES Act funds which will not be available to support FY 27 funding and to offset reduced CDBG allocation. Remaining unexpended funds will be reprogrammed for future funding cycles.
11 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARIES
12 Transition House
Casa Marianna Kitchen Rehab
Score:

91.71 GRANT REQUEST $133,691
RECOMMENDATION $133,691

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This grant will support rehabilitation of kitchens in apartments that are part of a permanent supportive housing program for formerly homeless families. The scope of work covered by the grant funding will include installing new cabinets, countertops, sinks and faucets, along with replacing kitchen flooring, in seven units.

PROGRAM PURPOSE
Transition House provides a three-stage continuum of housing for local families experiencing homelessness, including emergency shelter, transitional housing up to 24 months, and permanent supportive housing. Casa Marianna, located on the East Side, provides not only housing: Families continue to participate in case management and career development services designed to further promote the development of tools and resources needed to achieve self-sufficiency.

The kitchens at Casa Marianna in this proposal are no longer well-functioning—they show the wear and tear of their decades of use. It is anticipated that these renovations will help improve the lives of the tenants by giving them a safe, functional, and pleasing environment to prepare meals— one that will foster shared family experiences and demonstrate respect for the dignity of the tenants.

USE OF FUNDS:

The scope of work covered by the grant funding will include installing new cabinets, countertops, sinks and faucets, along with replacing kitchen flooring, in seven units. 13 Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County Home Repair Program
Score:

85.57 GRANT REQUEST $75,000
RECOMMENDATION $75,000

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Homeowner Rehabilitation Program includes an owner-occupied home repair and rehabilitation program, which focuses on assisting low-income individuals, families and seniors with necessary home repairs, accessibility modifications and aging-in-place adaptations to remain safely in their homes.

PROGRAM PURPOSE
The Homeowner Rehabilitation Program is designed to increase safety and aid an individual's ability to live in the home they already own and reduces the risks of displacement.

Through addressing safety concerns, Habitat Santa Barbara is able to support low-income individuals and families to maintain their own independent housing through homeownership. In addition to providing safe housing for households in need of repairs, this program's outcomes include aging-in-place solutions, fall prevention, housing stability, retaining affordable housing, and maintaining a healthy place to live.

USE OF FUNDS:

The funds will be used to support materials procurement, payment to licensed professionals, building permits, environmental review, and program-related costs. 14 The Turner Foundation
Electrical System Upgrades
Score:

80.57 GRANT REQUEST $240,000
RECOMMENDATION $105,803

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will upgrade and modernize the electrical infrastructure at two affordable housing communities: Turner Lighthouse and Turner Village. Both sites rely on original electrical panels that have exceeded their useful life, pose safety concerns, and no longer support the electrical demands of modern households.

The scope of work includes the full removal and disposal of outdated panel equipment, installation of new group metering systems, meter mains, upgraded breakers, aluminum bus assemblies, and surge protection devices, as well as rewiring and connecting the new systems to existing service lines in accordance with City of Santa Barbara requirements. In areas where necessary, panel closet layouts will be reconfigured to safely accommodate the new equipment.

PROGRAM PURPOSE
The Turner Foundation is dedicated to supporting low income youth, families, older adults, and individuals with disabilities on the Westside of Santa Barbara by providing affordable housing.

This project will improve the safety, efficiency, and long term sustainability of their homes.

Replacing the deteriorating electrical panels with modern equipment will reduce the risk of electrical fires and other faults associated with aging infrastructure. The upgraded systems will also improve overall electrical efficiency, which can help lower tenants’ electricity bills by reducing energy loss and ensuring more stable service.

Overall, the project will strengthen the safety, sustainability, and operational resilience of the electrical systems serving Turner’s residents, ensuring that affordable housing remains secure, efficient, and capable of meeting the evolving energy needs of tenant individuals and families.

USE OF FUNDS:

CDBG funds will be used toward the cost of replacing and upgrading the electrical infrastructure.

NOTE REGARDING RECOMMENDATION:

The Turner Foundation provided an updated project estimate based on additional research completed after their application was submitted. The committee’s award recommendation reflects this updated information. 15 Parks and Recreation Dept.

Plaza Vera Cruz Improvements
Score:

76.60 GRANT REQUEST $245,506
RECOMMENDATION $245,506

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Plaza Vera Cruz Access and Building Exterior Improvements Project continues recent CDBG-funded improvements at the park, and would provide a formal ADA accessible entry and pathway on Cota Street. The current entry at the Cota Street end of Plaza Vera Cruz is located on the alley, which is non-accessible by ADA standards. The proposed project would replace this entry with a formal, inviting, ADA accessible entry on Cota Street along with plants, irrigation, and ornamental iron fencing.

Additionally, the project includes removing an existing PVC plastic patio and a dilapidated shade structure adjacent to the Community Building and installing a larger concrete paver patio to provide additional useful space for recreation programming and community events. The project would also replace the last remaining section of chain link fencing with ornamental fencing.

PROGRAM PURPOSE
Continued renovation of the park and building will help achieve the Department’s goal of making it an active community and recreation space, further increasing the safety, use, and appeal of the park. Census data shows that block groups within approximately 10 minute walk from the park are comprised of 62.8% low to moderate income residents. The project will benefit residents by providing an attractive, welcoming, park within walking distance with an ADA accessible entry, and providing more space for community events, meetings, and recreation programming for all ages.

USE OF FUNDS:

Funds will be used for construction costs.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by Amending Chapters 30.01, 30.15, 30.20, 30.25, 30.30, 30.35, 30.140, 30.165,

30.175, 30.185, 30.200, 30.205, 30.220, 30.235, 30.250, 30.290, 30.295, 30.300, and Section 30.150.090 of Chapter 30.150 of Title 30 Pertaining to Regulations for Single Family Streamlining;
B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 25.03 of Title 25 Pertaining to Regulations for Single Family Streamlining Project;
C. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 22.22 and Amending Chapters 22.68, and 22.69 of Title 22 Pertaining to Regulations for Single Family Streamlining Project; D. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Single Family Design Board Guidelines; E. Determine that the proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the General Plan; and
F. Determine that the proposed Ordinance Amendments and Resolution are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 5 (Guidelines Section 15305: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).

Agenda Item No. 9
Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to community feedback, State law, and direction from City Council, the SingleFamily Development Streamlining Project (Project) is intended to simplify the process for review and approval of single-family residential development projects while maintaining Santa Barbara’s tradition of quality architecture and distinctive neighborhood character.

Since establishment of the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) in 2007, the volume of SFDB projects has increased significantly through code updates and the introduction of Title 30.

While the code updates streamlined processes, the updated regulations added projects to SFDB’s workload. In 2020, when tasked to review the City’s land development processes, the Novak Consulting Group called out the substantial number of single-unit projects subject to review and suggested reassigning SFDB’s duties to streamline land development.1 Homeowners and project applicants provided staff overwhelming feedback expressing frustration with the time, anguish, and money involved in getting approvals for minor home projects, especially when those projects require noticed public hearings. As a result of the input, the City’s Land Development Team Oversight Subcommittee directed staff to initiate updates to the Municipal Code and design guidelines aimed at streamlining single family development.

The Project aims to reduce the total number of projects that require SFDB review, streamline the public hearing process, and provide more flexibility within the zoning ordinance and design guidelines to reduce permitting barriers. These changes are expected to result in faster processing times and reduced complexity while upholding SFDB’s primary goal of ensuring residential projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in size and design. Further, these efforts align with the state’s initiative to streamline processes for residential development. The Project also includes zoning ordinance amendments to clarify existing language and updates to align with current state law.

DISCUSSION:

The goals of the Single Family Streamlining Project are as follows:

1. Reduce the number of single family development projects subject to design review.

2. Streamline the public hearing process for single family projects.

3. Create more flexibility to address common homeowner interests.

The Project responds to City Council direction, community input, General Plan policies, and consultant recommendations aimed at streamlining and simplifying the review and approval process for single-unit residential projects. It also implements 2023-2031 Housing Element Program HE-5: Process Improvements. In August 2022, the Land Development Team Oversight Subcommittee (LDTO) directed staff to address 1 Novak Consulting Group 2020 Land Development Process Improvement Report Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

recommendations from the Novak Consulting Group’s 2020 Land Development Process Improvement Report. These recommendations included reducing the number of design review triggers, streamlining the review process for simple permits and homeowner projects, and developing project tiers that trigger different routing and levels of review.

The Project includes Municipal Code amendments to achieve the project goals and to address general zoning “clean-up” items. The code amendments fall into four categories:
1) significant change; 2) minor change; 3) cleanup and clarifying amendments; 4) clarifying amendments required by State law.

The proposed Title 30 amendments related to design review would apply citywide upon adoption. Similarly, the newly established objective standards for balconies, privacy, windows, doors, etc., would be applicable both inland and in the coastal zone. However, the Title 30 amendments that offer increased flexibility for common homeowner interests (e.g., garage conversions, guest houses, open yard, sheds) would not apply in the coastal zone. Ultimately, it is staff’s desire to have all of Title 30 certified by the California Coastal Commission as a new Zoning Ordinance for the coastal zone. Timing of that effort is currently undetermined due to other critical work priorities. See Attachment 1 – Table of Proposed Ordinance Amendments, for a summary explanation of the proposed amendments.

The Project also proposes updates to the SFDB General Design Guidelines to complement the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Refer to the proposed SFDB Guidelines (Resolution) and Attachment 2 – Summary of Changes to the SFDB Guidelines, for more information.2
Background
Beginning in August 2022, City staff led more than 14 targeted stakeholder engagement efforts, gathering input from homeowners, applicants, and the design community. Notable support came from the American Institute of Architects Santa Barbara, the Planning Commission, and both current and former SFDB board members. Staff also conducted an applicant and homeowner survey that drew over 220 responses on the SFDB process.

In June 2025, staff presented concepts to City Council for feedback and, at Council's direction, sought additional input from SFDB project appellants and neighborhood representatives.

Most recently, the proposed amendments were presented to both the Planning Commission and Ordinance Committee. The Planning Commission heard the item on December 4, 2025 and again on January 8, 2026, ultimately recommending approval with 2 The Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines are closely interconnected, and as such, the proposed amendments have been carefully calibrated to maintain alignment between them. Changes to one inevitably affect the other, and understanding this relationship is essential to reviewing the amendments as a cohesive package. Together, they establish a more predictable process for both staff and the public.

Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

direction to make several refinements to the draft ordinances and guidelines. The Planning Commission's recommended changes included: clarification that no maximum floor area applies to guest houses created by converting existing space, a definition for Public Scenic Views, and a reduction in floor area increases from 150 to 50 feet in the Substantial Conformance Criteria. The SFDB Guidelines were also updated to make the Visual Aids submittal criteria more objective and to establish clearer story pole requirements and triggers.

On March 17, 2026, the Ordinance Committee unanimously supported the proposed amendments. In response to public comment and Ordinance Committee direction, staff revised the draft ordinance to provide greater design flexibility for front porch standards.

Project Goals and Proposed Solutions
The amendments represent a comprehensive effort to reduce the regulatory burden on homeowners and applicants while preserving meaningful design oversight. Each Project goal is addressed by multiple proposed solutions, including ordinance amendments and guideline updates aimed at improving the single-family development process. Full details and text can be found in: Attachment 1 – Table of Proposed Ordinance Amendments, Attachment 2 – Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines, and also the SFDB Guidelines (Resolution) and proposed Ordinances. For a substantive discussion of the Project’s goals and proposed solutions that expand on the ideas below, see Attachment 3 – Discussion of Project Goals and Associated Solutions.

Goal Solution

1. Reduce the number of single family development projects subject to design review.
1A. Eliminate SFDB review of alterations-only projects and replace that review with objective design standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed objective standards are based on long-standing design guidelines (e.g., for upper story decks and retaining walls). If applicants do not want to follow the objective standards, they can opt-in to a discretionary design review process.* 1B. Expand staff’s ability to grant administrative approvals for minor projects.** 1C. Reduce triggers for mailed notice.* This allows staff to review more projects administratively.
1D. Streamline the process for Minor Zoning Exceptions (MZEs) by converting commonly approved MZEs into zoning standards.* Examples include height and volume increases in setbacks, front yard trash enclosures, and new or enlarged openings in setbacks.

2. Streamline the public hearing process for single family projects. 2A. Eliminate the SFDB Final Approval hearing and associated appeal.** This would make Project Design Approval (PDA) the only appealable SFDB action.

Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

Staff would complete Final Approval. New Substantial Conformance Criteria have been developed to assist staff in reviewing minor changes that may occur between PDA and Final Approval. Projects that do not comply with the criteria would return to SFDB for a revised PDA.
2B. Make SFDB the decisionmaker for projects exceeding the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR).** This would shift approval authority from Planning Commission to SFDB or Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), as applicable, for projects that exceed the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Appeals of FAR Design Exceptions would be heard by either Planning Commission (from SFDB) or City Council (from HLC), allowing projects the standard practice of due process at a higher review authority.

3. Create more flexibility to address common homeowner interests. 3A. Remove the requirement for covered parking.*
3B. Provide options for the creative use of home space by allowing the conversion of an existing garage or carport from vehicle parking to another residential use, such as a home office, hobby room, or extra bedroom.*
3C. Reduce open yard requirements for small lots (less than 6,000 square feet) and provide more flexible open yard standards for all other development, including multi-family.*
3D. Create more flexible design and development standards for storage sheds, playhouses, and similar enclosed yard buildings.*
*Addressed through ordinance amendments
**Addressed through both ordinance amendments and guidelines updates Additionally, the project includes amendments that simplify the SFDB’s purpose statement and SFDB findings to approve projects, and amendments that clean up and clarify existing zoning language. This includes converting written standards into table format for ease of review and application, and incorporating updates required by state law, such as for community care facilities, day care centers, emergency shelters, family day care homes, low-barrier navigation centers, and transitional/supportive housing.

Other notable streamlining changes included in this Project are to limit appeals of Architectural Board of Review and Historic Landmarks Commission Final Approvals to the Applicant, and to allow the Review Authority to refer to a project to a higher authority when doing so is deemed appropriate.

Updates to the SFDB General Design Guidelines
This Project also includes an extensive overhaul of the Single Family Design Board General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures, including a proposed renaming to the Single Family Design Board Guidelines (SFDB Guidelines). The proposed scope and content of the SFDB Guidelines remains largely the same, with several key changes:

Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

 Consolidate SFDB purpose and goals
 Expand and update administrative approval standards
 Update SFDB meeting procedures
 Update and clarify submittal requirements
 Reorganize, reformat, and edit for clarity
The SFDB Guidelines were most recently updated in June 2023 to address SFDB membership, quorum requirements (from four12 members to three members), and a change in the appeal body (from Council to Planning Commission). The document has remained largely unchanged since the SFDB’s inception. As a result, the guidelines have not evolved with options for new building materials, sustainability practices, and development policies. The proposed guideline updates allow staff to approve more minor, aesthetically appropriate projects, thereby reducing the number of SFDB projects at a hearing.

Updated SFDB Findings
The SFDB's findings are currently tied to the goals outlined in the SFDB Guidelines, but the connection between the two could be stronger and clearer. This Project proposes to realign those findings more directly with the SFDB's stated goals while streamlining the language throughout. The result is a revised set of Neighborhood Compatibility Findings (formerly Neighborhood Preservation Findings) — condensed from seven items to five, with overall text reduced by half — making it easier for board members to evaluate projects and craft solid motions.

Board members expressed concern that certain findings address code compliance, public health, and environmental review rather than the design and aesthetic considerations central to the Board's role. Since ensuring compliance with building, fire, and environmental regulations is staff's responsibility — not the Board's — the proposed amendments remove findings that fall outside the Board's purview.

During targeted outreach to appellants of SFDB projects, neighbors felt strongly that the SFDB insufficiently address the Good Neighbor Guidelines and considered the “Good Neighbor Finding” to be a throw away finding. They expressed a desire for the SFDB to be more explicit in their motions about how a project meets the “Good Neighbor Guidelines” finding for privacy, landscaping, noise, and lighting. Staff do not propose to change this finding; however, we believe it is imperative to hold additional trainings for SFDB members to ensure a shared understanding of the Good Neighbor guidelines and to help improve the Board’s motion making.

Lastly, the Hillside Design District Findings and Grading and Vegetation Removal Findings have been consolidated for simplicity. Refer to Section 30.220.040.E of the proposed Title 30 ordinance for the updated findings.

Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Municipal Code Section 30.235.100 (General Plan Consistency Required for Zoning Amendments) requires approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to be found consistent with the General Plan.

Staff has determined that the proposed amendments to the Title 30 Zoning Ordinance are consistent with General Plan policies and programs. For details, see Attachment 4 – General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis.

The proposed design review triggers (i.e., changes to SBMC Chapter 30.220) would apply both in the coastal zone and inland. Similarly, the newly established objective standards for balconies, privacy, windows, doors, etc., would also be applicable inland and in the coastal zone. However, the Title 30 amendments that offer increased flexibility for common homeowner interests (e.g., garage conversions, guest houses, open yard, sheds) would not apply in the coastal zone. Ultimately, it is staff’s desire to have all of Title 30 certified by the California Coastal Commission as a new Zoning Ordinance for the coastal zone. Timing of that effort is currently undetermined due to other critical work priorities.

Conclusion
This Project proposes multiple clean-up amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for clarity.

The clean-up items include: clarifications to land use regulations and development standards for commercial and office zones, manufacturing zones, residential zones, and coastal-oriented zones; clarifying amendments to standards for nonconforming structures, site development, and uses; clean-ups and clarifications to the section on common procedures for processing Planning Applications; and updates to definitions; and moving written standards into table format. Most of these items are related to State law and Housing Element updates, and some are clean-up items identified by staff to address errors and needed clarifications based on application of the code.

Taken together, these amendments strike a balance between preserving neighborhood character and reducing unnecessary process. By focusing public hearings and design review on projects with the greatest neighborhood impact, the City can uphold the SFDB's core objectives while freeing homeowners from undue delays and costs on simpler projects. Staff and board members will be able to direct their attention toward more complex projects, improving workflow and reducing burnout. The result is a more flexible, efficient, and transparent permitting process — one that benefits homeowners, neighbors, and City operations alike.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT:

By reducing the overall number of SFDB projects, the Planning Division expects to see a reduction in SFDB-related revenue. The magnitude of this reduction is uncertain at this Council Agenda Report
Single Family Streamlining Project Ordinance Amendments [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
April 14, 2026

time but is expected to be minor relative to the Planning Division’s overall budgeted revenue. Currently, the SFDB workload exceeds one FTE. By reducing the number of SFDB projects, staff resources currently supporting SFDB activities can be reassigned to other work, including plan checks, to improve overall timeliness and responsiveness.

The Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget for SFDB-related revenue was originally set at $177,000. In light of the streamlining project, this amount has been reduced in the updated FY27 budget by approximately 10 percent, to $160,000. With total Planning Division revenue budgeted at approximately $2.1 million in FY27, the SFDB revenue adjustment represents less than a one-percent reduction in overall Planning revenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff have determined that this project qualifies for a categorical exemption from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15305 [Minor Alterations in Land use Limitations], because the proposed Single Family Streamlining Project ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines substantially maintain existing land use intensity and density.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Table of Proposed Ordinance Amendments

2. Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines

3. Discussion of Project Goals and Associated Solutions

4. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
PREPARED BY: Ted Hamilton-Rolle, Design Review Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: Allison DeBusk, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
1 TABLE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The following list of proposed zoning ordinance amendments is organized in ascending order by code section number and categorized based on the significance/type of change occurring: significant changes; minor changes; clean-ups and clarifying amendments; and clarifying amendments required by State law. Amendments considered to be “significant changes” have been indicated in bold text for quick reference. Most of the proposed amendments in this list are related to the Project goal of streamlining single family development, some are related to the design review process in general, and some are changes and updates required by State law or Housing Element updates.

Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Title 22
Chapter 22.22 Historic
Landmarks Commission
Adds back the previously removed Chapter 22.22 to create a cross reference to the updated Section 30.220.020 in Title

30. This ensures the City Charter reference is relevant and addresses any references in Title 28 or carryover
references in Title 30.

Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 22.68
Architectural Board of
Review
Replaced with new SBMC §30.220.010 (see §30.220.010
below for details). Provides cross reference to the new section in Title 30 to address any remaining references in Title 28 or other City documents.

Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 22.69 Single
Family Design Board
Replaced with new SBMC §30.220.040. See 30.220.040
below for more details.

Result: Significant Changes
Title 25

25.03.040 Open Yards Corrected reference to open yard Section 30.140.140 Result: Minor Changes
Title 30
Chapter 30.15 Rules of Measurement
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
2 Chapter/Section Amendment Description

30.15.025 Calculating
Density
Amendment to clarify residential density calculations for lot mergers.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.15.027 Calculating Unit
Size
Consolidates and relocates unit size calculation
standards—previously found in multiple sections—into the Rules of Measurement Chapter to clarify how minimum,
maximum, and average residential unit sizes are
determined.

Result: Cleanup/ Clarifying Amendments

30.15.055 Grading Consolidates and defines how grading quantities are calculated—previously found in multiple sections—into the Rules of Measurement Chapter, identifies specific
exclusions (such as recompacted soil and pool excavation), and establishes that “existing grade” is based on
topography from five years prior to the grading application.

Result: Cleanup/ Clarifying Amendments

30.15.070 Measuring Floor
Area
Reformats for clarity, adds exemptions for yard buildings, uses objective standards where applicable.

Result: Minor Changes

30.15.075 Measuring Floor
Area Ratio
Adds instructions for calculating both nonresidential and residential FAR. Moves residential FAR calculation from §30.20.030.A into the more appropriate Rules of
Measurement Chapter and consolidates residential and
nonresidential FAR calculation into the same section.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.15.090 Measuring
Height and Stories
Minor clarifications. Provides new standards to clarify measurement of fence/retaining wall and fence/hedge
combinations.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.15.100 Measuring
Setbacks and Stepbacks
Adds reference to upper story “Stepback” consistent with newly adopted Objective Design and Development
Standards (ODDS) Title 25. Clarifies that first-story building setbacks are measured to the building foundation.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
3 Chapter/Section Amendment Description

30.15.120 Screening Moved into section 30.140.155 because they are standards rather than direction on how to measure.

Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 30.20 Residential Zones

30.20.010 Purpose Clarification of purpose statement regarding residential classifications.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.20.020 Land Use
Regulations – Residential
Zones
Changes to implement Housing Element Program HE-3:

Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing,
and other land use clean-ups as follows:
(See more detailed descriptions in Chapter 30.185
Standards for Specific Uses and Activities)
• Community Care Facilities, Residential Care
Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices:

Eliminates requirement for a PSP in R-M and R-MH
for 7-15 individuals and reduces requirement from a
CUP to PSP in all residential zones for more than 15
individuals.
• Large Family Day Care Homes: Eliminates
requirements for PSP in all residential zones.
• Group Residential: Removes outdated limitations
that restrict Group Residential uses to convents and
monasteries, to comply with California Fair Housing
laws and promote inclusive housing opportunities for
all protected groups.
• Agriculture: Clarifies that agriculture is an
accessory use in any zone; thus, clarifying that
Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 related to
farmworker housing is not applicable.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments and Amendments
Required by State Law

30.20.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Residential Zone
Development Standards table. No substantial changes to
setbacks, density, or other development standards that
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
4 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Two-Unit
Residential, Standards for Specific Uses and
Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Relocates min/max unit size to §30.15.027
• Changes name of Maximum Floor Area
(Floor to Lot Area Ratio) to the simplified Maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
• Corrects typo for nonresidential interior setback in
RS-10 Zone from 12 to 16 feet.
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to
the table rather than a cross-reference to
§30.175.060.
• Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards
(ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building
height to determine upper level stepbacks,
simplifying calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
• Moves FAR calculations to Chapter 30.15 Rules of
Measurement.
• Allows single-unit residential development to exceed
the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) through a
waiver process reviewed by the applicable design
review body, replacing the previous requirement for
a Planning Commission FAR Modification under
Section 30.250.030.
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to
the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.25 Commercial and Office Zones
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
5 Chapter/Section Amendment Description

30.25.010 Purpose Clarification of purpose statement regarding multi-unit and mixed-use classifications.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.25.020 Land Use
Regulations
Changes to implement Housing Element Program HE-3:

Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing,
and other land use clean-ups as follows:
(See more detailed descriptions in Chapter 30.185
Standards for Specific Uses and Activities)
• Community Care Facilities, Residential Care
Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices: Changes
requirement from a CUP to PSP in commercial and
office zones for more than 15 individuals.
• Large and Small Family Day Care Homes:

Simplifies table.
• Day Care Center: Adds a reference to use allowed
by right in certain multi-family developments per
California Health and Safety Code 1597.22.
• Agriculture: Clarifies that agriculture is an
accessory use in any zone; thus, clarifying that
Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 related to
farmworker housing is not applicable.
• Neighborhood Markets: Removes conflicting
references to the PSP in the C-R and C-G zones
because Food and Beverage Retail Sales is already
allowed by right in the zones.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments and Amendments
Required by State Law

30.25.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Commercial and Office Zones Development Standards table. No substantial
changes to setbacks, density, or other development
standards that would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Standards for
Specific Uses and Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Relocates min/max unit size to §30.15.027
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
6 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to
the table rather than a cross-reference to R-M zone
or §30.175.060.
• Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards
(ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building
height to determine upper level stepbacks,
simplifying calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to
the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.30 Manufacturing Zones

30.30.020 Land Use
Regulations
Changes to implement Housing Element Program HE-3:

Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing,
and other land use clean-ups as follows:
(See more detailed descriptions in Chapter 30.185
Standards for Specific Uses and Activities)
• Community Care Facilities, Residential Care
Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices: Changes
requirement from a CUP to PSP in the
manufacturing commercial (M-C) zone for more than
15 individuals.
• Large and Small Family Day Care Homes:

Simplifies table.
• Agriculture: Clarifies that agriculture is an
accessory use in any zone; thus, clarifying that
Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 related to
farmworker housing is not applicable.
• Neighborhood Markets: Removes conflicting
references to the PSP in the M-C zone because
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
7 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Food and Beverage Retail Sales is already allowed
by right in the zone.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments and Amendments
Required by State Law

30.30.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Manufacturing Zones Development Standards table. No substantial changes to
setbacks, density, or other development standards that
would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Standards for
Specific Uses and Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Relocates min/max unit size to §30.15.027
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to
the table rather than a cross-reference to R-M zone
or §30.175.060.
• Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards
(ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building
height to determine upper level stepbacks,
simplifying calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to
the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.35 Coastal-Oriented Zones (Note that these changes will not go into effect until submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification)

30.35.010 Purpose Clarification that residential uses are appropriate in certain areas in the CO zone.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.35.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Coastal-Oriented Zones Development Standards table. No substantial changes to
setbacks, density, or other development standards that
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
8 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Standards for
Specific Uses and Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Aligns minimum lot area and street frontage with
other commercial/manufacturing zones.
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to
the table rather than a cross-reference to R-M zone
or §30.175.060.
• Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards
(ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building
height to determine upper level stepbacks,
simplifying calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to
the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.140 General Site Regulations

30.140.020 Accessory
Buildings
The updated standards clarify the purpose of accessory
building regulations, improve readability, and align with new Guest House and Yard Building provisions. Key changes
include reduced setbacks for small accessory structures, removal of outdated size limits and automatic design review triggers, and a new prohibition on rooftop decks unless approved through design review
Result: Significant changes

30.140.025 Balconies and
Upper Story Decks
This new section establishes new objective standards for balconies and upper-story decks to minimize privacy and visual impacts, including limits on size, placement,
setbacks, and materials; prohibits rooftop decks without design review; and allows certain encroachments and open yard credit under specific conditions.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
9 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Significant changes

30.140.030 Building
Attachment
Clarifications to standards for building attachment and separation. Introduces a clear purpose for Building
Attachment requirements.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.070 Development
on Substandard and
Publicly Reduced Lots
Adds headings to improve readability. Clarifies that FAR does not change due to dedication. Reference to new
Section 30.165.050, Structures Made Nonconforming by
Public Acquisition.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.090 Encroachments The updated Encroachments section clarifies that encroachments apply to setbacks, stepbacks, landscape
areas, and open yards, and reorganizes the section with tables and updated diagrams and subsections for improved readability. The standards are aligned with the new
provisions of Title 25 – Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS), ensuring consistency across zoning
and design regulations. No substantial changes to setbacks or other development standards that would result in an
increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.

Key changes include:
• Mechanical Equipment: Wall-mounted units may
now project into front setbacks, but interior setback
encroachments are reduced from 3 feet to 18 inches
to minimize visual and noise impacts. Groundmounted equipment is now allowed up to 3 feet from the property line (previously 5 feet), balancing
flexibility with access needs.
• Trash Enclosures: Standards relocated from
§30.140.240 to §30.140.090, and the Minor Zoning
Exception (MZE) requirement was removed.
• Accessibility Improvements: Now allowed to
encroach for both existing and new development.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
10 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Front Porches: Maximum size increased from 16 ft
x 6 ft to 16 ft x 10 ft, with subjective design review
triggers replaced by objective design criteria.
• Yard Buildings and Balconies: Align with new
standards
• Driveways and Gates: Codifies existing policy
standards
Result: Significant Changes

30.140.100 Exceptions to
Height Limitations
Removes reference to Title 22 for design review.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.110 Fences and
Hedges
The updated standards clarify the purpose of fence and
hedge regulations, establish objective design and height standards, and reorganize the section with tables,
diagrams, and subsections for improved usability.

Key changes include:
• Extending fence height limits to all lots (not just
residential).
• Allowing front yard fences up to 5 feet in height
(previously 3.5 feet) without design review if they
meet new design criteria.
• Limiting front yard retaining walls to 3 feet in height without design review (previously 6 feet).
• Replacing subjective review with objective material
and design requirements to ensure neighborhood
compatibility. Prohibited materials include chain-link
(in front yards), barbed wire, unfinished cinder block, and hazardous elements.
• Codifying temporary fencing policies.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.112 Garage
Conversions
Together with elimination of the covered parking
requirement for single-unit homes and condominiums in
Chapter 30.175, the new Garage Conversion standards
now allow homeowners to convert existing private garages into other uses—such as workshops, storage rooms, or
home offices—provided replacement parking is
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
11 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
accommodated off-street. This change increases flexibility and expands development options for residential properties without increasing parking burdens.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.115 Guest Houses This new section establishes standards for Guest Houses— sleeping facilities with a full bathroom and/or a bar sink that are separated from, and accessory to, the main residential building and are intended for limited sleeping and living purposes. These structures provide homeowners with
greater flexibility to create spaces like guest rooms, studios, or home offices without being required to install a full kitchen or convert the space into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). This change reflects a shift in policy: while the City previously discouraged such uses to prevent illegal units, the availability of legal ADU pathways has reduced that concern, allowing for more practical and homeownerfriendly development options.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.118 Landscape This new section establishes objective landscape standards to promote water efficiency, support fire safety, and improve neighborhood aesthetics. For residential uses, front
setbacks must be landscaped with a mix of living plant
materials and limited hardscape (up to 50%). In
nonresidential and mixed-use zones, a front landscape
buffer is required where no setback exists; however, this does not create a new standard—it replicates the existing Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Program’s variable
setback approach. Landscape areas must remain open and
unobstructed, and waivers may be granted by Design
Review under specific conditions such as site constraints.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.120 Location of Lot
Lines
Clarifications regarding development standards for lot line adjustments and lot creation.

Result: Minor Changes

30.140.130 Mechanical and
Utility Equipment
Minor clean-ups to Mechanical and Utility Equipment
section. Moved description of encroachments to
§30.140.090 (Encroachments).

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
12 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Minor Changes

30.140.140 Open Yards Updates to open yard standards to simplify requirements and increase flexibility for both single-unit and multi-unit residential development, including the amount and type of required open yard. Moves most requirements into a table format for ease of review.

Key changes include:
• Single-Unit and Two-Unit: Reduces minimum
dimensions of single-unit open yard areas from 20 ft
x 20 ft to 20 ft x 15 ft, but total required area remains at 1,250 sf. Expands small lot open yard reduction
from lots less than 5,000 sf to lots less than 6,000 sf. • Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use: Open yard requirements
are no longer based on bedroom count; instead,
applicants may meet the 15% lot area requirement
through a mix of private and common open spaces.

Reduces minimum dimensions of ground floor
private area from 10 ft x 10 ft to 10 ft x 8 ft; minimum total area on ground floor is 100 sf regardless of
bedroom count or unit size. For upper level
balconies, minimum area is reduced to 50 sf
regardless of bedroom count or unit size.
• The discretionary Alternative Open Yard Design
waiver is removed, as the new standards offer this
flexibility by right.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.141 Patio Covers,
Sunshades, and Similar
Structures
This new section sets objective standards for patio covers, sunshades, and similar structures on single- and two-unit residential lots to ensure compatibility with neighborhood character. Maximum height for detached covers is 12 feet unless approved through design review. Materials must be consistent with the main building and avoid prohibited
finishes like chain link, plastic, or reflective metal. Rooftop patio covers are generally not allowed unless tied to solar systems or approved through design review. Flexibility in design may be granted by the Design Review body.

Result: Significant Changes
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
13 Chapter/Section Amendment Description

30.140.142 Privacy
Standards for Residential
Structures
This new section codifies privacy-related design and
development standards consistent with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines’ “Good Neighbor Guidelines.” It regulates upper-story windows, balconies, and exterior lighting near interior lot lines to protect neighbor privacy.

Openings within 15 feet of a side or rear property line must either have a sill height of at least 42 inches or face the front yard. Outdoor lighting must be fully shielded and downward-directed to prevent light trespass. Variations from these standards may be considered by the applicable Design Review body.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.150 Residential
Unit
Minor clarifications include moving the minimum unit sizes from development tables, added flexibility for dining rooms and other rooms that are not classified as a “bedroom” for density, parking, or other purposes. Adds reference to new Guest House. Reformats section on efficiency units for
clarity (no change to standards).

Result: Minor Changes

30.140.155 Screening Moved from Chapter 30.15. Adds objective development standards for screening elements including fences, walls, hedges, and mechanical equipment screening. Updates
diagram. Allows exceptions to screening standards to be reviewed by the applicable Design Review body. Result:

Minor Changes

30.140.160 Setbacks and
Stepbacks
Adds stepbacks to the existing section on setbacks for
consistency with Title 25. Clarifies that recessed areas on interior upper story stepbacks may be used as a balcony, deck, terrace, or other usable space.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.170 Solar Access
Height Limitations
Adds purpose statement and clarifies height limitation
calculation. Updated diagrams.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.172 Solar Energy
Systems
This section consolidates existing and new standards for solar energy systems into a new section. Solar carports are allowed over parking spaces and may exceed 12 feet in
height (up to 15 feet) if needed for larger vehicles. Roof- ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
14 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
mounted systems may project modestly above rooflines
and can serve as rooftop shade structures if setback and height-limited. Design review is not required if all objective standards are met, and small residential systems benefit from expedited review. Exceptions may be granted if strict compliance would significantly reduce performance or
increase costs, as defined by the California Solar Rights Act.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.190 Street
Widening Setback Lines
Clarifies that temporary structures/uses are allowed in the street widening setback area.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.200 Substantial
Redevelopment
Updates for ordinance consistency related to historic
resources.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.210 Swimming
Pools or Water Features
Clarifications on types of water features subject to existing setback standards; creates new standard for above-ground features; and adds cross-references for ordinance
consistency.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.140.220 Trash,
Recycling, and Personal
Outdoor Storage
Replaces former Section 30.140.240 for waste and outdoor storage and compiles all related requirements. Formatting edits for clarity. Eliminates requirement for Minor Zoning Exception (MZE) for trash enclosures in the front setback and now is an allowed encroachment in § 30.140.090
(Encroachments). Clarifies standards for personal outdoor storage are distinct from commercial outdoor storage
regulated in other sections of the code. Clarifications on uncovered parking.

Result: Significant Changes

30.140.230 Visibility at
Driveways and
Intersections
Minor wording changes for clarity to development
standards.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
15 Chapter/Section Amendment Description

30.140.240 Waste, Trash,
Recycling, and Outdoor
Storage
Standards moved into new Section 30.140.220.

Result: Minor Changes

30.140.240 Yard Buildings This new section allows up to two small, detached, nonhabitable structures—such as sheds, bike lockers, or playhouses— to be located in interior setbacks and open yards if under 8 feet tall. Each structure may be up to 120 square feet, with a combined total not exceeding 200
square feet. Yard buildings are not allowed in front yards.

Taller structures must meet accessory building standards.

Rooftop decks are prohibited, and screening is required when placed in setbacks. These structures are exempt from design review, FAR limits, and building permits if they meet Building Code exemptions.

Result: Significant Changes
Chapter 30.150 Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program

30.150.090 Additional
Development Incentives.

References to specific open yard requirements have been removed, as those sections no longer exist under the
revised standards in Section 30.140.140. The previously used variable front setback has been replaced with the new Average-Depth Front Landscape Buffer in accordance with Section 30.140.118. The flexibility in open yard design, which was previously limited to projects within the Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program, has been
expanded to apply citywide. Additional incentives specific to AUD projects will be considered during implementation of Housing Element Program HE-10: Multi-Unit Housing
Program.

Result: Minor Amendments
Chapter 30.165 Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses

30.165.020 Applicability Clarification that the section’s provisions do not apply to features granted a Minor Zoning Exception.

Result: Minor Amendments

30.165.030 Right to
Continue, Repair, and
Maintain
Clarification that nonconforming structures, sites, and uses may be continued provided there is no increase in
nonconformity.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
16 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.165.035 Structures
Made Nonconforming by
Public Acquisition
New section that clarifies that existing development does not require modifications as a result of land
dedication/public acquisition.

Result: Cleanup/clarifying Amendments

30.165.040 Alterations to
Nonconforming
Development
Makes several clarifications and revised standards for
alterations within nonconforming setbacks.

Key changes include:
• Building Height: Removes Minor Zoning Exception
(MZE) for additional building height or volume in
setbacks if the project meets objective standards.

Updated max roof pitch in setback from 4:12 to also
allow matching the existing building. Updated
graphic.
• Windows: Removes Minor Zoning Exception (MZE)
for windows, doors or other openings in the setback
if the alterations conform to the privacy standards in
§30.140.145, (Privacy Standards for Upper-Story
Openings)
• Conversions: Eliminates the prohibition on
conversion from nonresidential uses to residential
uses in the setback and eliminates the prohibition on
increasing the number of units in the setback. This
facilitate new housing in existing buildings and the
adaptive reuse of existing buildings to housing.

Result: Significant Changes

30.165.050 Additions to
Nonconforming
Development
Clarifications to the development standards for additions to nonconforming buildings.

Key changes include:
• Allows first floor expansion of nonconforming main or accessory buildings within interior setbacks if the
minimum distance from property line is 4 feet
(previously 5 feet) to align with ADUs.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
17 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Increases allowance from 100 to 150 SF for
additions to structures that are nonconforming to
Maximum FAR to align with ADUs.

Result: Significant Changes

30.165.060 Nonconforming
Garages and Carports
Clarifications to the existing development standards that allow nonconforming garages and carports to be modified, expanded, demolished, or rebuilt. This now allows an
increase in the number of parking spaces in the setback— up to the minimum number of spaces required in Chapter

30.175. It also removes the prohibition on converting
garages in the setback to other accessory uses, consistent with new Garage Conversion standards.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.165.070 Nonconforming
Uses
Clarifies standards for conforming alterations on lots with both conforming and nonconforming uses.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.165.080 Substantial
Redevelopment and
Replacement of
Nonconforming Structures
Clarifies standards for demolition and reconstruction of nonconforming buildings as follows:
• Accessory buildings may be demolished and
reconstructed to a different type of accessory use
(e.g., garage to workshop) consistent with new
standards for Garage Conversions.
• Eliminates design review as the review body for
replacement of nonconforming buildings.
• Increases allowed additions from 100 sf to 150 sf
consistent with ADUs.

Result: Minor Changes

30.165.090 Nonconforming
Fences and Hedges
Updates for ordinance consistency.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.165.100 Nonconforming
Open Yard
Clarifications to the procedures for how nonconforming
open yard is calculated. Eliminates prohibition on increasing number of units or bedrooms on sites with nonconforming open yard.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
18 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Chapter 30.175 Parking Regulations

30.175.020 Applicability Simplifies how minimum parking requirements apply to existing buildings by clarifying that most changes in use do not trigger new parking requirements if there is no increase in floor area and no reduction in existing on-site parking. It establishes strict parking compliance for specific
conversions—such as from industrial to other uses or from residential to hotel—while allowing greater flexibility for all other changes in use. The update supports adaptive reuse of existing buildings, encouraging revitalization and
reinvestment while protecting sensitive land uses and
maintaining consistency with City goals and policies.

Result: Significant Changes

30.175.030 General
Provisions
Eliminates the requirement for covered parking spaces for single-unit residential, two-unit residential, and
condominium developments. While the total number of
required parking spaces remains unchanged, those spaces may now be provided as either covered or uncovered, in
accordance with §30.175.040. Covered parking
construction is often a significant cost barrier to housing flexibility and reinvestment. Removing this requirement enables property owners to convert existing private garages to other allowed residential uses—such as storage,
workshops, or guest houses—under the City’s new Garage
Conversion and Guest House ordinances, while still
meeting parking requirements and supporting adaptive
reuse of existing structures.

Result: Significant Changes

30.175.040 Required
Automobile and Bicycle
Parking Spaces
Eliminates references to covered parking from the table, as described above.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.175.060 Location of
Required Automobile and
Bicycle Parking
Minor wording changes related to applicability and allowed locations for parking spaces. Changes include references to new or updated standards in other sections such as
Personal Outdoor Storage §30.140.220, Yard Buildings
§30.140.240, and Screening §30.140.220. It also allows
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
19 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
residential parking to be in an off-site location with a recorded agreement.

Result: Minor Change

30.175.080 Parking Area
Landscape and Fence
Standards
This update clarifies the applicability of parking setback standards and eliminates the requirement for a different perimeter planter width when parking abuts a residential use. Setbacks for parking are now consistently located in the applicable development standards tables by zone, and the removal of the planter requirement resolves conflicts between overlapping or competing standards. Updated
graphic.

Result: Minor Changes

30.175.090 Parking Area
Design and Development
Standards
Minor clarifications to terminology.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.185 Standards for Specific Uses and Activities

30.185.050 Additional
Residential Unit
Removes reference to covered parking and updates FAR
terminology.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.185.070 Agriculture Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 requires streamlined approval for farmworker housing on land zoned primarily for agricultural use. However, the City of Santa Barbara does not have any zoning districts where agriculture is a
principally permitted use. Instead, agriculture is allowed as an accessory use in residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing zones, subject to the standards in Section

30.185.070 of the Municipal Code. Consistent with Housing Element Program HE-3, amendments clarify that agriculture is considered an accessory use in all zones, thereby
confirming that the streamlined provisions of § 17021.8 do not apply within city limits.

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law

30.185.150 Day Care
Centers
Implements Assembly Bill 752 (2025), which requires that a Day Care Center, when located within, or on the same lot as, a multi-unit or mixed-use development containing five or more residential units or legally established community ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
20 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
amenities, be considered a residential use of property and a use by right under all local ordinances, including zoning regulations.

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law

30.185.140 Community
Care Facilities, Residential
Care Facilities for the
Elderly, and Hospices
Consistent with Housing Element Program HE-3, this
amendment revises the permit requirements for Community Care Facilities, Residential Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices to clarify that they are treated as residential uses under the Santa Barbara Municipal Code. Facilities serving six or fewer residents are considered single-unit residences and do not require a Performance Standard Permit unless proposing non-permitted accessory uses. Facilities serving 7–15 residents are permitted by right in most residential zones, but require a Performance Standard Permit in RS
and R-2 zones. Facilities with 16 or more residents require a Performance Standard Permit. Facilities may include
kitchens in individual units or congregate dining areas, with different zoning standards applied depending on the
configuration. Accessory uses such as recreational or
skilled nursing facilities may be allowed by right or with a permit, depending on the zone.

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law

30.185.170 Emergency
Shelter
Adds development standards for Emergency Shelter
outdoor areas and simplifies the parking requirement.

Changes required per Gov’t code 65583(a)(4)
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law

30.185.175 Emergency
Permit
Adds new section that authorizes issuance of emergency
permits to protect public health, safety, and welfare in response to conditions resulting from natural disasters, accidents, or other unforeseen events that require
immediate action.

Result: Minor Changes

30.185.230 Large and
Small Family Day Care
Homes
Removes location-specific and operational standards for Large and Small Family Day Care Homes to align with
Senate Bill 234 (2019). Under this provision, the City may only enforce standards that are identical to those applied to ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
21 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
all other residential properties within the same zoning district.

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law

30.185.245 Low Barrier
Navigation Center
Adds a new section to ensure compliance with Assembly
Bill 101 (2019), which mandates that Low Barrier
Navigation Centers be treated as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed-use or nonresidential uses permitting
multifamily housing, provided they meet specified criteria.

This amendment supports implementation of Housing
Element Program HE-3.

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law

30.185.415 Temporary
Housing Units
This new section allows temporary housing on residential lots for occupants displaced by demolition or damage to a home on the same property. A Performance Standard
Permit is required. Eligible structures include trailers or existing permitted accessory buildings including ADUs.

Units must meet basic living and utility standards, provide two on-site parking spaces, and may remain for up to 36 months, with extensions allowed up to six years. Once
expired, the temporary use must end, and the site restored unless otherwise approved.

Result: Significant Changes

30.185.430 Transitional
and Supportive Housing
Updates made to align with Assembly Bill 2162 (2018),
which requires Supportive Housing to be treated as a use by right in zones permitting multifamily and mixed uses, including nonresidential zones that allow multifamily
housing. The bill mandates streamlined local approval
processes for qualifying developments and prohibits
minimum parking requirements for supportive housing
located within one-half mile of public transit.

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
Chapter 30.200 Planning Authorities

30.200.030 Planning
Commission
Minor clarifications for ordinance consistency.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.200.050 Community
Development Director
Makes Community Development Director the Review
Authority for Minor Zoning Exceptions as assigned. Clarifies ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
22 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Director authority to act on Administrative Applications including Administrative Design Review. Adds authority to act on Emergency Permits.

Result: Minor Changes

30.200.070 Architectural
Board of Review
New section that moves review authority description of
Architectural Board of Review from Chapter 22.68 to Title 30, and includes information from the City Charter.

Result: Minor Changes

30.200.080 Historic
Landmarks Commission
Minor cleanups; adds information from the City Charter; formatting changes to align with ABR and SFDB.

Result: Minor Changes

30.200.090 Single Family
Design Board
New section that moves review authority description of
Single Family Design Board from Chapter 22.69 to Title 30.

Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 30.205 Common Procedures

30.205.020 Application
Forms and Fees
Adds clarification on method of submittal and application received date.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.205.030 Pre-Application
Review
Adds description of Optional Pre-Application Design
Consultation and noticing requirements. Minor clarifications on Pre-application Review Team.

Result: Minor Changes

30.205.040 Concept
Review
Clarification regarding public noticing.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.205.050 Review of
Discretionary Applications
New subsection authorizing the designated Review
Authority—such as the Community Development Director or Staff Hearing Officer—to refer a project to the next highest Review Authority. This may occur due to policy implications, unusual circumstances, project scale, community interest, or the need for a more definitive decision.

Result: Minor Changes

30.205.070 Public Notice Clarifies noticing requirements for projects requiring design review and land use decisions.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
23 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.205.080 Conduct of
Hearings
Minor cleanups, as “public hearing” has a specific
connotation and associated requirements in state law.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.205.150 Appeals Minor clarifying language for appeals of Staff Hearing Officer and Planning Commission decisions. New section
on appeals of Design Review decisions. It specifies:
• Design review decisions on Project Design Review
may be appealed by the applicant or any interested
person.
• Appeals of decisions by the Architectural Board of
Review and Historic Landmarks Commission go to
the City Council; appeals of Single Family Design
Board decisions go to the Planning Commission.
• Only applicants may appeal post-approval actions,
such as Final Approval.

Result: Significant Changes

30.205.155 Review of
Administrative
Applications
Adds new section that outlines the administrative review process for permits and approvals handled by the
Community Development Director.
• The Director is the designated Review Authority
unless a related application requires action by a
higher body, in which case the entire project is
reviewed by the higher authority.
• The Director may also refer design changes to a
Design Review body if there are potential impacts.
• Administrative decisions are ministerial, not subject to CEQA, do not require a public hearing, and are
final unless otherwise specified.

Result: Significant Changes
Chapter 30.220 Design Review

30.220.005 Discretionary
Design Review
Procedures
This section establishes procedures for discretionary
Design Review in Santa Barbara which applies to most
development projects unless exempt or opting into the
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
24 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Objective Design Review process. It defines the roles of Design Review bodies, application requirements, and the need for mailed notice and public hearings for certain
project types.

Key changes include:
• Changes to mailed notice triggers—aligned across
all three review bodies.
• Previously, notice was required for additions over
500 sq. ft. to the first story and over 150 sq. ft. to an existing upper story; now, notice is triggered at 800
sq. ft. for first-story additions and 250 sq. ft. for
upper-story additions to any residential building.
• Allows applicants to submit, at-risk, for a building
permit after Project Design Approval, prior to
receiving Final Design Approval.

Result: Significant Changes

30.220.010 Architectural
Board of Review
Moves Architectural Board of Review purpose, applicability, and findings from Chapter 22.68 to Title 30. Includes
content clarifications and clean-ups. For increased
consistency with state law, removes requirement for
concept review when Planning Commission is decisionmaker, and removes potential for referral to Planning Commission. Removes descriptions of obsolete Special
Design Districts. Description of Highway 101 Coastal
Parkway Special Design District moved to §30.220.060.

Result: Minor Changes

30.220.020 Historic
Landmarks Commission
Cleanups for ordinance consistency. Changes and
clarifications to Historic Landmarks Commission
procedures, including:
• Allowance for administrative review of projects in El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District to by performed by
the Community Development Director.
• Removal of requirement for concept review when
Planning Commission is decision-maker, and
removes potential for referral to Planning
Commission.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
25 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Reorganization to match format of ABR and SFDB
sections.

Allows HLC to approve Maximum FAR exceptions (rather
than Planning Commission Modification requirement).

Result: Minor Changes

30.220.040 Single Family
Design Board
Moves Single Family Design Board from Chapter 22.69 to
Title 30. SFDB review is required for most exterior changes, new construction, grading, and landscape modifications on lots with single-unit residences, unless exempt.

Key changes include:
• Increased the exemptions from SFDB review to
include small-scale additions, certain accessory
buildings, architecturally consistent alterations, minor site features, limited grading or landscaping, and
other low-impact changes.
• Makes Final Approval a ministerial action by the
Community Development Director (this is specified in
the guidelines, not in the ordinance).
• Revises procedures for changes to approved plans
(this is specified in the guidelines, not in the
ordinance).
• Simplified the required findings and adds Maximum
FAR findings.

Result: Significant Changes

30.220.050 Objective
Design Review
Minor cleanups.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.220.060 Special Design
Districts
Adds new section that describes Hillside Design District and Highway 101 Santa Barbara Coastal Parkway Special
Design District. Eliminates Mission Area Design District and Lower Riviera Special Design District. When they were
created, the purpose of the Mission Area and Lower Riviera Special Design Districts was to facilitate historic resource surveys that would result in the designation of historic resources and the creation of historic districts. Those surveys have since been completed and the contributing
historic resources identified, therefore reference to the ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
26 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Mission Area and Lower Riviera Special Design Districts is proposed to be removed.

Result: Minor Changes.

Chapter 30.235 General Plan and Zoning Amendments

30.235.070 Public Notice Adds language to reference Government Code §65854 for additional noticing required on land use changes.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.235.085 Ordinance
Committee Action
Adds new section to reference procedures for Ordinance
Committee review of zoning amendments.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.235.090 City Council
Action
Adds procedures for City Council introduction and adoption of ordinance amendments; adds subsection to explain the effective date of an ordinance.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.235.100 General Plan
and Local Coastal Plan
Consistency Required for
Zoning Amendments
Clarifies that consistency with the Local Coastal Plan is required for zoning amendments, if applicable.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.250 Modifications

30.250.020 Applicability Adds modification for accessory building standards.

Eliminates Maximum FAR Modification for single-unit
residential projects and replaces with Design Review FAR Exception in Chapter 30.220.

Result: Significant Changes

30.250.030 Review
Authority
Changes review authority and process for Maximum FAR
Modifications from Planning Commission to a Design
Review Exception and SFDB or HLC.

Result: Significant Changes

30.250.060 Required
Findings
Amends and relocates findings for FAR Modifications for single-unit residential projects to 30.220.040.H as a Design Review Exception.

Result: Significant Changes
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
27 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Chapter 30.290 Zoning Upon Annexation

30.290.030 Procedure Clarifies that the entirety of any annexation shall become a part of the Hillside Design District upon annexation, unless otherwise determined as part of the annexation. Relocates from Title 22.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.295 Use Classifications

30.295.020 Residential Use
Classifications
Amendments to the Single-Unit Residential Use
classification to align with state law changes, recognizing Employee Housing Units, Community Care Facilities, and
similar living arrangements with six or fewer residents— each under separate rental agreements—as consistent with single-unit residential use, provided the dwelling otherwise meets the definition of a single-unit residence..

Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
Chapter 30.300 Definitions

30.300.005 Added section to explain purpose, applicability, and interpretation of definitions.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.010 “A” Adds definitions for “Administrative Design Review” and “Architectural Feature.” Corrects alphabetization.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.020 “B” Updates “Basement” definition to identify when it counts as a story. Updates “Bedroom” definition to state that a dining room is not a bedroom.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.030 “C” Corrects alphabetization. Elaborates on “Cellar” definition.

Adds definition for “Concept Design Review.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.040 “D” Corrects alphabetization. Adds definitions for “Design Review,” “Dining Room,” and “Discretionary Review.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
28 Chapter/Section Amendment Description

30.300.050 “E” Adds definitions for “Efficiency Unit” and “Enclosure, Trash and Recycling.” Clarifies definition of “Enclosed.” Corrects alphabetization.

Result: Cleanup/ Consistency

30.300.060 “F” Adds definitions for “Final Design Review,” “Finished Surface Level,” “Floor Area, Non-Livable,” and “Frontages.” Revises definition of “Floor Area, Net.”
Result: Cleanup/ Consistency

30.300.070 “G” Adds references to §30.15.055, Grading. Clarifies that “Guestroom” refers to a room in a temporary lodging
establishment. Adds definition of “Guest House.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.080 “H” Revises definition of “Hearing.” Updates to Historic Resources Related Definitions.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.090 “I” Corrects alphabetization.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.110 “K” Elaborates on “Kitchen” definition, including adding definition of “Full Kitchen.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.120 “L” Adds definitions for “Landscape Accessories.” Realphabetizes and adds clarification to “Landscape Plan.” Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.130 “M” Adds definitions for “Meeting” and “Ministerial Review.” Corrects alphabetization.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.150 “O” Adds definitions for “Open Yard” and “Open Yard Amenities.” Corrects alphabetization.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.160 “P” Adds definition for “Principal Place of Residence” and “Public Scenic View.” Minor changes to “Patio,” “Patio
Cover,” and “Porch.” Corrects alphabetization.

ATTACHMENT 1

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 22.22, 22.68, AND 22.69, TITLE 25, AND TITLE 30
29 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.180 “R” Adds definition for “Replacement In Kind” of architectural elements for clarification. Adds “Residential Use of the Same Type.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.190 “S” Adds definition for “Sink” and sub-definitions. Adds subdefinitions for “Structure.” Corrects alphabetization.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.200 “T”
Moves figure for Trellis.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.210 “U” Clarifications to definition of “Unenclosed.” Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments

30.300.250 “Y” Moves “Yard, Open” under “Yard” and adds sub-definitions.

Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Appendix Sectional Maps Minor zone edits from rezones and legend updates to include Title 28 and Title 30 zone codes
ATTACHMENT 2

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES
The table below provides an outline of the changes to the SFDB General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures, to be renamed as the SFDB Guidelines. Below the table is an explanation of key changes to the administrative approval standards.

Updated Guidelines Section
Name & Page Number
Summary of Changes
Table of Contents, pp. 2-3 Reformatted and shortened for easier navigation.

Introduction, pp. 4-7 Added consolidated SFDB Goals, a Statement on Neighborhood Compatibility, Character, and
Architectural Style; added a reference to other
applicable guidelines; removed reference to outdated
guidelines.

Section 1 - General
Information, pp. 8-17
Review process information consolidated into one
section. Added information about SFDB jurisdiction and
the design review process, including submittal
requirements, levels of review, and steps in the process.

Added a section on determining substantial
conformance to approved plans. Reduced maximum
allowable floor area increase from 150 square feet to 50 square feet.

Section 2 – Meeting
Procedures, pp. 18-26
General meeting procedures information consolidated
into one section.

Section 3 – Meeting Conduct
for SFDB Members, pp. 27-29
Moved Board member-specific meeting conduct
information to follow general meeting procedures.

Section 4 – Submittal
Requirements and Visual
Aids, pp. 30-35
Clarifications and updates regarding when visual aids
are required, with explanations of commonly used visual aids. Added procedure for waiving story pole
requirements and included description of the levels of
story pole installation. Added timing and documentation requirements for story pole installations.

Section 5 – Landscape Design
Guidelines, pp. 36-46
Reorganized and reformatted. Minor updates and
clarifications. Replaced outdated Water Conservation
information with a reference to the City website for
current Water Conservation best practices; relocated
subdivision grading plan guidelines from the Meeting
Procedures section.

ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES
Key Changes to the Administrative Approval Standards
For brevity, only the key changes to the Administrative Approval Standards are discussed below. Refer to Exhibit F (Draft SFDB Guidelines, Section 6.1-6.3) for the full text of the SFDB Administrative Approval Standards.

New Procedures Section
The current Administrative Approval Standards lack thorough instructions for use, which makes it difficult to train staff, applicants, and the public on how to use them. The proposed guidelines address this issue with a new Procedures section that outlines how to review projects using the General Administrative Approval Standards and the ProjectSpecific Administrative Approval Standards. The procedures include step-by-step instructions and an example.

Updated General Administrative Approval Standards
The General Standards assist with “big picture” considerations such as how to evaluate architectural style, designing projects in consideration of neighbors, how to review changes to approved plans, and how to evaluate a project’s scale in relation to the neighborhood. The General Standards have been expanded to include new standards for landscape, designing projects in consideration of neighbors, reviewing changes to approved plans, and home hardening for fire resistance. The existing General Standards have been updated for consistency with the proposed ordinance and to include additional guidance to assist Staff, applicants, and the public understand what the broad considerations are to grant an administrative approval.

General Standards: Home Hardening for Fire Resistance
The General Administrative Approval Standards are proposed to be expanded with new, more lenient standards for home hardening projects in High Fire Hazard Areas that are using State-recognized fire-resistant materials. Fire preparedness is an increasingly important topic to homeowners in the City, particularly with the July 2025 expansion of the City’s mapped High Fire Hazard Areas. If a project is proposing new fire-resistant materials and site design, staff will be able to administratively approve those elements Section 6 - Administrative
Approval Standards, pp. 50-61
Added procedures for administrative review. Added
general administrative approval standards for landscape projects, designing projects in consideration of
neighbors, changes to approved plans, and home
hardening for fire resistance. Expanded general
standards for additions and alterations.

Added project-specific standards for screening and
screening waivers. Expanded project-specific standards
for accessory buildings, additions, decks, fences,
hardscape & landscape, pools & spas, retaining walls,
roofs, tree removal, trellises, and windows.

ATTACHMENT 2

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES
even if they do not explicitly meet the applicable project-specific administrative approval standards. This is not anticipated to result in undesirable design outcomes, since most common and approvable building materials, such as standing seam roofing, 2-piece clay tile, class A asphalt shingles, and dual pane tempered glass windows already meet State fire resistance requirements. However, if the decision is between a project being aesthetically superior or fire resistant, the proposed guidelines allow staff to approve the more fire-resistant option.

Updated Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards The Project-Specific Standards have been updated to include more types of projects that can be administratively approved. Along with increasing administrative approval size limits for accessory buildings, additions, and decks, the Project-Specific standards include fewer restrictions on the types of exterior materials that are eligible for administrative approval, including windows, decks, fences, and roofing. To temper the increased allowances in the standards and maintain aesthetic oversight, new criteria have been added regarding elements such as project height, location on the lot, screening, and preservation of character-defining features. Examples include:
• Accessory buildings up to 800 square feet may be administratively approved, however they cannot exceed one story or 17 feet in height, cannot be located in the front yard, and must match the architectural style of the main house if the accessory building is publicly visible, and other standards. • Additions of up to 800 square feet may be approved administratively, however existing development must be less than 4,000 square feet, the addition must not significantly alter the front façade, and the project must not exceed 85% of the maximum required floor area ratio (FAR), and other standards. • Vinyl windows are no longer disqualified from administrative approval and may be administratively approved if they are a visual match to the existing windows, are not replacing original wood windows, and other standards.

The intent in adding these caveats to the more inclusive Project-Specific administrative approval standards is to introduce flexibility into the process while ensuring projects are compatible with the neighborhood. Adding this level of specificity to the standards also facilitates more straightforward review by staff by reducing confusion and adding objectivity. Key changes to specific standards are described in more detail below.

Project-Specific Standards: Accessory Buildings
The current Project-Specific Standards only allow administrative approval of accessory buildings of up to 250 square feet and 500 square feet if not publicly visible. The proposed standards increase the administrative approval limit to 800 square feet, consistent with State accessory dwelling unit regulations that allow ministerial approval of units up to 800 square feet. New standards that act as guardrails are proposed along with the increased size limit, including that accessory buildings not used for covered parking and located in the front yard are not eligible for administrative approval. These changes encourage accessory buildings to be located in the back yard and limited to one story, while allowing a larger size than the current standards.

ATTACHMENT 2

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES
Project-Specific Standards: Additions
In terms of impacts to the site and neighborhood, the most significant change proposed for the Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards is to increase the size of additions that can be administratively approved by staff. The current SFDB Guidelines allow administrative approval of first-story additions up to 250 square feet and upper story additions up to 150 square feet. A first story addition of up to 500 square feet can be administratively approved if it is not publicly visible1 and is located in consideration of neighbors2. The proposed amendments increase the size of additions that can be approved administratively from 500 to 800 square feet on the first story (to align with the State law allowance for one 800 square foot ADU), and from 150 to 250 square feet on an upper story. This would keep these modest additions with little to no potential for negative neighborhood impacts out of a public hearing.

The proposed administrative approval standards include a caveat for large residential development, consistent with the design review trigger for additions on lots developed with more than 4,000 net square feet of floor area. The proposed administrative approval standards allow staff to approve additions of up to 800 square feet on lots developed with up to 4,000 square feet of floor area, but for lots developed with more than 4,000 square feet of floor area, only up to 250 square feet of additions can be approved administratively.

This places more scrutiny on additions to homes that are already large by Santa Barbara’s standards and gives staff the flexibility to approve larger additions to smaller homes.

Project-Specific Standards: Decks
Currently, the SFDB Guidelines allow administrative approval of first-story decks up to 200 square feet, and do not allow administrative approval of balconies or upper-story decks. This project proposes to increase the allowable size for administrative approvals of decks to 400 square feet at the first story and 250 square feet for decks at the second and higher story. Upper story decks under 160 square feet would be exempt from design review provided that they meet the new zoning standards for balconies and upper story decks. Consistent with the Single-Family Residence Design Guidelines, an existing design standard is proposed to be added to the zoning ordinance requiring decks greater than 20 square feet to be located at least 15 feet from interior lot lines. Planning Commission supported this concept at the March 21, 2024 discussion on this project. Any project that does not comply with this standard may be approved by the applicable Design Review body, but would not be eligible for administrative approval.

Roof decks (decks on top of the roof of the highest story) would not be eligible for administrative approval. The SFDB/AIA subcommittee agreed that roof decks require more scrutiny due to their potential for privacy and noise nuisance issues. 1 A building, structure, or improvement is publicly visible if it may be typically, reasonably, and usually observed by an average person standing or traveling upon a public right-of-way (including streets and sidewalks) or visible from a public park, beach, or other area generally open for public use. If the building, structure, or improvement is only visible from a very distant viewing location where the building, structure, or improvement would not be readily discernable from the viewing location, then the building, structure, or improvement is not considered publicly visible for purposes of interpreting these Guidelines (SFDB Guidelines & Meeting Procedures p.15). 2 I.e., generally consistent with the Good Neighbor Guidelines (Single Family Residence Design Guidelines p. 67-N).

ATTACHMENT 2

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES
Project-Specific Standards: Windows
The current Project-Specific Standards for windows are ambiguous about the eligibility of two of the most common window materials: aluminum and vinyl. This leads to confusion among staff and inefficient processing of applications, even for windows on the rear of the house that aren’t publicly visible. The proposed standards remedy this issue by changing the criteria to not exclude aluminum or vinyl and to encourage new and replaced windows to match the existing windows. They also add a new standard, that the replacement of original wood windows or Special Design Windows3 with another type of window is not administratively approvable. This places more scrutiny on projects that propose to remove character-defining features and less scrutiny on a homeowner replacing an aluminum rear bathroom window with vinyl. Although it seems minor, this change will allow staff to be more efficient with their review of home improvement projects. 3 A window that uses quality materials such as wood or steel and is constructed using a unique or artistic design style is considered a Special Design Window. Such windows are an important component of a building’s character and may be an enhancement to the entire neighborhood. Such windows include, but are not limited to, leaded glass windows, stained glass windows, multi-pane wood windows with elaborate muntin patterns, or non-rectangular accent windows.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
Goal 1: Reduce the number of single family development projects subject to design review.

Solution 1A: Eliminate alterations-only projects from SFDB purview and add design standards to the Zoning Ordinance that address alterations to existing development to avoid automatically triggered design review.

There are currently over 35 triggers for SFDB design review, mostly listed in Chapter

22.69, with some in Titles 28 and 30 (coastal and inland zoning ordinances). The biggest proposed change to reduce SFDB design review triggers is to exempt alteration projects that do not involve a change in building square footage. In reviewing three years of SFDB project data (2019-2022), staff found that approximately 45% of projects were building or site alterations that did not involve any changes to floor area, and were instead routine maintenance, upgrades, and repairs, with a slim minority resulting in a significant change to the appearance of the building or site. Board members and applicants felt strongly that projects involving routine repairs, maintenance, and updates that do not affect house size are the least important thing for the SFDB to review, while new two-story houses, large additions, and major site work are among the most important. As a result, the proposed amendments to the SFDB design review triggers have been carefully calibrated to exempt alteration-only projects if they meet proposed design and development standards within Title 30.

The resulting SFDB design review exemptions are drafted as design and development standards and allow ministerial review of projects that either visually match the existing, permitted condition of the building or site, or result in a new, cohesive design style as defined in the SFDB Guidelines. This approach allows for ministerial review of routine maintenance projects such as window replacement, reroofing, and exterior siding replacement.

If adopted, these amendments are conservatively estimated to reduce SFDB projects by 24%1. In addition, staff anticipate that a larger share of the projects under SFDB purview will be eligible for administrative approval based on the expanded administrative approval standards in the proposed Guidelines.

Some members of the public expressed concern that City staff lack the expertise to assess whether a project aligns with a specific architectural style. Staff acknowledge this concern but are confident that we possess the ability to do this type of review. Staff regularly process administrative approval requests for consistency with codified ministerial design criteria (Accessory Dwelling Units) and through review of other minor 1 The 24% reduction is estimated based on analysis of 3 years of project data subtracting projects that would no longer be triggered for design review under the proposed code.

ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
projects for consistency with the Administrative Approval Standards in the Architectural Board of Review (ABR), Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), and SFDB Guidelines.

Weekly internal workshops help staff to review architectural details, window schedules, and materials and finishes to evaluate consistency with the ministerial criteria. Staff also use A Field Guide to American Houses to evaluate architectural style consistency. This type of evaluation is routine for City staff.

The Project establishes clear design standards for alteration projects within the Zoning Ordinance. These standards provide applicants with a clear path to ministerial approval while preserving the option to deviate from these design standards by opting in to the design review process. The proposed design standards – covering elements such as retaining walls, decks, and new or expanded upper story windows –are based on longstanding design guideline criteria, guiding applicants toward established and familiar local design preferences.

For example, current code has no retaining wall-specific standards beyond those that apply to fences. The proposed standards address this gap by specifying required materials (natural stone, brick, or stucco), requiring landscape elements to soften the appearance of walls over 4 feet tall, and clarifying cumulative height limits for terraced walls in both cut and fill slope configurations.

Similarly, there are no standards for upper story decks, despite the privacy concerns they often raise for neighboring properties. The proposed amendments address this by implementing a 15-foot setback from interior lot lines for upper story decks, consistent with Good Neighbor Guideline 36.2.4 from the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines. Decks smaller than 160 square feet that are more than 15 feet from an interior lot line would not require design review, and decks that do not meet those size or distance standards may request an exception reviewed by the applicable design review body. One deck is allowed per façade.

Updates to Title 30 also include new standards for landscape improvements for all zones.

The standards require that front setbacks must be at least 50% natural plant material and groundcover to provide a landscape buffer from the street and avoid excessive paving.

Existing properties made nonconforming by these new standards would not be required to meet the standards unless building or site improvements are proposed that require a landscape plan2. See section 30.220.040.B of the draft Title 30 ordinance amendments for the full text of the proposed SFDB design review triggers, and the Draft SFDB Guidelines, Section 6) for the updated administrative approval standards. 2 See SBMC Ch.14.23 – Landscape Design Standards and Recycled Water Use – for projects that require a landscape plan.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
Solution 1B: Expand opportunities for administrative (staff) review and approval of minor projects.

In addition to reducing the number of projects that require SFDB review at any level, this project proposes to reduce the number of single family projects that require a public hearing by expanding the criteria for administrative approvals in the SFDB Guidelines.

Proposed cleanups and clarifications to the SFDB Guidelines incorporate feedback from the SFDB Working Group, applicants, and staff. As part of this effort, staff are also addressing lessons learned from previous administrative approvals based on feedback from neighbors. The following discussion highlights only the most significant changes to administrative approvals. The proposed expansion of administrative approvals includes increases in approvable size limits for accessory buildings, additions, and decks. Note that projects must comply with additional criteria beyond these proposed administrative approval size limits.

Project Element
Administrative Approval Limit
Existing Proposed
Accessory Buildings3 (onestory, max. 17 feet in height)250 SF (500 SF if not publicly visible)
800 SF
Additions, First-Story4 500 SF 800 SF
Additions to an existing Secondor Higher-Story150 SF 250 SF Decks, First Story 200 SF 400 SF
Decks, Second- and HigherStory (except roof decks)Ineligible for administrative approval
250 SF
See Resolution Exhibit B - Draft SFDB Guidelines, Section 6.1-6.3 for the full text of the SFDB Administrative Approval Standards, and Attachment 2, Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines, for additional information.

Solution 1C: Reduce triggers for mailed notice.

Mailed notices serve to inform neighbors about proposed development that may affect them. Because not all projects carry the same potential for neighborhood impact, the noticing requirement is reserved for those with the greatest likelihood of generating community interest or concern. To preserve meaningful public participation while reducing unnecessary process, the proposed amendments maintain mailed noticing for projects that warrant it and eliminate it for those that typically do not.

Projects that require a mailed notice are not eligible for administrative approval.

Therefore, to expand administrative approvals, the SFDB’s mailed notice triggers also require adjustment. To determine appropriate adjustments to the mailed notice triggers, 3 To qualify for administrative approval, accessory buildings cannot be located in the front yard. 4 To qualify for administrative approval, additions must not significantly alter the front/street-facing façade in terms of massing, scale, and architectural style.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
staff reviewed project data and consulted with SFDB stakeholders. Notably, the proposed amendments change the noticing trigger for first-story additions from 500 square feet to 800 square feet to be consistent with the State allowance for an 800 square foot ministerial ADU. SFDB stakeholders felt that this threshold was appropriate for additions to the first story as it encourages massing on the first story rather than the second story.

In addition, some Minor Zoning Exceptions and other waivers of zoning requirements that routinely receive a rubber-stamp approval at design review are proposed to become ministerial and no longer require a mailed notice or public hearing. A new main building, a new upper story on an existing building, and grading in excess of 250 cubic yards would still require a mailed notice. All existing mailed notice thresholds are listed in the table below, along with proposed changes:

Mailed Noticing Threshold
Existing Proposed
New main building No change
500-square-foot first story addition 800-square-foot first story addition New second or higher story on an existing
building
No change
150-square-foot addition to an existing
second or higher story
250-square-foot addition to an existing
second or higher story
250 cubic yards of grading outside the main
building footprint or on a vacant lot
No change
Minor Zoning Exceptions: fence and hedge
height
No change
Minor Zoning Exceptions: alterations to
nonconforming structures, trash enclosure
location
No notice required5
Exterior lighting with potential for impacts to
neighboring properties
No change6
Uncovered parking spaces exception No notice required
Solution 1D: Streamline the process for Minor Zoning Exceptions (MZEs) by converting commonly approved MZEs into zoning standards.

Currently, Title 30 identifies a limited number of specific projects (e.g. new or enlarged window openings in setbacks) for which an MZE can be granted by the applicable design review body subject to specific findings. Prior to adoption of Title 30, exceptions to the zoning standards for these projects required Staff Hearing Officer review and approval of a Zoning Modification. In that sense, Title 30 MZEs streamline the process compared to coastal zoning (Title 28) regulations. However, we have learned that at SFDB, most MZE 5 All MZEs except those for additional fence and hedge height are proposed to be converted to zoning standards reviewed ministerially or as a waiver by the applicable design review body, without a mailed notice. Refer to additional discussion under Solution 1D. 6 Although the noticing trigger for lighting is not being substantively changed, it is being edited for clarity so that Staff better understand when it applies.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
requests get a “rubber stamp” approval because they generally do not generate neighborhood interest at hearings, nor do they pose architectural compatibility concerns.

All MZE requests heard by SFDB between 2019 and 2022 were approved. Current and former board members and SFDB Process Improvements working group members indicated that most MZEs are straightforward enough to be handled at the staff level and rarely warrant the level of oversight they are given at a public hearing.

Initially, this Project proposed to take all MZEs out of design review purview by making the Community Development Director the MZE review authority. However, street-facing fences and hedges can have a major aesthetic impact on the streetscape and pose inconsistencies with neighborhood patterns; and interior fences and hedges can have impacts on adjacent neighbors’ properties. Staff believe fence and hedge MZEs still warrant a public forum and design review board oversight. Therefore, the proposed ordinance maintains the applicable design review body as the review authority for frontand interior-lot-line fence and hedge MZE requests. The remaining MZEs – for height and volume increases in setbacks, trash enclosures in front yards, and new or enlarged openings in setbacks – are proposed to be reviewed by the Community Development Director using new design standards in the zoning ordinance. MZE requests that the Director finds do not meet those standards would be forwarded to the applicable design review body. This approach ensures aesthetic oversight of projects with more potential to impact neighbors and neighborhood character while providing additional streamlining for projects that are less likely to present neighborhood compatibility issues.

Goal 2: Streamline the public hearing process for single family projects.

Solution 2A: Eliminate the Final Approval hearing and associated appeal.

Under the current SFDB process, staff, the Board, and project applicants spend a significant amount of time on Final Approval, the last discretionary action by the SFDB prior to building permit submittal. The Board’s purview at Final Approval is narrow, limited to whether the plans substantially conform to Project Design Approval7 and whether the exterior construction details and materials are sufficient and accurate. Along with adding time and cost to a homeowner, the current Final Approval process requires staff to perform an additional plan review that otherwise occurs during building permit application review – a redundancy in the process. Specifically, when a project granted Project Design Approval is submitted for Final Approval, staff reviews for substantial conformance to Project Design Approval and ensures the required materials and details are on the plans.

The same staff review is performed again when the project is submitted for a building permit.

To shorten the time a project spends in the SFDB process, this Project proposes making the Community Development Director the default review authority for post-approval decisions, namely Final Approval and Review After Final, for SFDB projects. The Director 7 Project Design Approval is the substantive approval for all City design boards.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
would have the ability to refer post-approval decisions to SFDB if necessary to ensure substantial conformance to Project Design Approval or verify final details. This would make Final Approval and Review After Final ministerial actions performed by the Community Development Director. It would also make Project Design Approval the only SFDB action appealable by the public – Final Approval and Review After Final would be appealable only by the project applicant, but only if referred to the SFDB by the Director.

To ensure a robust Project Design Approval, some project details currently required at Final Approval, including exterior colors, materials, and key exterior structural details, would now be required at Project Design Approval. Under the proposed process, staff would perform their routine plan check of Final Approval plans during the building permit phase, verifying that all conditions of approval have been met and that any changes requested by the SFDB have been made. Minor changes to the approved plans would be eligible for an administrative substantial conformance determination, subject to the new Substantial Conformance Criteria in the proposed SFDB Guidelines (explained in detail below). If staff determines that a Final Approval plan set does not substantially conform to the plans that received Project Design Approval, then a revised Project Design Approval would be required. Staff would also be able to refer any post-approval decision to the SFDB, which would then be appealable to Planning Commission only by the project applicant.

This process improvement reduces confusion by making Project Design Approval the only appealable action at which all project elements can be addressed. Further, it decreases confusion for the public on the appropriate time to appeal a project. In addition, it facilitates compliance with the Housing Crisis Act, which limits the total number of hearings that a single family residence may be subject to, which is especially important when projects can be subject to other City discretionary review processes and those appeal processes (e.g. Staff Hearing Officer, Planning Commission, or Street Tree Advisory Committee/Parks and Recreation Commission, and City Council). Appeals are staffintensive, highly subsidized by the General Fund, involve multiple departments, and a single appealable hearing is sufficient for single family development.

Requiring a Final Approval decision at the SFDB remains a popular idea to some community members who have expressed concerns about staff’s ability to determine substantial conformance. Our effort in removing the automatic SFDB Final Approval hearing is to significantly streamline review and provide clear standards for substantial conformance for building permit submittals.

Substantial Conformance
To better assist staff and the public, the proposed SFDB Guidelines provide new criteria for determining substantial conformance to approved plans. For SFDB projects, the new substantial conformance determination process will be carried out by the Community Development Director and will apply to projects seeking Final Approval at the building permit phase and projects proposing changes after Final Approval (Review After Final).

Below are the criteria that must be met for a Final Approval plan set or revised project to substantially conform to Project Design Approval:

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
Issue Substantial Conformance Criteria (Proposed)
Conditions of
Approval
Does not conflict with findings or conditions of approval made by the SFDB or Planning Commission on appeal.

Height Does not result in an overall height which is greater than one foot above the approved height and does not exceed a maximum of 25 feet. For residences between 25 and 30 feet in height, the revised project does not increase the height by more than 4 inches above the approved height. In no case shall the building height exceed the maximum residential height in the zone.

Floor Area Does not result in an increase of more than 50 square feet to the approved net floor area.

Grading Does not result in an increase in grading outside the building footprint greater than 25 cubic yards more than the quantities shown on the approved plans.

Environmental
Studies
Alterations do not occur in any biologically sensitive area as identified in the City’s MAPS database, unless a technical study prepared by a qualified consultant indicates that the alterations will not have an adverse environmental impact. Does not result in environmental effects not analyzed or discussed at the approval process and does not result in new mitigation measures.

Trees Any proposed tree removal is consistent with the Administrative Approval Standards for tree removals.

Privacy
Alterations do not result in new or enlarged window or door openings within interior setbacks. Any new or expanded decks or patios are located outside required zoning setbacks.

In addition to these criteria, the proposed changes in the SFDB Guidelines include staff considering broad issues such as whether the project was subject to an appeal, whether the proposed changes result in a new project or impact zoning conformance, whether the project was subject to significant controversy, whether there was significant discussion about the particular issue, and whether the proposed revisions would alter the public’s perception of the project. The above-listed criteria provide guardrails for the decision, and the additional considerations provide the project-specific critical analysis needed to ensure consistency in the Director’s determinations of substantial conformance.

While eliminating the final approval hearing has drawn broad support — and was recommended in the Novak Report — some concerns were raised during public outreach.

These concerns, along with staff responses, are provided below:
• Concern: City staff are not licensed architects, and therefore, are less equipped to make informed decisions on substantial conformance determinations during building permit review or to make calls on architectural details for administrative design review requests.

Staff response: Staff review architectural plans and details daily and hold weekly meetings to review and apply eligibility criteria when assessing administrative design requests. If staff raise questions about final architectural details and feel uncomfortable ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
with making a determination, staff would refer those to the SFDB. To be clear, although a project is eligible for administrative approval, staff are not obligated to approve the request if questions or concerns emerge about neighbor impacts, neighborhood compatibility, or any other design elements. In these instances, staff may refer projects back to the Board (either Consent or Full Board) for a decision. • Concern: Requiring more information and project details at Project Design Approval would be too costly or too much of a time investment when the project has not yet been approved.

Staff response: Due to the significant upfront cost, full working construction drawings would not be required at Project Design Approval, but it is expected that more details will be required. Staff consider this a balance between concerns we hear from applicants about early investment without knowing if a project will be approved and having enough detail that the SFDB can make their required findings. Staff find that the trade-off is worth being able to eliminate an additional appealable hearing. Conceptual review is the best way for applicants to get early feedback on the design and massing before moving forward with the additional details that would be required prior to Project Design Approval and it is included in the SFDB review fee (fee currently covers up to four total hearings).

The SFDB may also request exterior details to clarify confusion with a design and the submitted plans.
• Consideration: Some members of the public will want to maintain maximum oversight on neighborhood development and will not support the expansion of administrative approvals.

Staff response: The most significant single-unit projects—such as new second and third story additions and new residences, including new residences in the Hillside Design District—will still require Full Board SFDB review. This project aims to maintain the existing oversight that SFDB has on projects that pose the greatest impact to neighborhood compatibility based on a project’s size, bulk, and scale. Unlike the Architectural Board of Review and the Historic Landmarks Commission, the SFDB is not a Charter board or commission. As such, there is more flexibility to experiment with streamlining efforts—an advantage that will help us try to find the right balance of SFDB oversight. Prior to 1992, there was no design review for single family residences. Over time, we have added a significant number of projects to SFDB’s plate. This effort will hopefully course correct to bring the number of minor projects down so that they may be ministerially reviewed and approved. The effort to streamline the process for single family homeowners is a tradeoff to maintaining maximum oversight of projects. We understand the desire of some to maintain maximum oversight, but staff believe there is a more appropriate balance of oversight given the direction to streamline.

Solution 2B: Make SFDB the decisionmaker for projects exceeding the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
To further streamline the process for single family projects, this Project proposes a shift in the decision-making responsibility for FAR Modifications from Planning Commission to the SFDB (or HLC for historic resources). Currently, if a project proposes to exceed the maximum allowable FAR, the majority of SFDB or HLC members must vote in favor of the project at a concept hearing. Following an affirmative majority vote at design review, the project is referred to Planning Commission for a decision on the FAR Modification. In discussions with both the SFDB and Planning Commission, this process was determined to be unnecessary because the required findings8 to grant an FAR Modification are more closely related to design and aesthetics than land use. As a result of the proposed change, appeals of FAR Design Exceptions granted by the SFDB would be heard by Planning Commission, and appeals of FAR Design Exceptions granted by HLC would be heard by City Council, allowing projects the standard practice of due process at a higher review authority.

Goal 3: Create more flexibility within the code and design guidelines to address common homeowner interests.

Solution 3A: Remove the requirement to provide covered parking.

The proposed amendments give homeowners more flexibility by removing the requirement for off-street parking to be “covered”—meaning in a garage or carport.

Currently, two covered parking spaces are required for every single family residence, with some exceptions9. The proposed amendments would not change the number of required spaces, only the requirement that they be covered in either a carport or garage. Staff proposed this amendment as a common-sense solution to a problem that tends to hold up projects. While covered parking is encouraged both as a principle of sound transportation planning and an aesthetic preference, to require it can present hardships, especially for owners of lots developed prior to the current covered parking requirement.

Removing the covered parking requirement can make it easier for homeowners who have to address existing substandard garages. In instances where substandard garages have needed to be rebuilt to conform to current regulations, it has been a massive cost to a homeowner for something they may not wish to have. Replacement uncovered parking 8 Findings to approve an FAR Modification (SBMC §30.250.060.C): 1. Not less than five members of the Single Family Design Board or six members of the Historic Landmarks Commission (on projects referred to the Commission pursuant to Section 22.69.030) have voted in support of the Modification following a concept review of the project; 2. The subject lot has a physical condition (such as the location, surroundings, topography, or the size or dimensions of the lot relative to other lots in the neighborhood) that does not generally exist on other lots in the neighborhood; and 3. The physical condition of the lot allows the project to be compatible with existing development within the neighborhood that comply with the floor area standard.
9 SBMC §30.175.030.N provides for two exceptions to the covered parking requirement for lots under 15,000 square feet: i.) One covered and once uncovered space allowed for lots developed with less than 85% of the allowed floor area ratio, and ii.) Two uncovered spaces allowed for lots developed with less than 80% of the allowed floor area ratio, if at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed exterior storage space is provided and subject to approval by the appropriate design review body.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
spaces would be allowed in an existing driveway10. This is a newer concept that received strong support from City Council at their June 2025 project briefing.

Solution 3B: Provide options for the creative use of home space by allowing the conversion of an existing garage or carport from vehicle parking to another residential accessory use, such as a home office, hobby room, or extra bedroom.

By giving homeowners the option to park in different configurations, the proposed code amendments facilitate the conversion of an existing garage to another residential use such as a storage room, workshop/home office, bedroom, or guest house (no requirement for kitchen). This flexibility would allow homeowners to increase the amount of usable space on their property at a lower cost than building a new addition or accessory building while maintaining the residential character of the area. Additionally, more opportunities to allow a full bathroom (i.e. toilet, sink, and bathtub/shower) in a garage or other accessory buildings are offered. This allows owners to add a “guest house”—a maximum 500- square-foot building used for guests—without the need to create a separate dwelling unit.

This fills a need not currently met for homeowners who do not want to go to the length of permitting an ADU, specifically installing a kitchen, but want to convert their garage to livable space with a full bathroom.

Solution 3C: Reduce open yard requirements for small lots and provide more flexible open yard standards for all other lots.

Modest changes to the residential open yard requirements for both single family and multi-family developments are proposed to simplify the requirements and make it easier for smaller, constrained lots to build additions without needing a discretionary approval, waiver, or modification. Additional flexibility would allow a mix of open yard options (e.g. balconies, decks, patios, natural areas, etc.) by eliminating the need for a design review “waiver” of private open yards.

For example, the open yard requirement for a single family residence on a lot less than 6,000 square feet (sq. ft.) would be reduced from 1,250 sq. ft. to 800 sq. ft. and minimum dimensions for all lots would be reduced from 20 feet x 20 feet to 15 feet x 20 feet.

Similarly, the open yard requirement for multi-family development is not decreasing in overall area— it is still 15% of the lot area—but the strict requirement to provide a certain area of private patio or balcony area for each unit based on the number of bedrooms is relaxed to give more options in a new project11.

Solution 3D: Create design and development standards for storage sheds, playhouses, and similar enclosed yard buildings.

The proposed amendments would make it easier for homeowners to have a small accessory building, such as a storage shed, bicycle locker, or playhouse, in the backyard. 10 Uncovered parking spaces may be located in the front yard if they are screened from public view, meeting zoning standards.
11 This concept was discussed and supported by Planning Commission in 2022.

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
Current zoning requirements are strict on these types of yard buildings, with the main limitation being that they are not allowed in setbacks or open yards. The proposed code would allow a 6-foot-tall yard building in side-yard setbacks if it meets size, location, and screening requirements. Accessory buildings in the setbacks that exceed those requirements would require a Modification and review by the applicable design review body.

Consolidating the SFDB’s Purpose and Goals
Guided by robust community feedback, staff revised the SFDB’s purpose statement in the municipal code and the SFDB’s goals in the SFDB Guidelines to better align with the realities of the SFDB process. The SFDB’s current purpose statement within SBMC Chapter 22.69 addresses the SFDB’s primary goal of ensuring projects are compatible with their surrounding neighborhood, but in the expanded list of goals in the existing Guidelines, it also includes elements that SFDB members feel are less within their purview. The SFDB General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures identify 12 additional goals, which the Board wished to consolidate to be more focused. SFDB members indicated that the Board’s purpose statement and goals should more concretely reflect their purview, including project size and design, architectural style, landscape design, exterior building materials, and the protection of public views of the hillsides and ocean. They felt that other considerations within the purpose statement and goals, such as public safety, sustainability, and consistency with the Zoning Ordinance, were adequately addressed through staff’s routine review of development applications for consistency with code standards, CEQA requirements, and building permit procedures.

The updated purpose statement within the proposed ordinance (SBMC §30.220.040) is:
“…to protect and preserve the City’s natural and historical character and to enhance its visual and aesthetic quality. The SFDB ensures that single‑unit residential development is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding neighborhood and that public visual resources are protected through the design review process.” This focused purpose statement clarifies the purpose and intent of the Board and reduces the potential for confusion as to the Board’s purview. Further, per SFDB’s direction, staff propose to consolidate the goals in the Guidelines from a list of twelve wide-ranging goals to six focused goals:

A. Ensure development is compatible with the site and the neighborhood; B. Enhance neighborhood character by fostering quality and diversity in architectural styles;
C. Promote high standards in architectural and landscape design and the construction of aesthetically pleasing structures;
D. Ensure new development does not significantly impact adjacent historic resources;
E. Ensure new development does not significantly impact the beauty of Santa Barbara’s natural and built resources; and
ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT GOALS AND ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
F. Promote visual relief throughout the community and preserve public scenic views of the ocean and mountains.

ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Staff has determined that the Single Family Streamlining Project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs that encourage process improvements, reduction in constraints on housing development, sustainable neighborhood planning, protection of historic resources, and protection of visual resources.

Consistency Analysis General Plan Policies
The Single Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
encourage process improvements by
supporting the reduction of constraints to
housing development. It also implements
recommendations made by the Novak
Consulting Group to streamline the
design review process by reducing the
number of projects subject to SFDB
review, expanding administrative
approvals, and creating more flexibility in
the zoning ordinance for home
improvement projects.

Housing Element HE-5: Process
Improvements
Housing Element H1.4: Reduce Constraints
Housing Element HE-8: Innovative Housing
Types
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
protect historic resources. It maintains
oversight of new development adjacent to
historic resources.

Historic Resources Element HR1: Protect
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Historic Resources Element HR2: Ensure
respectful and compatible development.

The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
support community benefit housing. It
eliminates the requirement for a
Conditional Use Permit or Performance
Standard Permit for Community Care
Facilities.

Land Use element LG5: Community Benefit
Housing.

Land Use Element LG5.1: Affordable
Housing
Housing Element Policy H1.4: Reduce
Constraints
Housing Element Program HE-3: Special
Needs Housing
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Consistency Analysis General Plan Policies
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
reduce the urban heat island effect
through landscape. The ordinance
implements new front setback landscape
requirements for all lots with the intent of
preventing excessive paving on any given
site.

Environmental Resources Element ER1.3
Urban Heat Island Effect.

The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
support innovative design standards. The
ordinance eliminates the requirement that
vehicle parking spaces must be covered,
i.e. in a garage or carport. Adds flexibility
to provide bike lockers in setbacks.

Circulation Element CE7.4.1:

Incorporate innovative design
standards, such as tandem parking,
stacked parking, and valet parking.

Circulation Element CE4.2.3: Encourage
facilities for bicycle travel and parking in
any future development, construction, or
reconstruction projects during the review of
new development and infrastructure
improvements.

Circulation Element CE4.2.6: The City shall
work to expand, enhance, and maintain the
system of bikeways to serve current
community needs and to develop increased
ridership for bicycle transportation and
recreation.

ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Consistency Analysis General Plan Policies
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
support sustainable community planning
principles such as providing onsite open
space, strengthening design standards
within single-unit residential zones,
promoting neighborhood character and
enhancing the community’s sense of
place through the design review process.

The ordinance also allows for innovative
use of existing floor area on single-unit
lots, decreasing the need to construct
new structures, thereby decreasing
resource use.

Land Use Element LG5.2: Open Space
Land Use Element LG12: Community
Character
Land Use Element LG14: Low Density
Single Family Zoned Residential Areas
Land Use Element LG15: Sustainable
Neighborhood Planning.

Environmental Resources Element ER30:

Enhance Visual Quality
Environmental Resources Element ER3:

Decrease City’s Global Footprint
Land Use Element
LG5 Community Benefit Housing. While acknowledging the need to balance the provision of affordable housing with market-rate housing, new residential development in multi-family and commercial zones, including mixed-use projects, should include affordable housing and open space benefits.

Possible Implementation Actions to be Considered
LG5.1 Affordable Housing. Develop standards and project level findings to encourage the development of Community Benefit Housing defined as:

Rental housing;
Housing affordable to low, moderate, or middle income households; Employer sponsored workforce housing;
Limited Equity Co-operative Housing;
Affordable Housing Downtown for Downtown Workers; and/or Transitional housing, single residential occupancy, and other housing for special needs populations including seniors, physically or mentally disabled, homeless, and children aging out of foster care.

ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LG5.2 Open Space. Develop on and off site open space standards for incorporation into the development review process to include:

Access to adequate public open space within a ½-mile radius; and/or Dedication of sufficient useable open space on-site; and/or A contribution made toward future parks through in-lieu fees.

LG12 Community Character. Strengthen and enhance design and development review standards and process to enhance community character, promote affordable housing, and further community sustainability principles.

LG14 Low Density Single Family Zoned Residential Areas. Maintain and protect the character and quality of life of single family zoned neighborhoods as a low density residential community.

LG15 Sustainable Neighborhood Planning. Neighborhoods shall be encouraged to preserve and enhance the sense of place, provide opportunities for healthy living and accessibility, while reducing the community’s carbon footprint.

Housing Element
Goal 1 – Create New Housing. Create new, healthy, safe, and energy-efficient housing that meets community needs, within our resources.

Policy H1.4 Reduce Constraints. Reduce and, where feasible and practical, remove unnecessary City-imposed constraints that impede housing development.

Program HE-3: Amend The Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing The 2023 Housing Element identified potential governmental constraints to housing, including Zoning Ordinance amendments necessary to comply with changes in state law. Persons and households with special needs, particularly extremely low-income households and persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless, have limited housing options. Housing types appropriate for these groups include emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, transitional housing, supportive housing, and single-room occupancy units. Special needs persons may also find housing opportunities in residential care facilities and group homes.

As part of the Governmental Constraints analysis, amendments were identified to the City’s Zoning Ordinances to better facilitate a variety of special needs housing types, as required by state law.

ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The City will draft and adopt the following Zoning Ordinance amendments in compliance with state law :
• Residential Facilities/Group Homes: Amend the permit requirements for Community Care Facilities, Residential Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices and clarify that only projects that include a housing type not allowed by right in the base zone (e.g., multiple units in a single-unit zone) or includes nonresidential accessory uses, will trigger the Use Permit requirements. The required findings for facilities serving seven or more individuals in a residential zone will be revised to ensure they are objective with approval certainty similar to other residential uses. • Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Amend to allow Low-Barrier Navigation Centers (as defined in Government Code § 65660 (a)) in mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-unit uses.
• Employee and Farmworker Housing: Amend to categorize agriculture as an accessory use where allowed by zoning; thus clarifying that California Health and Safety Code §17021.8 does not apply and to allow agricultural employee housing as “employee housing” (as defined in Health and Safety Code § 17008) for six or fewer persons to be permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in all zones where single-unit residences are allowed.
• Emergency Shelters: Amend parking standards to comply with new state law parking provisions for emergency shelters.

Program HE-5: Process Improvements
Since 2020, the City has been implementing discretionary and ministerial permit process improvements recommended by the Novak Consulting Group, Inc., (Novak Report, August 2020) guided by the City Council Land Development Team (LDT) Oversight Committee. In addition to the Novak Report, the Governmental Constraints analysis also identified City processes that potentially constrain housing projects, including multiple concept reviews and appealable actions. Through the City’s LDT Oversight Subcommittee, the City will further study and if appropriate implement some of the process improvements recommended by the Novak Report as well as those identified in Governmental Constraints analysis including drafting Zoning Ordinance and other Municipal Code amendments for adoption to streamline the design review process, such as reducing the number of design review triggers and appealable actions for projects that require design review approval. Process improvements may be implemented in two phases starting with single unit residential, followed by multiunit residential developments.

ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Program HE-8: Innovative Housing Types
The Housing Needs Assessment and demographic changes indicate a need for a variety of housing types to suit special needs households and different household compositions, changes in circumstances or incomes, and existing and future household needs. The City will conduct outreach to the American Institute of Architects, developers, and contractors for input on housing trends and review the Zoning Ordinance to determine if amendments are necessary to incentivize and facilitate innovative housing types, such as small units (single room occupancy/efficiency/micro units), multi-generational housing, universal designed housing (i.e., safe and accessible for everyone), live-work units, small and large family day care homes, shared housing, cooperative housing, and temporary housing (for use when the primary unit is destroyed or damaged). Based on the results of the outreach and review, the City will draft Zoning Ordinance amendments for adoption to increase the production of innovative housing types.

Historic Resources Element
Policy HR1: Protect Historic and Archaeological Resources. Protect the heritage of the City by preserving, protecting and enhancing historic resources and archaeological resources. Apply available governmental resources, devices and approaches, such as the measures enumerated in the Land Use Element of this Plan, to facilitate their preservation and protection.

Policy HR2: Ensure respectful and compatible development. Seek to ensure that all development within the City respects rather than detracts from individual historic and archaeological resources as well as the neighborhood and the overall historical character of the city. Assure compatibility of development, respect for the historical context of historical resources, and consideration of sustainable design alternatives where compatible.

Environmental Resources Element
Policy ER1: Climate Change. As applicable, private development and public facilities and services may be required to incorporate measures to minimize contributions to climate change and to adapt to climate changes anticipated to occur within the life of each project.

Policy ER1.3: Urban Heat Island Effect. Improve carbon sequestration and reduce the urban heat island effect by:
a. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish standards that decrease impermeable surfaces and building areas relative to lot size; ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
b. Providing incentives such as expedited permitting for building projects that incorporate green roofs; and
c. Exploring possibilities for reducing standards for impermeable surfacing required by the Transportation Division and Fire Department.

Policy ER3: Decrease City’s Global Footprint. In addition to promoting reduced unit size, building footprints and GHG emissions, and energy conservation, promote the use of more sustainable building and landscaping materials and methods.

Policy ER30: Enhance Visual Quality. Not only retain, but improve visual quality of the city wherever practicable.

Circulation Element
Goal 4: Increase Bicycling as a Transportation Mode. Develop a comprehensive system of bicycle routes which are integrated with other modes of transportation and which provide safe and efficient bikeways.

Policy CE4.2: The City shall work to expand, enhance, and maintain the system of bikeways to serve current community needs and to develop increased ridership for bicycle transportation and recreation.

Policy CE4.2.3: Encourage facilities for bicycle travel and parking in any future development, construction, or reconstruction projects during the review of new development and infrastructure improvements. Bicycle facilities can be achieved through methods such as:
• purchase, dedication, and other means of property
acquisition,
• conditions of approval,
• expanding the scope of maintenance projects, and
• enforcement of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Parking Section.

Policy CE4.2.6: Increase attractive, convenient, and secure bike parking and storage facilities on public property and encourage the provision of the same on private property. Continue to consider fully enclosed individual lockers and/or bicycle racks.

Goal 7: Increase Access by Optimizing Parking Citywide. Develop and implement innovative parking management strategies and a master parking plan that is consistent ATTACHMENT 4

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
with the scale of surrounding neighborhood land uses, supports the land uses of the General Plan, and furthers the goals of the Circulation Element's Vision Statement.

Policy CE7.4 The City shall update its Parking Requirements and Design Standards to optimize its parking resources and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation.

Policy CE7.4.1 Incorporate innovative design standards, such as tandem parking, stacked parking, and valet parking.

Policy C7.6 Residential Off-site Parking. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential required parking off-site in commercial zones.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT

INTRODUCTION TO CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE SANTA BARBARA
MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 30.01,

30.15, 30.20, 30.25, 30.30, 30.35, 30.140, 30.165, 30.175,

30.185, 30.200, 30.205, 30.220, 30.235, 30.250, 30.290,

30.295, 30.300, AND SECTION 30.150.090 OF CHAPTER

30.150 OF TITLE 30 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR

SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 30.15 of Title 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Division I: Introductory Provisions
Chapter 30.15 Rules of Measurement
Sections:

30.15.010 Purpose

30.15.020 General Provisions

30.15.025 Calculating Density

30.15.030 Determining Average Slope

30.15.040 Determining Creek Top of Bank

30.15.050 Fractions

30.15.060 Measuring Distances

30.15.070 Measuring Floor Area

30.15.080 Measuring Front Yards

30.15.090 Measuring Height and Stories

30.15.100 Measuring Setbacks and
Stepbacks

30.15.110 Measuring Street Frontage

30.15.120 Screening
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
2 30.15.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how various measurements referred to in this Title are to be calculated.

30.15.020 General Provisions.

For all calculations, the applicant is responsible for supplying drawings illustrating the measurements that apply to a project. These drawings must be drawn to scale and of sufficient detail to allow easy verification upon inspection by the Community Development Director.

30.15.025 Calculating Density.

A. Maximum Allowable Residential Density. The maximum allowable residential density or “base density” means the greatest number of units allowed under the density range specified by the Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plan, or land use element of the General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan, applicable to the project. Density shall be determined using dwelling units per acre (du/ac). If there is a conflict, the highest allowable density prevails.

1. Calculation. To calculate the maximum number of dwelling units permitted allowed on a lot, the net lot area is converted from square feet to acres by dividing it by 43,560. The resulting acreage is multiplied by the density range. For density calculations with a remainder greater than 0.01 units, a whole unit is permitted allowed.

Residential Density Calculation Example:

Net Lot Area: 21,000 sq. ft./43,560 = 0.48 acres
General Plan Density Range: 27 to 36 units/acre
Calculate Allowed Units: 27 to 36 units per acre x 0.48 acres = 12.96 to 17.28 units Rounding Up: 13 to 18 units allowed
B. Density Calculations in Mixed-Use Projects. For mixed-use projects, the maximum allowable residential density shall be calculated by using the total net lot area and does not exclude the nonresidential portion of the mixed-use site.

C. Density Calculations for Other Uses. Other facilities that are not residential uses but are subject to residential density limitations as specified in this code, (including, but not limited to, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
3 Group Residential, Community Care Facilities, Residential Care Facilities, and Hotels with kitchens) must be equivalent in size to a residential project at base density ranges as permitted allowed by the General Plan.

D. Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are not counted in maximum density calculations, unless otherwise specified in this Title.

E. Density Calculations for Lot Merger. To determine allowable residential density for projects involving the merger of lots, the allowed density for the resulting lot is calculated as the greater of the following:

1. The aggregate density allowed under the zoning regulations applicable to each individual lot prior to the merger; or

2. The density allowed under the zoning regulations applicable to the lot as configured following the merger.

30.15.027 Calculating Unit Size.

When calculating the floor area of a residential unit, the following standards apply unless otherwise provided in this Title. See also Section 30.140.150, Residential Unit.

A. Minimum Unit Size. Minimum unit size must include all contiguous net livable floor area located within the perimeter walls of the residential unit. The following areas are excluded from the calculation of minimum unit size:

1. Detached accessory buildings.

2. Non-livable floor area, such as crawlspaces, storage, or utility areas.

3. Covered parking areas, such as garages and carports.

B. Modifications Based on Unit Yield. If a modification, waiver, or exception is requested based on the inability to achieve the allowable number of residential units on a property, the applicant must demonstrate infeasibility using the minimum unit size for a onebedroom unit.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
4 C. Maximum Unit Size. Where a maximum unit size is specified in this Title, the calculation must include any attached non-livable floor area under the control of the unit occupant (e.g., storage). The following areas are excluded from the calculation of maximum unit size:

1. Detached accessory buildings.

2. Covered parking areas, such as garages and carports.

3. Common areas not controlled by the individual unit occupant.

4. Areas excluded from floor area, per Section 30.15.070, Measuring Floor Area.

D. Maximum Average Unit Size. Where a maximum average unit size is specified in this Title, the average is calculated by dividing the total Maximum Unit Size, as described in Subsection C, of all residential units on the property by the total number of residential units on the property.

30.15.030 Determining Average Slope.

The average slope of a parcel of land, or any portion thereof, is calculated using a topographic map conforming to National Mapping Standards and having a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet and a contour interval of not more than five feet), and the following formula:

S = (I)(L)/A, where:

A. S = Average slope (in percent)
B. I = Contour interval (in feet)
C. L = Total length of all contour lines on the parcel (in feet), excluding the length of contours in drainage channels and in natural water courses below the 25-year flood level D. A = Area of subject area for which the slope is to be determined (in square feet) AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
5 FIGURE 30.15.030: DETERMINING AVERAGE SLOPE

30.15.040 Determining Creek Top of Bank.

The “Top of Bank” is determined by the creek channel geometry. Any parcel that adjoins or is within 50 feet of a creek where development is proposed shall have the top of bank determined as part of any plan submittal. The top of bank shall be determined using one of the conditions described below in Cases 1-4 and depicted in the associated diagrams below. If more than one condition applies, the approach that is most protective of creek resources shall apply. If there is disagreement about where the top of bank is located, the Creeks Division Manager in consultation with the City Attorney, shall make a final determination of top of bank.

A. Case 1 - Bank Slopes with a Single Defined Hinge Point. When the creek has a sloped bank rising from the toe of the bank to a hinge point at the generally level ground above, the hinge point is the top of bank. If the existing slope of the bank is steeper than 1.5 (horizontal):1 (vertical), the intersection of a projected plane with a 1.5:1 slope from the toe AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
6 of the bank to the generally level upper ground is the “top of bank.” For concrete flood control channels, that meet the definition outlined above, the top of bank is the upper hinge point regardless of the steepness of the bank.

B. Case 2 – Bank Slopes with Multiple Hinge Points. When the creek bank slope rises from the toe of the bank, levels off one or more times, then rises to a higher hinge point at the generally level upper ground, the hinge point at or directly above the FEMA 100-year flood surface elevation is the top of bank. If the FEMA 100-year flood surface elevation is above the highest hinge point, the location of the top of bank does not change and is the highest hinge point.

C. Case 3 – Bank Slopes with No Readily Defined Hinge Point. When no discernible break in slope occurs above the active channel, and the creek bank opposite a project site has a well-defined hinge point, the elevation of that hinge point will be used to determine the top of bank for the project site. Where no readily determined hinge point defines the top of bank on either side of the creek, the FEMA 100-year flood elevation is the top of bank.

D. Case 4 – Flood Control Projects. Where an existing flood control project exists, or has been approved, the top of bank will be located at the top of the proposed or completed flood control channel wall, or the hinge point just above the top of wall, whichever is higher, even for banks steeper than 1.5:1 as outlined in Case 1 above.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
7 FIGURE 30.15.040: DETERMINING TOP OF BANK

30.15.050 Fractions.

Whenever this Title requires consideration of numerical quantities, all calculations shall use fractions no smaller than hundredths, and if the end result of a calculation contains a fraction of a whole number, the results shall be rounded as follows:

A. General Rounding. Fractions are to be rounded up to the nearest whole number, except as otherwise provided.

B. Exception for Parking Spaces. In determining the number of parking spaces fractions are to be rounded down to the nearest whole number. Where multiple structures or standards are involved, any rounding of spaces must be made on the aggregate total required for the site, and not on individual uses prior to calculating the total. See Section 30.175.040, Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Spaces, for additional parking rounding requirements.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
8 C. Exception for Inclusionary Housing. In determining the number of Inclusionary Units required by Chapter 30.160, Inclusionary Housing, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Refer to Section 30.150.110 Inclusionary Requirements for Rental Housing Projects, to determine the number of Inclusionary Units for Rental Housing Projects.

30.15.055 Grading
A. Calculation of Grading Quantities. Whenever this Title requires consideration of grading quantities, the total volume includes all excavation, cut, and fill, or any combination thereof. Grading quantities must be calculated cumulatively across all phases of a project and all areas of the site, unless expressly exempted by this Title.

B. Grading Excluded.

1. Recompacted Soil. Soil excavated within five feet horizontally of an exterior building wall and subsequently recompacted is excluded from the calculation of grading volume outside the building footprint.

2. Below-Grade Swimming Pools. Soil excavated for a below-grade swimming pool is excluded from the calculation of grading volume outside the building footprint for purposes of Design Review.

C. Determination of Existing Grade. For purposes of establishing “Existing Grade,” as defined in this Title, the topographic elevations of the natural ground surface as it existed five years prior to the date of application for grading, filling, or other site alterations is used.

30.15.060 Measuring Distances.

A. Measurements are Shortest Distance. When measuring a required distance, such as the minimum distance between a structure and a lot line, the measurement is made at the closest or shortest distance between the two objects.

B. Distances are Measured Horizontally. When determining distances for setbacks and structure dimensions, all distances are measured along a horizontal plane from the appropriate line, edge of building, structure, storage area, parking area, or other object. These distances are not measured by following the topography or slope of the land.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
9 C. Measurements Involving a Structure. When measuring a required distance involving a structure, the measurements are made to the closest exterior wall or exterior element of the structure. Structures or portions of structures that are entirely underground are not included in measuring required distances.

FIGURE 30.15.060.A, B, AND C: MEASURING DISTANCES
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
10 D. Measurement of Vehicle Stacking or Travel Areas. Measurement of a minimum travel distance for vehicles, such as vehicle backup distance, are measured down the center of the vehicle travel area. For example, curving driveways and travel lanes are measured along the center arc of the driveway or traffic lane.

FIGURE 30.15.060.D: MEASURING TRAVEL AREAS
E. Measuring Radius. When a specified element is required to be located a minimum distance from another element, the minimum distance is measured in a straight line from all points along the lot line of the subject land use, in all directions.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
11 FIGURE 30.15.060.E: MEASURING RADIUS

30.15.070 Measuring Floor Area.

A. General Measurement. All references to floor area in this Title are to net floor area, unless otherwise indicated. Net floor area is as defined in Section 30.300.060 “F” and as measured in this Section 30.15.070. Unless specifically exempted, the following areas are included in net floor area:

1. All enclosed space between the finished floor and roofline, and within the interior perimeter of exterior walls of any main or accessory building.

2. Floor area of all stories, both above and below grade.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
12 3. Vertical circulation and rooftop enclosures, including covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells, elevator shafts, and similar features.

4. Covered parking areas, including enclosed garages and covered or partially covered carports.

5. Roofed, unenclosed, detached accessory buildings regulated by this Title.

B. Measurement Methods.

1. Interior Spaces. Net floor area of rooms or tenant spaces is measured to the centerline of demising walls separating such spaces, where applicable.

2. Vertical Circulation. Stairways, stairwells, and elevator shafts are counted only once, at the level of greatest horizontal extent.

3. Unenclosed Roofed Areas. Where development standards regulate the floor area of a roofed structure with no walls, the floor area is measured as the horizontal area beneath the roofline.

C. Areas Excluded from Floor Area. The following areas are not counted as floor area:

1. Low-Ceiling Areas. Vent shafts and any area with a ceiling height less than five feet above finished floor.

2. Unfinished Utility Spaces. Unfinished attics, crawlspaces, and similar utility spaces that are unusable and not designed for occupancy are not considered floor area, except where converted to usable floor space. Such spaces may accommodate mechanical, electrical, plumbing, or other utility equipment without being counted as floor area.

3. Architectural Projections. Bay windows or similar architectural projections that begin no lower than 18 inches above the adjacent interior finished floor, measured to the lowest point of the projection, so that the projection does not create usable or occupiable floor area.

4. Attached Shade or Entry Areas. Attached, exterior roofed shade or entry features such as arcades, porticoes, porches, trellises, gazebos, patio covers, and similar, that are unenclosed and are not designed or used for occupiable space.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
13 5. Outdoor Seating, Storage, and Display Areas. Nonresidential unroofed, unenclosed areas used for outdoor seating, sales, or display, such as plant nurseries, building materials yards, or auto sales lots.

6. Incidental Equipment Rooms. Attached mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed 2% of the building’s gross floor area.

7. Minor Accessory Structures. Yard buildings less than 120 square feet allowed under Section 30.140.240, Yard Buildings, and other accessory structures expressly exempt from building permit requirements.

8. Temporary Structures. Temporary structures allowed under a valid Temporary Use Permit.

9. Nonresidential Parking Structures. Areas used for occupant or patron off‑street parking, loading, driveways, ramps between floors of a multi‑level parking garage, and maneuvering aisles are excluded from nonresidential floor area calculations under Chapter 30.170, Nonresidential Growth Management Program. However, structures or portions of structures used for vehicle storage, vehicle sales, car washing, repair, or servicing must be included in nonresidential floor area calculations.

10. Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Calculations. See Section 30.15.075, Measuring Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

The net floor area of a structure is the sum, in square feet, of the horizontal areas of all floors of a structure or other enclosed structure, or portions thereof, measured from either the interior perimeter of the exterior walls, or below the roofline, or the centerline of interior walls, as described below. All references to floor area in this Title are to net floor area, unless otherwise indicated. The following are included in and excluded from floor area except as otherwise provided in this Title A. Included in Floor Area.

1. Enclosed Structures. Net floor area includes all space within a structure that is below the roof and within the interior perimeter of the exterior walls of any main or accessory structure.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
14 2. Interior Spaces. Net floor area of interior spaces, such as rooms or separate tenant spaces, includes all space within the centerlines of demising walls separating such spaces or portions thereof.

3. Stairways and Elevator Shafts. In the case of a multistory structure that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells, or elevator shafts, the floor area of such features is counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.

4. Unenclosed Structures. When measuring the area of a structure that is unenclosed such as a carport, the net floor area includes all space below the roof line.

B. Excluded from Floor Area. The following areas are excluded from floor area:

1. Vent shafts or areas with a ceiling height of less than five feet above finished floor.

2. Attics, crawlspaces, or similar areas, where entry is made only for service of utilities, and not designed for use as storage or any other use whatsoever.

3. If unenclosed on at least two sides, roofed areas such as patio covers, porches, trellises, gazebos, shade structures, or other similar unenclosed structures shall not count toward the calculation of floor area if not used for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons, animals, or property.

4. Enclosed spaces in nonresidential or mixed-use structures that contain “infrastructure” (e.g., mechanical equipment enclosures, vent shafts, trash and recycling enclosures, air conditioners, forced air units, electric vaults, water heaters and softeners, cellular telephone equipment, and other similar uses) shall not count toward the calculation of floor area if such areas are designed in the minimum size necessary to screen or enclose such equipment, and the space cannot be converted to storage or another non-infrastructure use.

5. Minor accessory structures that do not require a building permit for construction or installation.

6. Temporary structures permitted with a Temporary Use Permit.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
15 FIGURE 30.15.070.A: MEASURING FLOOR AREA

30.15.075 Measuring Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a ratio of the net floor area of all buildings on a site to the net lot area. To calculate FAR, divide the total net floor area of all main and accessory buildings on a lot by the net lot area. FAR is typically expressed as a decimal. For example, if the floor area of all buildings on a site totals 5,000 square feet, and the site area is 10,000 square feet, the FAR is expressed as 0.5. Special measurement examples are also provided below.

A. Nonresidential FAR. This Title establishes maximum FARs for certain types of nonresidential development. To calculate the maximum nonresidential FAR, multiply the allowable FAR by the net lot area.

Nonresidential FAR Example:

Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area = Allowable FAR x Net Lot Area Allowable FAR*: 0.25
Net Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft.

Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area = 0.25 x 10,000 = 2,500 sq. ft. * Amount determined by this Title
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
16 FIGURE 30.15.027: CALCULATING NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO B. Residential FAR. Maximum FARs for residential developments are established in Table

30.20.030.A (Development Standards–Residential Single Unit Zones). To calculate the maximum residential FAR, multiply the allowable FAR by the net lot area, and add the supplementary floor area allowance per lot size.

Residential FAR Example:

Maximum Residential Floor Area = (Allowable FAR x Lot Area) + Supplementary Floor Area Allowance
Allowable FAR*: 0.25
Net Lot Area: 9,000 sq. ft.

Supplementary Floor Area Allowance*: 1,200 sq. ft.

Maximum Residential Floor Area = (0.25 x 9,000 = 2,250) + 1,200= 3,450 sq. ft. * Amount determined per Table 30.20.030.A
C. Residential Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Calculations. For residential developments, the following additional calculations apply when calculating Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR):

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
17 1. Below Grade Exclusion. A floor may be excluded entirely from FAR if no more than 12 linear feet along any building elevation has a grade‑to‑ceiling height greater than four feet.

2. Partial Reduction. If more than 12 linear feet but less than one-half of the total perimeter length has a grade-to-ceiling height greater than four feet, the floor area may be reduced by 50% in the FAR calculation.

3. Full Inclusion. If more than one-half of the total perimeter length has a grade-toceiling height greater than four feet, the entire floor area is included in the FAR.

4. Accessory Buildings. Floor area within any accessory building, including an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, is included in the FAR, except for portions specifically excluded under Subsections C.1 (Below Grade Exclusion) and C.2 (Partial Reduction) of this Section, or under Section 30.15.070.C, Areas Excluded from Floor Area.

30.15.080 Measuring Front Yards.

Front yards shall be measured by extending perpendicular lines from each point of a front lot line to the nearest wall of the first main building on the lot. Where there is no wall of a main building on the lot which intercepts said perpendicular lines, said yard will terminate at a point determined by extending a line parallel to the front lot line from the corner of the front elevation of the main building to the nearest lot line. The front elevation of a building is any elevation that faces a street.

A. Rounded Corners. If the corner of the front elevation is rounded (i.e., a tower), the corner of the elevation shall be established by drawing the smallest square or rectangle that will enclose the round element and extend the line from the corner of the superimposed square or rectangle that is closest to the front lot line.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
18 FIGURE 30.15.080: MEASURING FRONT YARDS
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
19 30.15.090 Measuring Height and Stories.

A. Measuring Height Generally General Measurement. Height is the vertical distance measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top of the structure directly above. Special measurement provisions are also provided below.

B. Measuring Building Height on Sloped Lots. Building height on sloped lots is measured from a warped plane connecting the perimeter of the building where it contacts the lower of existing or finished grade to every part of the building roof or parapet.

C. Height Exclusions.

1. Light Wells. The vertical portion of exterior doors, stairway landings, or light wells on a basement elevation are excluded from the height calculation if the cumulative total width does not exceed 12 feet per elevation.

2. Architectural Elements. Architectural elements that do not add floor area to a structure, such as are limited to the following types of features: chimneys, vents, antennae, open trellises that do not exceed 12 feet in height, rooftop equipment and associated screening, roof-mounted solar energy systems a maximum of three feet above the maximum height limit, rooftop decks that do not exceed 10 inches in height above the roof, guard rails for rooftop decks, and towers including stairway or elevator towers with minimum landings for egress are not considered a part of the height of a structure, but all portions of the roof and roof parapet are included.

3. Additional Height Allowances. See Section 30.140.100, Exceptions to Height Limitations.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
20 FIGURE 30.15.090.B: MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT ON SLOPED LOTS AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
21 D. Measuring the Height of Fences and Hedges. The height of a fence or hedge is measured in a vertical line vertically from the lowest point of contact with the ground directly adjacent to both sides of the fence or hedge on either side to the highest point of the fence or hedge along said that same vertical line.

1. Multiple Fences and Hedges. All fences and hedges located within five feet of each other, including fences and hedges on adjoining lots, shall be considered a single fence or hedge. The height of multiple fences and hedges that are subject to the same height limitation shall be measured from the lowest point of contact with the ground of a fence or hedge to the highest point of any other fence or hedge located within five feet. The horizontal separation shall be measured from the surfaces of the fences or hedges that face each other. When two or more fences or hedges are placed within five feet of each other they are treated as a single fence or hedge for the purpose of measuring height. This includes fences or hedges located on the same property or on adjacent properties.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
22 a. The five-foot distance is measured between the sides of the fences or hedges that face each other.
b. In such cases, the height is measured from the lowest ground level at the base of any of the fences or hedges to the highest point of any of them. c. If the distance between fences or hedges is five feet or more, each one is measured separately.

2. Fence and Retaining Wall Combinations. Where a fence is placed within five feet of a retaining wall, the total combined height of both elements must not exceed the maximum fence height allowed in that location. Each element must still comply with its individual height limit as specified in this Title.

3. Fence and Hedge Combinations. When a fence or retaining wall is located within five feet of a hedge, the total combined height of all elements may equal the maximum hedge height allowed in that location. Each element must still comply with its individual height limit a specified in this Title.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
23 FIGURE 30.15.090.D: MEASURING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES AND HEDGES E. Determining Prescribed Landscape Height. The prescribed heights of landscape are the heights to be attained within five years after planting, unless otherwise specified in this code.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
24 F. Measuring the Height of Decks and Patios. Deck and patio height is determined by measuring from the ground below to the top of the surface of the deck or patio directly above.

Guardrails, the minimum height required by the Building Code, are exempt from the height measurement.

FIGURE 30.15.090.F: MEASURING HEIGHT OF DECKS AND PATIOS G. Determining the Number of Stories in a Building. In determining the number of stories in a building or structure, the following rules apply:

1. The number of stories in a building or structure shall be construed to be the maximum number of stories through which any one of an unlimited number of possible vertical lines can pass, without passing through a wall.

2. An interior balcony or mezzanine is counted as a story if its floor area exceeds onethird of the total area of the nearest full floor directly below it.

3. Any floor which is partly below and partly above grade, such as a basement, cellar, or understory, shall be counted as a story if more than a cumulative total width of 12 feet per elevation has a distance from finished grade to ceiling greater than four feet.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
25 4. An attic half-story, when applicable, is identified by “.5” in the description of maximum height. An attic half-story is not counted as a whole story when its top wall plates, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are less than four feet above the floor of such story.

FIGURE 30.15.090.G: DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF STORIES
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
26 30.15.100 Measuring Setbacks and Stepbacks.

Setbacks are measured as the distance between any lot line and a line parallel to the lot line the depth of such area being the distance required by this Title.

A. Front Setbacks. If a portion of the property is located within a street dedication, the setback is measured from the boundary of the street dedication.

B. Upper Story Setbacks. Upper story setbacks shall apply to all portions of any upper story except as provided in Section 30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards.

C. Upper Story Stepbacks. Upper story stepbacks shall be measured at the required setback line. For example, if the setback is 15 feet, with a 5-foot stepback, the portion of the building subject to the stepback shall be stepped back a minimum of 5 feet from the 15-foot setback line (i.e., 20 feet from the property line). Upper story stepbacks apply to all portions of any upper story except as provided in Section 30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards. Recessed areas on interior upper story stepbacks may not be used as an unenclosed, unroofed balcony, deck, terrace, or other usable space, but in no case shall it be enclosed or extend past the plane of the floor below.

D. Multiple Required Setbacks. If there are multiple required setbacks, the more restrictive applies.

E. First Story Building Setbacks. First story setbacks for any building are measured from the outer edge of the building foundation at the first floor level.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
27 FIGURE 30.15.100: MEASURING SETBACKS
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
28 FIGURE 30.15.100.C: MEASURING UPPER STORY STEPBACKS

30.15.110 Measuring Street Frontage.

Street frontage is measured along the front lot line.

30.15.120 Screening.

These standards provide methods for the screening and buffering of surface parking, mechanical equipment, and any other objects or land uses as required by this code to minimize visual, noise, and privacy impacts to surrounding properties and rights-of-way.

A. Screening Generally. Unless otherwise stated in this section, objects and activities are considered “screened” when they are either not publicly visible, as defined in Section 30.300.160 “P” of this code, or behind a solid six-foot-high fence or hedge where such fence or hedge is otherwise AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
29 allowed by zoning. Screening shall be required for the repair, rehabilitation, expansion, new installation, or relocation of any object or land use to be screened.

B. Uncovered Parking. Uncovered automobile parking shall be screened, in locations as specified by Section 30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking, consistent with one of the following:

1. On a site with four or fewer automobile parking spaces, uncovered parking must be screened from public view, except at driveways necessary for ingress and egress, by a solid fence, wall, driveway gate, or a compact evergreen hedge, with a maximum height between five and six feet and a minimum distance of 10 feet from the front lot line. The area between the lot line and such fence or wall must be landscaped; or

2. If located more than 35 feet from a front lot line, and includes no more than four automobile parking spaces, uncovered parking is considered screened by the distance from the front lot line; or

3. On a site with five or more automobile parking spaces, applicable fence and landscape buffers, consistent with Section 30.175.080 Parking Area Landscape and Fence Standards, must be provided for screening.

C. Trash and Recycling. Trash and recycling containers must be screened and located in compliance with the standards in Section 30.140.240, Waste, Recycling, and Outdoor Storage.

D. Screening Materials. Screening may include fences and walls, landscape, equipment painted to match the building, building parapets, or other architectural elements in the building’s architectural style.

E. Screening Height. All screen devices shall be as high as the highest point of the object being screened but shall not exceed applicable maximum height limitations. Screening height shall be measured as the vertical distance between the finished grade at the base of the screen and the top edge of the screen material.

F. Exceptions.

1. Solar energy (i.e., photovoltaic) panels and electric vehicle charging stations shall not be subject to the screening requirements described in this section. However, accessory power equipment associated with these systems shall be fully screened.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
30 2. Where an applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the appropriate Design Review body that variations in the requirements of this section are warranted in order to provide relief for existing site constraints, or to achieve a superior aesthetic or environmental design, screening may be reduced or waived by the Design Review body.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
31 SECTION 2. Chapter 30.20 of Title 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Division II: Zone Regulations; Part 1: Base Zones
Chapter 30.20 Residential Zones
Sections:

30.20.010 Purpose

30.20.020 Land Use Regulations

30.20.030 Development Standards

30.20.010 Purpose.

The specific purposes of the Residential Zones are to:

A. Preserve, protect, and enhance the character of the City’s different residential neighborhoods.

B. Provide for a full range of housing options to suit the spectrum of individual lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to meet the needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Plan.

C. Ensure adequate light, air, and open space for each residence, enhance livability, and develop and sustain a suitable residential environment.

D. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are compatible with the scale, mass, and character of their neighborhoods.

E. Provide sites for public, semi-public, and neighborhood serving land uses that are appropriate in a residential environment, such as day care, schools, neighborhood markets in twounit residential and residential multi-unit zones, and community facilities that provide goods and services to support daily life within walking distance of neighborhoods and complement surrounding residential development.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
32 F. Implement and provide appropriate regulations for General Plan residential density classifications. of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, and High Density Residential.

Additional purposes of each Residential Zone follow:

1. RS Residential Single Unit. This zone is intended to provide areas for single-unit housing on individual lots at appropriate low densities of one unit per legal lot with allowances for an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Two-Unit Residential Development when certain standards are met. Designators (e.g. -25, -15) refer to minimum lot size in thousands of square feet or, in the case of RS-1A, acres. The regulations for the RS Zone are intended to limit activities which would be inharmonious with or injurious to the preservation and character of a residential environment. Nonresidential uses are limited to those that support daily life of neighborhoods and complement surrounding residential development.

Nonresidential uses are strictly limited in order to mitigate impacts associated with nonresidential uses such as: traffic, increased parking demand, light, glare, and noise.

2. R-2 Two-Unit Residential. This zone is intended to provide areas for medium density residential where the principal use of land is for two-unit residences. Single-unit residence and garden apartment developments are also allowed. The regulations for this zone are intended to limit activities which would be inharmonious with or injurious to the preservation and character of a residential environment. Nonresidential uses are limited to those that support daily life of neighborhoods, complement surrounding residential development, and mitigate impacts to traffic, parking demand, light, glare, and noise.

3. R-M Residential Multi-Unit. This zone is intended to provide areas for a variety of multi-unit housing types. The regulations for this zone are intended to limit activities which would be inharmonious with or injurious to the preservation and character of a residential environment. Nonresidential uses are limited to those that support daily life of neighborhoods, complement surrounding residential development, and mitigate impacts to traffic, parking demand, light, glare, and noise.

4. R-MH Residential Multi-Unit and Hotel. This zone is intended to provide areas for a variety of multi-unit housing types. It is also the intent of this zone to allow hotels and similar establishments, including related restaurant, recreational, conference center, and other auxiliary uses primarily for use by hotel guests, while protecting the existing housing stock, and preserving the residential character of those neighborhoods that are still primarily AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
33 residential. Regulations for this zone are designed to control activities of a retail nonresidential nature and those which would tend to be inharmonious with housing.

30.20.020 Land Use Regulations.

Table 30.20.020, Land Use Regulations-Residential Zones, prescribes the land use regulations for Residential Zones.

Use classifications are defined in Chapter 30.295, Use Classifications. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Community Development Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table, or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below, are prohibited.

The table also notes additional land use regulations that apply to various uses. Numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. Section numbers in the righthand column refer to other sections of this Title.

TABLE 30.20.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–RESIDENTIAL ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification RS R-2 R-M R-MH Additional
Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types
Single-Unit Residential A A A A
Two-Unit Residential A(8) A A A
§30.185.440, TwoUnit Residential
Development
Multi-Unit Residential – A(1) A A
Special Residential Unit Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit A A A A
§30.185.040,
Accessory Dwelling
Units
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
34 TABLE 30.20.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–RESIDENTIAL ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification RS R-2 R-M R-MH Additional
Regulations
Additional Residential Unit PSP – – –
§30.185.050,
Additional
Residential Unit
Caretaker Unit – – A A
§30.185.120,
Caretaker Unit
Garden Apartment – CUP – –
§30.185.180, Garden
Apartment
Developments
Planned Residential Development CUP – – –
§30.185.330,
Planned Residential
Development
Community Care Facilities,
Residential Care Facilities for the
Elderly, and Hospices
6 or fewer individuals A A A A
7 to 12 15 individuals PSP PSP PSPA PSPA
More than 12 16 or more individuals CUP PSP CUP PSP CUP PSP CUP PSP §30.185.140,
Community Care
Facilities, Residential
Care Facilities for the
Elderly, and
Hospices
Family Day Care Home A A A A
§30.185.230, Large
and Small Family
Day Care Homes
Small A A A A
Large PSP PSP PSP PSP
§30.185.230, Large
Family Day Care
Homes
Group Residential CUP(2) CUP CUP CUP §30.185.190, Group Residential
Home Occupation A A A A
§30.185.200, Home
Occupation
Live-Work Unit Allowed subject to the highest permit level required for any individual use or component of the project.
§30.185.240, LiveWork Units
Mobilehome Park CUP(3) CUP(3) CUP(3) CUP(3)
§30.185.280,
Mobilehome and
Permanent
Recreational Vehicle
Parks
Supportive Housing §30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
35 TABLE 30.20.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–RESIDENTIAL ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification RS R-2 R-M R-MH Additional
Regulations
Transitional Housing §30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing Public and Semi-Public Uses (4)
Cemetery CUP CUP CUP CUP
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP
Community Garden A A A A
§30.185.130,
Community and
Market Gardens
Cultural Institution CUP CUP CUP CUP
Day Care Center CUP CUP A/CUP A/CUP §30.185.150, Day
Care Centers
Emergency Shelter CUP CUP CUP CUP §30.185.170,
Emergency Shelter
Hospitals and Clinics – – – CUP
Park and Recreation Facility CUP CUP CUP CUP §30.185.350, Recreation Facilities
Public Facility CUP CUP CUP CUP
Recreational Vehicle Park
Recreational Vehicle and Camping
Parks, Overnight – – – CUP
§30.185.320,
Overnight
Recreational Vehicle
or Camping Parks
Recreational Vehicle Parks,
Permanent CUP(3) CUP(3) CUP(3) CUP(3)
§30.185.280,
Mobilehome and
Permanent
Recreational Vehicle
Parks
Schools CUP CUP CUP CUP
Skilled Nursing Facility – – – CUP
Social Service Facilities CUP(5) CUP(5) CUP(5) CUP(5)
Commercial Uses
Agriculture A(2) A(2) A(2) A(2) §30.185.070,
Agriculture
Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
36 TABLE 30.20.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–RESIDENTIAL ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification RS R-2 R-M R-MH Additional
Regulations
Large-scale CUP(6) CUP(6) CUP(6) CUP(6) §30.185.350,
Recreation Facilities
Eating and Drinking Establishments – – – CUP(7)
Hotels and Similar Uses – – CUP(10) A
§30.185.220, Hotels
and Similar Uses
Market Garden CUP PSP PSP PSP
§30.185.130,
Community and
Market Gardens
Parking, Public or Private
(Nonresidential) CUP CUP CUP CUP
Retail Sales, Neighborhood Market – PSP PSP PSP
§30.185.370, Retail
Sales, Neighborhood
Market
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Telecommunications Facilities §30.185.410, Telecommunications Facilities Public Works and Utilities §30.185.340, Public Works and Utilities Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Buildings A A A A
§30.185.030,
Accessory Uses and
§30.140.020,
Accessory Buildings,
Alcoholic Beverage Retail
Establishments CUP(9) CUP(9) CUP(9) CUP(9)
§30.185.075,
Alcoholic Beverage
Retail
Establishments
Animal Keeping A A A A
§30.185.210, Horse
Keeping and
SBMC 6.08, Care and
Keeping of Animals
Cannabis Cultivation, Personal §30.185.110, Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use Development is allowed subject to the regulations of the specific uses and applicable zone and permit requirements for any individual use or component of the project.

Mobilehome §30.185.270, Mobilehomes, Recreational Vehicles, and Modular Units, Individual Use; and §30.185.420 Temporary Uses
Nonconforming Use Chapter 30.165, Nonconforming Uses, Site Development, and Uses AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
37 TABLE 30.20.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–RESIDENTIAL ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification RS R-2 R-M R-MH Additional
Regulations
Solar Energy Systems §30.140.090.D.8, Solar Energy Systems Encroachments, and §30.185.400, Solar Energy Systems
Temporary Use §30.185.420, Temporary Uses
Specific Limitations

1. No more than two residential units may be located in any one building.

2. Limited to convents and monasteries.

2. Agriculture uses are limited to accessory uses only.

3. Not allowed in a Historic or Landmark District. Allowed within a High Fire Hazard Area if designed to meet high fire construction standards adopted or enforced by the City, as determined by the Chief Building Official or the Fire Code Official.

4. Other public or semi-public facilities not specifically permitted allowed may be allowed in any zone pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval.

5. Must be located a minimum 300 feet from any other social service facility or emergency shelter.

6. Limited to outdoor tennis clubs, lawn bowling clubs, golf courses and driving ranges. Miniature golf is not allowed.

7. There shall be a minimum of 100 established hotel-motel guestrooms closer than 500 feet of the boundary of the restaurant site or as allowed pursuant to §30.185.220, Hotels and Similar Uses. The 100 guestrooms may be used to support any number of restaurants.

8. Limited to specific standards in §30.185.440, Two-Unit Residential Development.

9. Limited to uses permitted allowed in the zone.

10. Limited to Hotels located in Structures of Merit or Landmarks pursuant to Chapter 30.157, Historic Resources or in another structure on the same lot as a Structure of Merit or Landmark used as a Hotel.

30.20.030 Development Standards.

Tables 30.20.030.A and 30.20.030.B prescribe the development standards for Residential Zones.

Section numbers refer to other sections of this Title, while individual letters refer to subsections that directly follow the tables. Additional regulations that apply throughout the City are located in Division III, Citywide Regulations.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
38 TABLE 30.20.030.A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–RESIDENTIAL SINGLE UNIT ZONES Zone RS-1A RS-25 RS-15 RS-10 RS-7.5 RS-6
Lot Size and Street Frontage
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly
Created Lots (sq. ft. unless noted) See also Chapter 27.60, Parcel Maps for Urban Lot Splits Average Slope less than 10%, and all
lots with frontage on the Pacific
Ocean regardless of slope
1 acre 25,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 6,000
Average Slope 10% to 20% 1.5 acre 37,500 22,500 15,000 11,250 9,000 Average Slope over 20% to 30% 2 acres 50,000 30,000 20,000 15,000 12,000 Average Slope over 30% 3 acres 75,000 45,000 30,000 22,500 18,000 100 100 90 75 60 60
Minimum Public Street Frontage (ft.) See also §30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and §30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines
Maximum Base Residential Density
Maximum Density (per lot) 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit Additional Residential Density Allowances
All lots, in compliance with the
applicable section
See §30.185.050, Additional Residential Unit
See §30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units
See §30.185.440, Two-Unit Residential Development
See Chapter 30.145, Affordable Housing and Density Bonus and Development Incentives
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(Floor to Lot Area Ratio) (sq. ft.)
Applicable only to lots developed, or proposed to be developed, with a building with two or more stories or 17 feet or more in height.

Less than 4,000 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 2,200. See also A, Maximum Floor Area Ratio (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) 4,000 to 9,999 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 1,200 + (0.25 multiplied by the net lot area) = Maximum Floor Area. See also (A), Maximum Floor Area Ratio (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) 10,000 to 14,999 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 2,500 + (0.125 multiplied by the net lot area) = Maximum Floor Area. See also A, Maximum Floor Area Ratio (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) 15,000 and more sq. ft. Net Lot Area Not Applicable
Structure Form and Location
Minimum Residential Unit Size
Studio: 220 square feet;
All other units: 400 square feet
See §30.140.150, Residential Unit
Maximum Height (ft.) 30, except as further limited in accordance with §30.140.170, Solar Access Height Limitations
Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks (ft.),
Residential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
39 TABLE 30.20.030.A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–RESIDENTIAL SINGLE UNIT ZONES Zone RS-1A RS-25 RS-15 RS-10 RS-7.5 RS-6
See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards 35 30 30 25 20
15; Portions of
structures over 15
feet in height:
+5Portions of
structures 15 feet or
less in height: 15;
Portions of
structures more
than 15 feet in
height: 20;
Street facing
covered parking: 20
Front
See also 30.20.030.B, Setback Reduction for Sloping Lots Interior 15 10 10 8 6 5
Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks (ft.),
Nonresidential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards Front Same as for Residential Structures
Front 35 30 30 25 20
15; Portions of
structures over 15
feet in height: +5
Interior (Conversion and Alterations)
Conversions of existing residential structures to nonresidential structures, or alterations of existing structures that contain nonresidential uses, are subject to the setback requirements for residential structures. 30 20 20 12 16 12 10
Interior (New or Additions) Exception: Community Gardens are subject to the setback requirements for residential structures.

Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks,
Mixed Use
Residential portions follow residential setbacks; nonresidential and mixed-use portions follow nonresidential setbacks
Minimum Setbacks, Mixed-Use
Portions of structures that contain residential uses are subject to the setback for residential structures, and portions of structures used for nonresidential uses are subject to the setback requirement for nonresidential structures.

Portions of structures used by both the residential and nonresidential uses are subject to the setback requirement for nonresidential structures.

Minimum Setbacks, Uncovered Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Minimum Setbacks (ft.), Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Front, Street-Facing 35 30 30 25 20 20
Front, Non-Street-Facing 35 30 30 25 20 15
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
40 TABLE 30.20.030.A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–RESIDENTIAL SINGLE UNIT ZONES Zone RS-1A RS-25 RS-15 RS-10 RS-7.5 RS-6
Interior, Covered – Residential Use 15 10 10 8 6 5
Interior, Covered – Nonresidential Use 30 20 20 16 12 10 Interior, Uncovered 3-foot wide landscape buffer along the interior property line Building Materials Roofing and siding materials shall be nonreflective. Shiny, mirror like, or glossy metallic finishes are prohibited.

Open Yard and Landscape
Open Yards Any lot developed with residential uses must provide open yard pursuant to See §30.140.140, Open Yards
Landscape Any lot developed with residential uses must provide landscape areas pursuant to §30.140.118, Landscape
TABLE 30.20.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT ZONES Zone R-2 R-M R-MH
Lot Size and Street Frontage
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly Created Lots
(sq. ft.)
Average Slope less than 10% 7,000
Average Slope 10% to 20% 10,500
Average Slope over 20% to 30% 14,000
Average Slope over 30% 21,000
14,000 14,000
60 60 60
Minimum Public Street Frontage (ft.) See §30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and §30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines
Maximum Base Residential Density
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 1 unit 1 unit
5,000 to 5,999 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 1 unit 2 units
6,000 to 6,999 sq. ft. Net Lot Area
2 units if average
slope less than
10%, 1 unit
otherwise
2 units
7,000 and more sq. ft. Net Lot Area
Average Slope less than 10% 1 unit/3,500 sq. ft. of
net lot area
3 units, or 1 unit/3,500 sq. ft. of net
lot area, whichever is greater
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
41 TABLE 30.20.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT ZONES Zone R-2 R-M R-MH
Average Slope 10% to 20% 1 unit/5,250 sq. ft. of
net lot area
Average Slope over 20% to 30% 1 unit/7,000 sq. ft. of
net lot area
Average Slope over 30% 1 unit/10,500 sq. ft.
of net lot area
Additional Residential Density Allowances
All lots, in compliance with the applicable section
See §30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units
See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program
See Chapter 30.145, Affordable Housing and Density Bonus and Development Incentives
Structure Form and Location
Minimum Residential Unit Size See §30.140.150, Residential Unit 30 45 45
Maximum Height (ft.) Except as further limited in accordance with §30.140.170, Solar Access Height Limitations
Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks (ft.),
Residential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site
Development, and Uses
See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and
Open Yards
See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program
15; Portions of
structures over 15
feet in height: +5
10; Portions of structures over 25 feet
Front in height: +10
See also 30.20.030.B, Setback Reduction for Sloping Lots Interior 6
6; Portions of structures over 25 feet
in height: +4
Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks (ft.),
Nonresidential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site
Development, and Uses
See also §30.140.090, Encroachments
Front
15; Portions of
structures over 15
feet in height: +5
10; Portions of structures over 25 feet
in height: +10
Interior 12; Portions of structures over 25 feet in height: +8 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
42 TABLE 30.20.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT ZONES Zone R-2 R-M R-MH
1st and 2nd Stories: 10
Portions of structures above 2nd
story: 20
Front
Portions of structures
15 feet or less in
height: 15;
Portions of structures
more than 15 feet in
height: 20;
Street facing covered
parking: 20
See also (B), Setback
Reduction for Sloping
Lots
Covered parking: 10
Covered parking, street-facing: 20
1st and 2nd Stories: 6
Portions of structures above 2nd
story: 10
Interior
Covered parking: 3
Other structures: 6
Covered parking:
● Single-Unit Residential and TwoUnit Residential: 3
● Multi-Unit Residential: 6 except as
provided in (C), Interior Setback
Reduction for Covered Parking on Lots
55 Feet or Less and (D), Interior
Setback for Covered Parking Opposite
the Primary Front Lot Line
Minimum Setbacks (ft.), Nonresidential
Structures
See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and
Open Yards
Front Same as for Residential Structures
Interior (Conversions and Alterations)
Conversions of existing residential structures to
nonresidential structures, or alterations of existing structures that contain nonresidential uses, are subject to the setback requirements for residential structures.

Interior (New or Additions) 12
New nonresidential structures or
additions to existing nonresidential
structures are subject to the following
interior setback:
● 1
st and 2nd Stories: 12
● Portions of structures above
2 nd story: 20
● Exception: Neighborhood Markets
and Community Gardens are subject
to the setback requirements for
residential structures.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
43 TABLE 30.20.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT ZONES Zone R-2 R-M R-MH
Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks, Mixed-Use
Residential portions follow residential setbacks;
nonresidential and mixed-use portions follow nonresidential setbacks
Minimum Setbacks, Mixed-Use
Portions of structures that contain residential uses are subject to the setback for residential structures, and portions of structures used for nonresidential uses are subject to the setback requirement for nonresidential structures.

Portions of structures used by both the residential and nonresidential uses are subject to the setback requirement for nonresidential structures.

Minimum Setbacks, Uncovered Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking
Minimum Setbacks (ft.), Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking
Front, Street-Facing 20
Front, Non-Street-Facing
15; Portions of
structures over 15
feet in height: +5
10; Portions of structures over 25 feet
in height: +10
Interior, Covered, 4 or Fewer Spaces –
Residential Use 3
Interior, Covered, 5 or More Spaces –
Residential Use
6; 3 feet on the lot line opposite the primary front lot line. If the lot has two or more front lot lines, only one opposite lot line may qualify for the reduced setback
Interior, Covered, Lots ≤ 55 ft –
Residential Use
May be reduced to 3 feet if:
• The lot is less than 55 feet wide at the location of the covered parking structure,
• The parking opening does not face a street or alley, and • The interior depth of the covered parking structure does not exceed 20 feet
Interior, Covered – Nonresidential Use 12
Interior, Uncovered Parking 3-foot wide landscape buffer along the interior property line Materials Roofing and siding materials must be nonreflective. Shiny, mirror like, or glossy metallic finishes are prohibited Open Yard and Landscape
Open Yards
Any lot developed with residential uses must provide open yard pursuant to See §30.140.140, Open Yards
See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program
Landscape Any lot developed with residential uses must provide landscape areas pursuant to §30.140.118, Landscape
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
44 Additional Residential Zone Development Regulations
A. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) (FAR) Standards.

1. Measuring Floor Area. For the purposes of determining floor area, refer to Section 30.15.075, Measuring Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

2. Applicability in RS Zones. The Maximum FAR standards apply to any project that increases floor area on a lot, if all of the following apply:
a. The lot is located in an RS zone; and
b. The lot is less than 15,000 square feet in area; and c. The lot is developed, or proposed to be developed, with a building of two or more stories or a height of 17 feet or greater.

3. Maximum FAR Exception. A project that meets the criteria in Subsection A.2 and any of the conditions listed below in Subsection A.3 is prohibited unless a Maximum FAR Exception is approved by the applicable Design Review body:
a. The proposed floor area exceeds 100% of the Maximum FAR for the lot; or b. The proposed floor area exceeds 85% of the Maximum FAR for the lot, and one or more of the following apply:
i. The average slope of the lot or building site is 30% or greater; or ii. The height of any structure on the lot exceeds 25 feet; or iii. The lot is located within the Hillside Design District and 500 or more cubic yards of grading is proposed outside the footprint of the main or accessory buildings.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
45 4. Required Findings for Maximum FAR Exception. The Design Review body must make all of the following findings in order to approve a Maximum FAR Exception pursuant to Subsection A.3:
a. The subject lot has a physical condition—such as location, surroundings, topography, or the size or dimensions of the lot relative to other lots in the neighborhood—that does not generally exist on other lots in the neighborhood; and
b. The physical condition of the lot allows the proposed project to be compatible with existing development within the neighborhood that complies with the applicable Maximum FAR standard.

1. Floor Area, Precluded Development-RS Zones. No application for a Building Permit may be approved for a project in an RS Zone that will: (1) result in an increase of the floor area on the lot; (2) change the location of any floor area on the second or higher story of any structure on the lot; or (3) increase the height of any portion of a structure on the lot to 17 feet or higher if any of the following will occur:
a. The floor area will exceed the allowable maximum floor area for the lot; or b. The floor area will exceed 85% of the allowable maximum floor area and any of the following apply:
i. The average slope of the lot or the building site is 30% or greater, ii. The height of any structure on the lot is more than 25 feet, or iii. The lot is located in the Hillside Design District and 500 or more cubic yards of grading is proposed to occur outside the footprint of the main or accessory buildings. Soil located within five feet of an exterior wall of a main or accessory building that is excavated and recompacted shall not be included in the calculation of the volume of grading outside the building footprint.

2. Measuring Floor Area Pursuant to this Section. In determining floor area pursuant to this section see Section 30.15.070, Measuring Floor Area, and the following:

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
46 a. Below Grade Excluded. On any floor which is partly below and partly above grade, such as a basement, cellar, or understory, the total floor area of that floor may be excluded from the floor to lot area ratio (FAR) if no more than a cumulative total width of 12 feet per elevation has a distance from finished grade to ceiling greater than four feet.
b. Partially Below Grade Reduced. On any floor which is partly below and partly above grade, such as a basement, cellar or understory, the total floor area of that floor may be reduced by 50% from the floor to lot area ratio (FAR) if more than 12 feet, but less than one half the entire length of the perimeter has a distance from grade to ceiling greater than four feet.
c. All Other Floor Area Included. If more than one half the entire length of the perimeter of any floor has a distance from grade to ceiling greater than four feet, it is included in the floor to lot area ratio (FAR).
d. Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Included. Floor area within a portion of a structure designed and permitted as an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is included.

FIGURE 30.20.030.A.2: MEASURING FLOOR AREA
B. Setback Reduction for Sloping Lots.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
47 1. Residential Single Unit Zones. In Residential Single Unit zones, where the average natural slope of the area within 50 feet of the front lot line is more than 20%, the required front setback and stepback for all stories is reduced by five feet.

2. R-2 Zone. In the R-2 Zone, where the average natural slope of the area within 50 feet of the front lot line is more than 20%, the required front setback and stepback for all stories is reduced to 10 feet.

C. Interior Setback Reduction for Covered Parking on Lots 55 Feet or Less. the required interior setback for covered parking on lots in the R-M or R-MH zone less than 55 feet in width, measured at the location of the covered parking structure, may be reduced to three feet provided the covered parking opening does not face a street or alley and the interior depth of the covered parking structure does not exceed 20 feet.

D. Interior Setback Reduction for Covered Parking Opposite the Primary Front Lot Line. The required interior setback for covered parking on lots in the R-M or RMH zone developed with multi-unit residential may be reduced to three feet on the lot line opposite the primary front lot line. In the event of two or more front lot lines, the setback of only one opposite lot line may be reduced to three feet.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
48 FIGURE 30.20.030.C AND DB: INTERIOR SETBACK REDUCTION FOR COVERED

PARKING
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
49 SECTION 3. Chapter 30.25 of Title 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 30.25 Commercial and Office Zones
Sections:

30.25.010 Purpose

30.25.020 Land Use Regulations

30.25.030 Development Standards

30.25.010 Purpose.

The specific purposes of the Commercial and Office Zones are to:

A. Provide for the orderly, well-planned, and balanced development of commercial, office, and residential areas.

B. Encourage a mix of uses that promotes convenience, economic vitality, fiscal stability, and a pleasant quality of life.

C. Provide for a full range of commercial, retail, and professional services to serve the city, its residents, employees, and visitors.

D. Promote pedestrian- and transit-oriented mixed-use areas at appropriate locations.

E. Provide appropriate transition between commercial and office uses and adjacent residential zones to preserve commercial feasibility and provide a desirable living environment by preserving and protecting surrounding residential land uses in terms of light, air, and existing visual amenities.

F. Implement and provide appropriate regulations for a variety of multi-unit housing types and mixed-use projects General Plan classifications of Commercial/Medium High Residential, Commercial/High Residential, Office/Medium Density Residential, Office/Medium High Residential, and Office/High Residential.

Additional purposes of each Commercial and Office Zone follow.

O-R Office Restricted. The O-R Zone is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, and public offices as well as a mix of complementary uses. This zone is a transitional zone between major commercial zones and residential zones.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
50 O-M Office Medical. The O-M Zone is intended to provide sites for medical, dental, and related professional offices, and complementary uses, near a major medical facility.

C-R Commercial Restricted. The C-R Zone is intended for pedestrian-oriented commercial development that primarily serves neighborhood needs such as convenience shopping and offices.

C-G Commercial General. The C-G Zone is intended to provide a wide range of commercial uses, serving as the City’s major retail, professional, and service zone.

30.25.020 Land Use Regulations.

Table 30.25.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Commercial and Office Zones.

Use classifications are defined in Chapter 30.295, Use Classifications. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Community Development Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table, or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below, are prohibited.

The table also notes additional land use regulations that apply to various uses. Numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. Section numbers in the right hand column refer to other sections of this Title.

TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types
Single-Unit Residential A A A A
Two-Unit Residential A A A A
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
51 TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations Multi-Unit Residential A A A A
Special Residential Unit
Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit A A A A
§30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling
Units
Caretaker Unit A A A A §30.185.120, Caretaker Unit
Community Care Facilities,
Residential Care Facilities
for the Elderly, and
Hospices
6 or fewer individuals A A A A
7 to 1215 individuals A A A A
More than 1216 or more
individuals CUPPSP CUPPSP CUPPSP CUPPSP
§30.185.140, Community Care
Facilities, Residential Care
Facilities for the Elderly, and
Hospices
Family Day Care Home A A A A
§30.185.230, Large and Small
Family Day Care Homes
Small A A A A
Large A A A A
§30.185.230, Large Family Day
Care Homes
Group Residential PSP PSP PSP PSP §30.185.190, Group Residential Home Occupation A A A A §30.185.200, Home Occupation
Live-Work Unit
Allowed subject to the highest permit level
required for any individual use or
component of the project.
§30.185.240, Live-Work Units
Mobilehome Park CUP(1) CUP(1) CUP(1) CUP(1)
§30.185.280, Mobilehome and
Permanent Recreational Vehicle
Parks
Supportive Housing §30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing Transitional Housing §30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing Public and Semi-Public Uses (2)
Cemetery CUP CUP CUP A
College and Trade School CUP CUP CUP A
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP A
Community Garden A A A A
§30.185.130, Community and
Market Gardens
Cultural Institution CUP CUP CUP A
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
52 TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations Day Care Center A/CUP A/CUP A A §30.185.150, Day Care Centers Emergency Shelter CUP CUP CUP CUP §30.185.170, Emergency Shelter Hospitals and Clinics
Hospital – CUP CUP CUP
Clinic CUP A CUP A
Birth Center – A A A
Instructional Services – – A A
Park and Recreation
Facility CUP CUP CUP CUP §30.185.350, Recreation Facilities Public Facilities CUP CUP CUP A
Recreational Vehicle and
Camping Parks, Overnight – – CUP CUP
§30.185.320, Overnight
Recreational Vehicle and
Camping Parks
Recreational Vehicle Parks,
Permanent CUP(1) CUP(1) CUP(1) CUP(1)
§30.185.280, Mobilehome and
Permanent Recreational Vehicle
Parks
Schools CUP CUP CUP A
Skilled Nursing Facility – CUP CUP CUP
Social Service Facilities CUP(3) CUP(3) CUP(3) CUP(3)
Commercial Uses
Adult Entertainment
Facilities – – – A
§30.185.060, Adult
Entertainment Facilities
Agriculture A(21) A(21) A(21) A(21) §30.185.070, Agriculture Animal Care, Sales and
Services
Animal Daycare – – A(4) A(4)
Animal Shelter and
Boarding – – A(5) A(5)
Grooming and Pet Stores – – A(4) A(4)
Veterinary Services – – A(4) A(4)
Artist Studio – – A A
Automated Teller Machine A A A A
§30.185.080, Automated Teller
Machines
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
53 TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations Automobile/Vehicle Sales
and Services
Automobile/Vehicle
Rentals – – A A
Automobile/Vehicle Sales
and Leasing – – – A(6)
Car Washing Facilities – – PSP PSP
§30.185.090, Automobile/Vehicle
Fueling Stations or Car Washing
Facilities
Fueling Station – – PSP(7) PSP
§30.185.090, Automobile/Vehicle
Fueling Stations or Car Washing
Facilities
Service and Repair, Minor – – CUP A
Banks and Financial
Institutions A A/PSP(8) A A
§30.185.100, Banks and Financial
Institutions in the O-M Zone
Business Services – – A A
Cannabis StorefrontRetailer – – A(19) A(19) Chapter 9.44 Commercial Cannabis Businesses
Commercial Entertainment
and Recreation
Cinema/Theater – – – A
Large-scale – – – CUP §30.185.350, Recreation
Facilities
Small-scale – – A A
Eating and Drinking
Establishments – – A A
Food Preparation – – A(9) A(10) §30.185.380, Seafood Odor Control
Funeral Parlors and
Interment Services – – A A
Hotels and Similar Uses CUP(11) – A A
§30.185.220, Hotels and Similar
Uses
Maintenance & Repair
Services – – A A
Market Garden A A A A
§30.185.130, Community and
Market Gardens
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
54 TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations Medical Cannabis
Dispensaries – – – –
Nonconforming Use. Formerly
codified as §30.185.250, Medical
Cannabis Dispensaries
Nurseries and Garden
Centers – – A A
Offices
Business and Professional A A(12) A A
Medical and Dental A A A A
Outdoor Sales and Display – – A(13) A
§30.185.300, Outdoor Sales and
Display
Outdoor Seating – – A(14) A(14)
Parking, Public or Private A A A A
Personal Services – – A A
Retail Sales
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales – – A A
General Retail – A/PSP(15) A A
§30.185.260, Medical Equipment
Supply Stores
Neighborhood Market PSP PSP PSP – PSP – §30.185.370, Retail Sales, Neighborhood Market
Industrial Uses
Building Materials and
Services – – – A(16)
Custom Manufacturing – – – A(16)
Food and Beverage
Manufacturing,
Limited/Small Scale
– – A(16) A(16) §30.185.380, Seafood Odor
Control
Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Facility – – A A
Industry, Limited – – – A(16)
Research and Development A(17) – A(17) A
Warehousing and Storage
Personal Storage – – – A(18)
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
55 TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations Telecommunications
Facilities §30.185.410, Telecommunications Facilities
Transportation Passenger
Terminals – – – PSP
Public Works and Utilities §30.185.340, Public Works and Utilities Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and
Buildings A/PSP A/PSP A/PSP A/PSP §30.185.030, Accessory Uses and §30.140.020, Accessory Buildings Alcoholic Beverage Retail
Establishments CUP(20) CUP(20) CUP(20) CUP(20) §30.185.075, Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishments Animal Keeping A A A A
§30.185.210, Horse Keeping and
SBMC 6.08, Care and Keeping of
Animals
Cannabis Cultivation,
Personal §30.185.110, Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use Development is allowed subject to the regulations of the specific uses and applicable zone and permit requirements for any individual use or component of the project.

Mobilehome §30.185.270, Mobilehomes, Recreational Vehicles, and Modular Units, Individual Use; and §30.185.420 Temporary Uses
Nonconforming Use Chapter 30.165, Nonconforming Uses, Site Development, and Uses Solar Energy Systems §30.140.090.D.8, Solar Energy Systems Encroachments, and §30.185.400, Solar Energy Systems
Temporary Use §30.185.420, Temporary Uses
Specific Limitations

1. Not allowed in a Historic or Landmark District. Allowed within a High Fire Hazard Area if designed to meet high fire construction standards adopted or enforced by the City, as determined by the Chief Building Official or the Fire Code Official.

2. Other public or semi-public facilities not specifically permitted allowed may be allowed in any zone pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval.

3. Must be located a minimum 300 feet from any other social service facility or emergency shelter.

4. All activities shall be conducted within an enclosed building.

5. Limited to boarding of cats and other household pets, excluding dogs. All activities shall be conducted within an enclosed building. Breeding is not permitted allowed.

6. Limited to sales of used automobiles; new or used motorcycles and mopeds are allowed.

7. Limited to no more than six fuel dispensers, which may each serve two vehicles.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
56 TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the
table
Use Classification O-R O-M C-R C-G Additional Regulations

8. Banks with 1,000 square feet of floor area or less per lot are allowed. Banks with more than 1,000 square feet of floor area per lot require Performance Standard Permit approval.

9. Limited to no more than 10 employees at any given time.

10. Limited to no more than 20 employees at any given time.

11. Limited to Hotels located in Structures of Merit or Landmarks pursuant to Chapter 22.22 30.157, Historic Structures Resources or in another structure on the same lot as a Structure of Merit or Landmark used as a Hotel.

12. Limited to offices related to medical and dental field only.

13. Limited to outdoor uses associated with Fueling Stations and Nurseries and Garden Centers.

14. In conjunction with any establishment that serves or sells food or beverages.

15. Limited to pharmacies and medical equipment supply stores. Medical equipment supply stores with 3,000 square feet of floor area or less per lot are allowed. Medical equipment supply stores with more than 3,000 square feet of floor area per lot require a Performance Standard Permit.

16. Limited to no more than 10 employees engaged in manufacturing. Manufacturing activities are limited to accessory uses as defined in §30.185.030, Accessory Uses, and may occupy no more than 25% of the floor area in a structure in the C-R Zone and 50% in the C-G Zone.

17. Limited to the Land Use Regulations, Operational and Performance Standards in Chapter 30.65, Research and Development (RD) Overlay Zone.

18. Individual storage compartments not to exceed 400 square feet in area.

19. Cannabis Storefront-Retailer uses require a commercial cannabis business permit pursuant to Chapter 9.44.

20. Limited to uses permitted allowed in the zone.

21. Agriculture limited to accessory uses only.

30.25.030 Development Standards.

Table 30.25.030 prescribes the development standards for Commercial and Office Zones.

Section numbers refer to other sections of this Title, while individual letters refer to subsections that directly follow the table. Additional regulations that apply throughout the City are located in Division III, Citywide Regulations.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
57 TABLE 30.25.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES Zone O-R O-M C-R C-G
Lot Size and Street Frontage
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly
Created Lots (sq. ft.)
None; except 3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area is required for lots that include residential uses
Minimum Public Street Frontage
(ft.)
None, See §30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and §30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines
Maximum Base Residential Density
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. Net Lot
Area 1 unit
5,000 to 6,999 sq. ft. Net Lot
Area 2 units
7,000 and more sq. ft. Net Lot
Area 3 units, or 1 unit/3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area, whichever is greater Additional Residential Density Allowances
All lots, in compliance with the
applicable section
See §30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units
See §30.140.220, Variable Density in Certain Zones
See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program See Chapter 30.145, Affordable Housing and Density Bonus and Development Incentives
Structure Form and Location
Minimum Residential Unit Size
Studio: 220 square feet;
All other units: 400 square feet
See §30.140.150, Residential Unit
Maximum Height (ft.) 45 45 45
45;
60 for Community
Benefit Project or
Community Benefit
Housing Project
(§30.140.100.B)
See also A, Theater
Additions
Additional Height Limitations
Adjacent to all Residential Zones
Height is further limited in accordance with §30.140.170, Solar Access Height Limitations
Minimum Setbacks and
Stepbacks (ft.), Residential
Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Front 10; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height: +10 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
58 TABLE 30.25.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES Zone O-R O-M C-R C-G
Interior 6; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height: +4 Minimum Setbacks and
Stepbacks (ft.), Nonresidential
Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments
Front 10; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height:
+10 0
Interior, Adjacent to
Nonresidential Zone
6; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height:
+4 0
Interior, Adjacent to
Residential Zone 10; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height: +10 Minimum Setbacks and
Stepbacks, Mixed-Use
Residential portions follow residential setbacks; nonresidential and mixed-use portions follow nonresidential setbacks.

Minimum Setbacks (ft.), Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Front, Street-Facing 20
Front, Non-Street-Facing –
Nonresidential Use 10 0
Front, Non-Street-Facing –
Residential Use 10
Interior, Covered –
Nonresidential Use 6 0
Interior, Covered, 4 or Fewer
Spaces – Residential Use 3
Interior, Covered, 5 or More
Spaces – Residential Use
6; 3 feet on the lot line opposite the primary front lot line. If the lot has two or more front lot lines, only one opposite lot line may qualify for the reduced setback
Interior, Covered, Lots ≤ 55 ft –
Residential Use
May be reduced to 3 feet if:
• The lot is less than 55 feet wide at the location of the covered parking structure,
• The parking opening does not face a street or alley, and • The interior depth of the covered parking structure does not exceed 20 feet
Interior, Uncovered 3-foot wide landscape buffer along the interior property line Front
Residential only development: Same as R-M
Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development:
● 1
st and 2nd Stories: 10
● Portions of structure above 2nd story: 20
Residential only
development: Same as
R-M Zone
Nonresidential and
mixed-use
development: 0
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
59 TABLE 30.25.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES Zone O-R O-M C-R C-G
Interior, Adjacent to a
Nonresidential Zone
Residential only
development: Same as R-M
Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use
development:
● 1
st and 2nd Stories: 6
● Portions of structure above
2nd story: 10
Residential only development: Same as RM Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use
development: 0
Interior, Adjacent to a
Residential Zone
Residential structures, and the residential portion of any mixed-use development: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential structures, and the nonresidential portion of any structure in a mixed-use development, 30 feet or less in height: 15 Nonresidential structures, and the nonresidential portion of any structure in a mixed-use development, more than 30 feet in height: 20 Portions of structures used by both the residential and nonresidential uses are subject to the setback requirement for nonresidential structures.

Uncovered Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Open Yard and Landscape
Open Yards
Any lot developed with residential uses shall provide open yard pursuant to §30.140.140, Open Yards.

See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Landscape Any lot developed with residential uses must provide landscape areas pursuant to §30.140.118, Landscape
Additional Commercial and Office Zone Development Regulations A. Theater Additions. A stage addition to a live performance theater shall not be considered as part of the height of the structure under the following circumstances:

1. The stage addition is devoted solely to rigging fly systems,

2. The addition is made to a theater that existed as of December 31, 2003, and

3. The stage addition does not exceed the height of the theater as such theater existed on December 31, 2003.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
60 SECTION 4. Chapter 30.30 of Title 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 30.30 Manufacturing Zones
Sections:

30.30.010 Purpose

30.30.020 Land Use Regulations

30.30.030 Development Standards

30.30.010 Purpose.

The specific purposes of the Manufacturing Zones are to:

A. Designate adequate land for manufacturing, research and development, and flexible commercial uses to strengthen the city’s economic base and provide a range of employment opportunities for the city and region.

B. Provide areas for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, and service commercial uses and protect areas where such uses now exist.

C. Implement and provide appropriate regulations for General Plan classifications of Commercial Industrial/Medium High Residential and Industrial.

Additional purposes of each Manufacturing Zone follow.

M-C Manufacturing Commercial. The M-C Zone is intended to accommodate a wide range of limited industrial, residential, retail service, office, and research and development uses.

M-I Manufacturing Industrial. The M-I Zone is intended to provide area for a diverse range of industrial uses, including manufacturing and processing, research and development, fabrication, equipment and service yards, and wholesaling. Retail, office, and other nonresidential uses may be allowed as accessory uses to industrial uses.

30.30.020 Land Use Regulations.

Table 30.30.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Manufacturing Zones.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
61 Use classifications are defined in Chapter 30.295, Use Classifications. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table, or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below, are prohibited.

The table also notes additional land use regulations that apply to various uses. Numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. Section numbers in the right hand column refer to other sections of this Title.

TABLE 30.30.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–MANUFACTURING ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit
Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification M-C M-I Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types
Single-Unit Residential A –
Two-Unit Residential A –
Multi-Unit Residential A –
Special Residential Unit Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit A – §30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units Caretaker Unit A A(1) §30.185.120, Caretaker Unit
Community Care Facilities,
Residential Care Facilities for the
Elderly, and Hospices
6 or fewer individuals A –
7 to 12 15 individuals A –
More than 12 16 or more
individuals CUP PSP –
§30.185.140, Community Care Facilities, Residential
Care Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices
Family Day Care Home A – §30.185.230, Large and Small Family Day Care Homes Small A –
Large A –
§30.185.230, Large Family Day Care Homes
Group Residential PSP – §30.185.190, Group Residential
Home Occupation A – §30.185.200, Home Occupation
Live-Work Unit
Allowed
subject to
the highest
permit level
– §30.185.240, Live-Work Units
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
62 TABLE 30.30.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–MANUFACTURING ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit
Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification M-C M-I Additional Regulations
required for
any
individual
use or
component
of the
project.

Mobilehome Park CUP(2) –
§30.185.280, Mobilehome and Permanent Recreational
Vehicle Parks
Supportive Housing §30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing Transitional Housing §30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing Public and Semi-Public Uses (3)
Cemetery A –
College and Trade School A A(4)
Community Assembly A –
Community Garden A A §30.185.130, Community and Market Gardens Cultural Institution A –
Day Care Center A – §30.185.150, Day Care Centers
Emergency Shelter A CUP §30.185.170, Emergency Shelter
Hospitals and Clinics
Hospital CUP –
Clinic A –
Birth Center A –
Instructional Services A –
Park and Recreation Facility CUP – §30.185.350, Recreation Facilities Public Facility A A
Recreational Vehicle and Camping
Parks, Overnight CUP(2) –
§30.185.320, Overnight Recreational Vehicle and
Camping Parks
Recreational Vehicle Parks,
Permanent CUP(2) –
§30.185.280, Mobilehome and Permanent Recreational
Vehicle Parks
Schools A –
Skilled Nursing Facility A –
Social Service Facilities CUP(5) CUP(5)
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
63 TABLE 30.30.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–MANUFACTURING ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit
Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification M-C M-I Additional Regulations
Commercial Uses
Adult Entertainment Facilities A A §30.185.060, Adult Entertainment Facilities Agriculture A(15) A(15) §30.185.070, Agriculture
Animal Care, Sales and Services
Animal Daycare A(6) A
Animal Shelter and Boarding A(7) A
Grooming and Pet Stores A(6) A
Veterinary Services A(6) A
Artist Studio A A
Automated Teller Machine A A §30.185.080, Automated Teller Machines Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Services
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals A A
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing A(8) A(8)
Car Washing Facilities PSP PSP §30.185.090, Automobile/Vehicle Fueling Stations or Car Washing Facilities
Fueling Station PSP A
§30.185.090, Automobile/Vehicle Fueling Stations or
Car Washing Facilities
Service and Repair, Minor A A
Banks and Financial Institutions A –
Business Services A –
Cannabis Storefront-Retailer – A(13) Chapter 9.44 Commercial Cannabis Businesses Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation
Cinema/Theater A –
Large-scale CUP – §30.185.350, Recreation Facilities
Small-scale A –
Eating and Drinking Establishments A A(9)
Food Preparation A A(10) §30.185.380, Seafood Odor Control Funeral Parlors and Interment
Services A A
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
64 TABLE 30.30.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–MANUFACTURING ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit
Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification M-C M-I Additional Regulations
Hotels and Similar Uses A – §30.185.220, Hotels and Similar Uses Maintenance and Repair Services A A
Market Garden A A §30.185.130, Community and Market Gardens Medical Cannabis Dispensaries – –
Nonconforming Use. Formerly codified as §30.185.250,
Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
Nurseries and Garden Centers A A
Offices
Business and Professional A A(9)
Medical and Dental A –
Outdoor Sales and Display A A §30.185.300, Outdoor Sales and Display Outdoor Seating A A
Parking, Public or Private A A
Personal Services A –
Retail Sales
Food and Beverage Retail Sales A A(9)
General Retail A A(9)
Neighborhood Market PSP – – §30.185.370, Retail Sales, Neighborhood Market Industrial Uses
Automobile and Vehicle Repair,
Major A A
Building Materials and Services A A
Commercial Cannabis Business – A(13)
Commercial Vehicle and Equipment
Sales and Rental A A
Construction and Materials Yard A A
Custom Manufacturing A A(10)
Food and Beverage Manufacturing
Limited/Small Scale A(11)
A/PSP
(12)
§30.185.380, Seafood Odor Control
General/Large Scale –
A/PSP
(12)
§30.185.380, Seafood Odor Control
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
65 TABLE 30.30.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–MANUFACTURING ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit
Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification M-C M-I Additional Regulations
Hazardous Waste Management
Facility CUP CUP Chapter 30.55, Hazardous Waste Management Facility (HWMF) Overlay Zone Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Facility A A
Industry, General – A
Industry, Limited A A
Recycling Collection Facility A A
Research and Development A A
Salvage and Wrecking CUP CUP
Towing and Impound A A
Warehousing and Storage
Indoor Warehousing and Storage A A
Outdoor Storage – A §30.185.310, Outdoor Storage
Personal Storage A A
Wholesaling and Distribution – A
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Freight/Truck Terminals and
Warehouses – A
Light Fleet Based Services A A
Telecommunications Facilities §30.185.410, Telecommunications Facilities Transportation Passenger Terminals A A
Public Works and Utilities §30.185.340, Public Works and Utilities Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Buildings A/PSP A/PSP §30.185.030, Accessory Uses, and §30.140.020, Accessory Buildings
Alcoholic Beverage Retail
Establishments CUP(14) CUP(14) §30.185.075, Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishments Animal Keeping A A
§30.185.210, Horse Keeping and SBMC 6.08, Care and
Keeping of Animals
Cannabis Cultivation, Personal §30.185.110, Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
66 TABLE 30.30.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–MANUFACTURING ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit
Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification M-C M-I Additional Regulations
Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use Development is allowed subject to the regulations of the specific uses and applicable zone and permit requirements for any individual use or component of the project.

Mobilehome §30.185.270, Mobilehomes, Recreational Vehicles, and Modular Units, Individual Use; and §30.185.420 Temporary Uses
Nonconforming Use Chapter 30.165, Nonconforming Uses, Site Development, and Uses Solar Energy Systems §30.140.090.D.8, Solar Energy Systems Encroachments, and §30.185.400, Solar Energy Systems
Temporary Use §30.185.420, Temporary Uses
Specific Limitations

1. Limited to a Caretaker Unit of no more than 400 square feet of net floor area.

2. Not allowed in a Historic or Landmark District. Allowed within a High Fire Hazard Area if designed to meet high fire construction standards adopted or enforced by the City, as determined by the Chief Building Official or the Fire Code Official.

3. Other public or semi-public facilities not specifically permitted allowed may be allowed in any zone pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval.

4. Limited to industrial-related trade schools.

5. Must be located a minimum 300 feet from any other social service facility or emergency shelter.

6. Outdoor activities may occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Activities at all other times shall be conducted within an enclosed building.

7. Limited to the boarding of cats and other household pets, excluding dogs. Outdoor activities may occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Activities at all other times shall be conducted within an enclosed building.

Breeding is not permitted allowed.

8. Limited to sales of used automobiles. New or used motorcycles or mopeds are allowed.

9. Only allowed as an accessory use pursuant to §30.185.030, Accessory Uses.

10. Retail sales only allowed as an accessory use. See §30.185.030, Accessory Uses.

11. Seafood processing is not allowed.

12. Seafood processing is only allowed with a PSP.

13. Commercial Cannabis Businesses, as defined in Section 30.295.050.C., require a commercial cannabis business permit pursuant to Chapter 9.44.

14. Limited to uses permitted allowed in the zone.

15. Agriculture limited to accessory uses only.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
67 30.30.030 Development Standards.

Table 30.30.030 prescribes the development standards for Manufacturing Zones. Section numbers refer to other sections of this Title. Additional regulations that apply throughout the City are located in Division III, Citywide Regulations.

TABLE 30.30.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–MANUFACTURING ZONES Zone M-C M-I
Lot Size and Street Frontage
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly
Created Lots (sq. ft.)
None; except 3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area is required for lots that include residential uses
Minimum Public Street Frontage
(ft.)
None, See §30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and §30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines
Maximum Base Residential Density
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 1 unit
5,000 to 6,999 sq. ft. Net Lot Area 2 units
7,000 and more sq. ft. Net Lot Area 3 units, or 1 unit/3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area, whichever is greater
One Caretaker Unit
See §30.185.120, Caretaker Unit
Additional Residential Density Allowances
All lots, in compliance with the
applicable section
See §30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling
Units
See Chapter 30.150, Average UnitSize Density Incentive Program See Chapter 30.145, Affordable
Housing and Density Bonus and
Development Incentives
None applicable
Structure Form and Location
Minimum Residential Unit Size
Studio: 220 square feet;
All other units: 400 square feet
See §30.140.150, Residential Unit
Maximum Height (ft.)
45;
60 for Community Benefit Project or Community Benefit Housing Project (§30.140.100.B)
Additional Height Limitations
Adjacent to all Residential Zones
Height is further limited in accordance with §30.140.170, Solar Access Height Limitations
Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks
(ft.), Residential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Front Setback 10; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height: +10 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
68 TABLE 30.30.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–MANUFACTURING ZONES Zone M-C M-I
Interior Setback 6; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height: +4 Minimum Setbacks (ft.),
Nonresidential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments
Front 0
Interior, Adjacent to
Nonresidential Zone 0
Interior, Adjacent to Residential
Zone 15; Portions of structures over 25 ft in height: +5 Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks,
Mixed-Use
Residential portions follow residential setbacks; nonresidential and mixeduse portions follow nonresidential setbacks.

Minimum Setbacks (ft.), Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Front, Street-Facing 20
Front, Non-Street-Facing –
Nonresidential Use 0
Front, Non-Street-Facing –
Residential Use 10
Interior, Covered –
Nonresidential Use 0
Interior, Covered, 4 or Fewer
Spaces – Residential Use 3
Interior, Covered, 5 or More
Spaces – Residential Use
6; 3 feet on the lot line opposite the primary front lot line. If the lot has two or more front lot lines, only one opposite lot line may qualify for the reduced setback
Interior, Covered, Lots ≤ 55 ft –
Residential Use
May be reduced to 3 feet if:
• The lot is less than 55 feet wide at the location of the covered parking structure,
• The parking opening does not face a street or alley, and • The interior depth of the covered parking structure does not exceed 20 feet
Interior, Uncovered 3-foot wide landscape buffer along the interior property line Front
Residential only structures: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development: 0
Interior, Adjacent to a
Nonresidential Zone
Residential only structures: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development: 0
See §30.185.265, Mixed-Use Projects
Interior, Adjacent to a Residential
Zone
Residential structures and the residential portion of any mixed-use development: Same as R-M Zone
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
69 TABLE 30.30.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–MANUFACTURING ZONES Zone M-C M-I
Nonresidential, and the nonresidential portion of any structure in a mixeduse development, 30 feet in height or less: 15 Nonresidential structures, and the nonresidential portion of any structure in a mixed-use development, more than 30 feet in height: 20 Portions of structures used by both the residential and nonresidential uses are subject to the setback requirement for nonresidential structures.

Uncovered Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Open Yard and Landscape
Open Yards
Any lot developed with residential use shall provide open yard pursuant to §30.140.140, Open Yards.

See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Landscape Any lot developed with residential uses must provide landscape areas pursuant to §30.140.118, Landscape
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
70 SECTION 5. Chapter 30.35 of Title 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 30.35 Coastal-Oriented Zones
Sections:

30.35.010 Purpose

30.35.020 Land Use Regulations

30.35.030 Development Standards

30.35.010 Purpose.

The purposes of Coastal-Oriented Zones are as follows:

A. Coastal-Oriented Hotel and Restaurant (CO-HR) Zone. The Coastal-Oriented Hotel and Restaurant (CO-HR) Zone, strives to promote, maintain and protect visitor-serving uses. Hotels and restaurants are the primary uses.

B. Coastal-Oriented Hotel and Visitor-Serving (CO-HV) Zone. The Coastal-Oriented Hotel and Visitor-Serving (CO-HV) Zone, because of its proximity to the shoreline and location along two major arteries, strives to promote, maintain and protect visitor-serving and commercial recreational uses. Tourist and traveler related uses shall be encouraged in this zone in a manner which does not detract from the desirability of the shoreline as a place to visit. Residential uses are appropriate in certain areas. Land classified in the CO-HV Zone may also be overlaid with a second classification of being in the Coastal-Oriented Commercial, Arts and Recreation (CO-CAR) Zone.

C. Coastal-Oriented Harbor (CO-H) Zone. The Coastal-Oriented Harbor (CO-H) Zone strives to maintain the harbor as primarily a working harbor with visitor-serving and coastal-related uses secondary to coastal-dependent uses, and that Stearns Wharf will consist of a mixture of visitorserving, and coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses. In addition, this zone is intended to preserve and protect the coastal environment in terms of light, air, and visual amenities.

D. Coastal-Oriented Commercial, Arts, and Recreation (CO-CAR) Zone. The CoastalOriented Commercial, Arts, and Recreation (CO-CAR) Zone strives to achieve balanced use of the City’s Waterfront and maintain the small scale, local character that is unique to the Waterfront area.

Land uses shall be encouraged in this zone that maintain and enhance the desirability of the Waterfront as a place to work, visit, and live. This zone is intended to foster a vital, mixed-use neighborhood and preserve and protect the coastal environment in terms of light, air, and visual AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
71 amenities. Residential uses are appropriate in certain areas. Land classified in the CO-CAR Zone may also be classified in the Coastal-Oriented Hotel and Visitor-Serving (CO-HV) Zone.

E. Coastal-Oriented Manufacturing Industrial (CO-MI) Zone. The Coastal-Oriented Manufacturing Industrial (CO-MI) Zone strives to provide for appropriate coastal-dependent and coastal-related industrial uses in close proximity to the Harbor/Wharf Complex. The zone encourages the establishment of coastal-oriented industrial uses in keeping with the policies of the California Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Plan.

30.35.020 Land Use Regulations.

Table 30.35.020 and the subsections that follow prescribe the land use regulations for CoastalOriented Zones.

Use classifications are defined in Chapter 30.295, Use Classifications. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below are prohibited.

The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other sections of this Title.

TABLE 30.35.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification CO-HR CO-HV CO-H CO-CAR CO-MI Additional Regulations Residential Uses
Residential Uses – A – A –
§30.185.360, Residential
Uses in the CO-HV and COCAR Zones
§30.185.040, Accessory
Dwelling Units
Public and Semi-Public Uses
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
72 TABLE 30.35.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification CO-HR CO-HV CO-H CO-CAR CO-MI Additional Regulations College and Trade School – – – A(1) –
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP(2) CUP –
Cultural Institution – A A(2) A –
Harbor, Port, and Marina
Facilities – – A – –
Instructional Services – – – A –
Park and Recreation Facilities – – – A –
§30.185.350, Recreation
Facilities
Public Facility – – A(3) A(3) CUP
Commercial Uses
Aquaculture Facilities – – – A –
Artist Studio – – – A –
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Services
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals –
A/CUP
(4) A(4)
A/CUP
(4)
A(4)
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing – A(5) A(2,5) A(5) A(5)
Fueling Station – CUP(6) PSP(3) CUP CUP
§30.185.090,
Automobile/Vehicle Fueling
Stations or Car Washing
Facilities
Service and Repair, Minor – – A(5) A(5) A(5)
Business Services – – – A(7) –
Commercial Entertainment
and Recreation
Small-scale – – – A –
Eating and Drinking
Establishments A(6) A A(2) A –
Hotels and Similar Uses A A – CUP –
§30.185.220, Hotels and
Similar Uses
Maintenance and Repair
Services – – A(5) A(5) A(5)
Offices
Business and Professional – CUP(8) A(2,9) A(9) –
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
73 TABLE 30.35.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification CO-HR CO-HV CO-H CO-CAR CO-MI Additional Regulations Parking, Public or Private – A A A A
Retail Sales
Food and Beverage Sales – A(6,10) A(2,10) A(10) –
General Retail – A(11) A(2,11) A(11) –
Industrial Uses
Automobile and Vehicle
Repair, Major – – A(5) A(5) A(5)/CUP
Custom Manufacturing – – – A
A(5)/
CUP
Food and Beverage
Manufacturing – – PSP(12) PSP(12)
PSP
(12)
§30.185.380, Seafood Odor
Control
Hazardous Waste
Management Facility – – – – CUP
Chapter 30.55, Hazardous
Waste Management Facility
(HWMF) Overlay Zone
Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Facility – – A(13) – A
Industry, Limited – – A(5) A(5)
A(5)/
CUP
Research and Development – – – A(3)
A(3)/
CUP
Warehousing and Storage – – A(5) A(5)
A(5)/
CUP
§30.185.310, Outdoor
Storage
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Public Works and Utilities – – – – CUP
Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Buildings A A A A A
§30.185.030, Accessory
Uses and §30.140.020,
Accessory Buildings
Alcoholic Beverage Retail
Establishments CUP(14) CUP(14) CUP(14) CUP(14) CUP(14)
§30.185.075, Alcoholic
Beverage Retail
Establishments
Animal Keeping – A – A –
§30.185.210, Horse
Keeping and SBMC 6.08,
Care and Keeping of
Animals
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
74 TABLE 30.35.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES “A” Allowed Use
“PSP” Performance Standard Permit Required
“CUP” Conditional Use Permit Required
“–“ Use Not Allowed
“(#)” Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Use Classification CO-HR CO-HV CO-H CO-CAR CO-MI Additional Regulations Cannabis Cultivation, Personal §30.185.110, Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use Development is allowed subject to the regulations of the specific uses and applicable zone and permit requirements for any individual use or component of the project.

Mobilehome §30.185.270, Mobilehomes, Recreational Vehicles, and Modular Units, Individual Use; and §30.185.420 Temporary Uses
Nonconforming Use Chapter 30.165, Nonconforming Uses, Site Development, and Uses Solar Energy Systems §30.140.090.D.8, Solar Energy Systems Encroachments, and §30.185.400, Solar Energy Systems
Temporary Use §30.185.420, Temporary Uses
Specific Limitations:

1. Limited to schools for the arts or coastal-oriented education facilities.

2. Limited to Stearns Wharf or as secondary harbor uses.

3. Limited to marine-related facilities.

4. Allowed if boat, boat trailer, or personal watercraft rental, CUP for automobile rental in the CO-HV and CO-CAR Zones only.

5. Limited to boats, personal watercraft, and marine-related equipment, CUP in the CO-MI Zone for other uses allowed in the M-I Zone.

6. Food and Beverage Sales, Eating and Drinking Establishments-Convenience, and Fueling Stations are not allowed in the area bounded by Cabrillo Boulevard on the southeast, Los Patos Way on the southwest and the existing railroad right-of-way on the north, due to concerns about protection of the sensitive habitat character and aesthetics of the Andree Clark Bird Refuge, except that Food and Beverage Sales are allowed as an accessory use.

7. Limited to printing and copying, blueprint services, advertising and mailing, photo finishing, model building, and publishing.

8. Limited to the second and third floors of commercial structures and where the Review Authority makes the required findings pursuant to subsection B, below.

9. Limited to offices of businesses or persons engaged in coastal-related activities.

10. Limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per lot.

11. Limited to uses that are primarily coastal-related, coastal-dependent, visitor-serving, or of a commercial recreational nature specific to the Coastal Zone such as bait and tackle shops, marine supply and related equipment sales, specialty and gift shops, and bicycle, roller skating, moped, dive gear, surfing, and other recreational equipment rental stores.

12. Limited to seafood facilities.

13. Allowed as a secondary harbor use only when limited to facilities exclusively serving the area within the CO-H Zone.

14. Limited to uses permitted allowed in the zone.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
75 A. Dual Zoning: CO-HV and CO-CAR. The land uses allowances within the CO-HV Zone and the CO-CAR Zone apply within the dual CO-CAR/CO-HV Zone.

B. Additional Land Use Regulations: CO-HV Zone.

1. Required Findings for Business and Professional Offices. Business and Professional Offices may only be allowed where the Review Authority finds that:
a. The use is compatible with visitor-serving uses;
b. Visitor-serving uses remain the primary use of the structure; and c. Non-visitor-serving uses do not exceed 50% of the total square footage of the structure.

2. Other Allowed Uses in the CO-HV Zone. Other visitor-serving or commercial recreational uses deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission are allowed in the COHV Zone.

C. Additional Land Use Regulations: CO-H Zone.

1. Other Allowed Uses and Development in the CO-H Zone. The following uses and development are allowed in the CO-H Zone.
a. Primary Harbor Uses: Other coastal-dependent uses as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
b. Secondary Harbor Uses: Other coastal-related uses as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
c. Stearns Wharf Uses: Other coastal-dependent, coastal-related, and visitorserving uses as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.

2. Five Year Review of Uses. At least once every five years from March 30, 1993, the Board of Harbor Commissioners shall review the extent and nature of the uses existing in the Harbor and Shoreline Area of the CO-H Zone and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of coastal-dependent uses (Harbor primary uses) in relation to coastal-related and visitor-serving uses (Harbor secondary uses) in order AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
76 to assure that the harbor remains a working harbor. A review of the mix of uses may occur at any other time at the direction of the Board of Harbor Commissioners or Planning Commission. Subsequent reviews shall be at five year intervals thereafter. The Coastal Commission shall receive a copy of the recommendation and accompanying background materials associated with each review.

D. Additional Land Use Regulations: CO-CAR Zone. Other coastal-dependent, coastaloriented, commercial recreational, or arts-related uses that are found to be consistent with the intent of the CO-CAR Zone by the Planning Commission are allowed in the CO-CAR Zone.

E. Additional Land Use Regulations: CO-MI Zone. The following uses and development are allowed in the CO-MI Zone.

1. Other coastal-related uses deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.

2. Any other use permitted allowed in the M-I Zone subject to the restrictions and limitations contained therein and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit may be granted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 30.215, Conditional Use Permits, subject to the following additional findings:
a. The use is compatible with coastal-dependent or coastal-related uses; and b. The property would have no feasible economic value if limited to coastaldependent or coastal-related uses. This finding shall be substantiated by competent evidence determined by the Planning Commission to be objective which includes no present or future demand for coastal-dependent or coastal-related uses. Structures in existence or developments which have a valid and unexpired approval from the Coastal Commission on the effective date of this subsection may be used for all uses permitted allowed in the M-I Zone.

30.35.030 Development Standards.

Table 30.35.030 prescribes the development standards for Coastal-Oriented Zones. Section numbers refer to other sections of this Title. Additional regulations that apply throughout the City are located in Division III, Citywide Regulations.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
77 TABLE 30.35.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES Zone CO-HR CO-HV CO-H
CO-CAR
[CO-HV/CO-CAR(A)] CO-MI
Lot Size and Street Frontage
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly
Created Lots (sq. ft.)
None; except 3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area is required for lots that include residential uses
Minimum Public Street Frontage
(ft.)
None, See §30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and §30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly
Created Lots (sq. ft.) None
Lots that include
residential
uses: 3,500
Otherwise: None
None
Lots that include
residential
uses: 3,500
Otherwise: None
None
None Structures and
portions of
structures used
for residential
purposes: Same as
R-M Zone
Otherwise: None
None Structures and
portions of
structures used for
residential
purposes: Same as
R-M Zone
Otherwise: None
Minimum Public Street Frontage None
See §30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and §30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines
Residential Density
Maximum Base Residential
Density

N/A N/A N/A
Additional Density Allowances N/A
Structures and
portions of
structures used
for residential
purposes: Same as
R-M Zone
Otherwise: N/A
N/A
Structures and
portions of
structures used for
residential
purposes: Same as
R-M Zone
Otherwise: N/A
N/A
Structure Form and Location
Maximum Height (ft.) 45;
30 when located in the area
bounded by Cabrillo Boulevard
on the southeast, Los Patos
Way on the southwest and the
existing railroad right-of-way
on the north
30 45 Same as MI
Zone
Adjacent to RS or R-2 Zone N/A N/A N/A N/A Same as MI
Zone
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
78 TABLE 30.35.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES Zone CO-HR CO-HV CO-H
CO-CAR
[CO-HV/CO-CAR(A)] CO-MI
Additional Height Limitations
Adjacent to all Residential Zones
Height is further limited in accordance with §30.140.170, Solar Access Height Limitations
Minimum Setbacks and
Stepbacks (ft.)
Residential Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Front
10; Portions of structures over 15 feet in
height: +10;
Portions of structures over 15 feet in
height and when located in the area
bounded by Cabrillo Boulevard on the
southeast, Los Patos Way on the
southwest and the existing railroad
right-of-way on the north: +90
10; Portions of structures over 25
feet in height: +10
Interior 6; Portions of structures over 25 feet in height: +4 Minimum Setbacks and
Stepbacks (ft.), Nonresidential
Structures
See Ch. 30.185, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities See Ch. 30.165, Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses See also §30.140.090, Encroachments
Front 0
Interior, Adjacent to
Nonresidential Zone 0
Interior, Adjacent to Residential
Zone 15; Portions of structures over 25 feet in height: +5 Front Portions of structures 15 feet
or less: 10
Portions of structures more
than 15 feet in height: 20;
100 when located in the area
bounded by Cabrillo Boulevard
on the southeast, Los Patos
Way on the southwest and the
existing railroad right-of-way
on the north
None Residential only
development: Same
as R-M Zone
Otherwise: None
None
Interior, Adjacent to a
Nonresidential Zone
None 0 None
0 Residential only
development: Same
as R-M Zone
Otherwise: None
None
0 Interior, Adjacent to a Residential
Zone
Residential structures, and the
residential portions of mixedNone
0 Residential only
development: Same
as R-M Zone
None
0 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
79 TABLE 30.35.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES Zone CO-HR CO-HV CO-H
CO-CAR
[CO-HV/CO-CAR(A)] CO-MI
use development: Same as R-M
Zone
Nonresidential structures and
the nonresidential portions of
any structure in a mixed-use
development, 30 feet in height
or less: 15
Nonresidential structures, and
the nonresidential portion of
any structure in a mixed-use
development, more than 30
feet in height: 20
Portions of structures used by
both the residential and
nonresidential uses are subject
to the setback requirement for
nonresidential structures.

Otherwise: None
Uncovered Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Minimum Setbacks and
Stepbacks, Mixed-Use
Residential portions follow residential setbacks; nonresidential and mixeduse portions follow nonresidential setbacks Minimum Setbacks (ft.), Parking See §30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Front, Street-Facing 20
Front, Non-Street-Facing –
Nonresidential Use
0 Front, Non-Street-Facing –
Residential Use
10 Interior, Covered –
Nonresidential Use
0 Interior, Covered, 4 or Fewer
Spaces – Residential Use
3 Interior, Covered, 5 or More
Spaces – Residential Use
6; 3 feet on the lot line opposite the primary front lot line. If the lot has two or more front lot lines, only one opposite lot line may qualify for the reduced setback
Interior, Covered, Lots ≤ 55 ft –
Residential Use
May be reduced to 3 feet if:
• The lot is less than 55 feet wide at the location of the covered parking structure,
• The parking opening does not face a street or alley, and • The interior depth of the covered parking structure does not exceed 20 feet Interior, Uncovered 3-foot wide landscape buffer along the interior property line Open Yard and Landscape
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
80 TABLE 30.35.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS–COASTAL-ORIENTED ZONES Zone CO-HR CO-HV CO-H
CO-CAR
[CO-HV/CO-CAR(A)] CO-MI
Open Yards Any lot developed with residential uses shall provide open yard pursuant to §30.140.140, Open Yards.

See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Landscape Any lot developed with residential uses must provide landscape areas pursuant to §30.140.118, Landscape
A. Dual Zoning: CO-HV and CO-CAR. The CO-CAR Zone development standards shall apply to all development projects on land with a dual CO-HV/CO-CAR zoning designation.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
81 SECTION 6. Chapter 30.140 of Title 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Division III: Citywide Regulations
Chapter 30.140 General Site Regulations
Sections:

30.140.010 Purpose and Applicability

30.140.020 Accessory Buildings

30.140.025 Balconies and Upper Story Decks

30.140.030 Building Attachment

30.140.040 Development Adjacent to
Unincorporated Lots

30.140.050 Development Along Mission
Creek

30.140.060 Development on Lots Divided by
Zone Boundaries

30.140.070 Development on Substandard
and Publicly Reduced Lots

30.140.080 Discontinuation of Use

30.140.090 Encroachments into Setbacks and
Open Yards

30.140.100 Exceptions to Height Limitations

30.140.110 Fences and Hedges

30.140.112 Garage Conversions

30.140.115 Guest Houses

30.140.118 Landscape

30.140.120 Location of Lot Lines

30.140.130 Mechanical and Other
Equipment

30.140.140 Open Yards

30.140.141 Patio Covers

30.140.145 Privacy Standards for Upper
Stories

30.140.150 Residential Unit

30.140.155 Screening

30.140.160 Setbacks and Stepbacks

30.140.170 Solar Access Height Limitations

30.140.180 Street Frontage and Access

30.140.190 Street Widening Setback Lines

30.140.200 Substantial Redevelopment

30.140.210 Swimming Pools

30.140.220 Reserved Trash, Recycling, and
Personal Outdoor Storage

30.140.230 Visibility at Driveways and
Intersections

30.140.240 Waste, Recycling, and Outdoor
Storage

30.140.240 Yard Buildings

30.140.010 Purpose and Applicability.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
82 The purpose of this chapter is to prescribe development and site regulations that apply, except where specifically stated, to development in all zones. These standards shall be used in conjunction with the standards for each zone established in Division II, Zone Regulations. In any case of conflict, the more restrictive standards shall apply.

30.140.020 Accessory Buildings.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish objective standards for accessory buildings to ensure that such structures are subordinate to the primary use and reflect the size and appearance of surrounding development. These standards regulate the location, size, height, design, and use of accessory buildings to minimize impacts on privacy, scale, and visual character.

A. B. Applicability. The standards in this section apply to all lots developed with residential uses, and accessory buildings used for agricultural purposes, community gardens, and market gardens. The provisions of this section These standards apply to:

1. aAll attached and detached covered parking structures, and

2. aAll other detached accessory buildings and structures, whether enclosed or unenclosed, that have having a solid roof supported by columns or walls. located on lots developed with Residential, Agriculture, Community Garden, or Market Garden uses. Attached accessory buildings consistent with Section 30.140.030, Building Attachment, are not subject to this section, and are considered part of the main building subject to all of the standards and regulations of the main building.

B.C. Types of Regulated Accessory Buildings. Accessory buildings are defined in Chapter 30.300, Definitions, and may include, but are not limited to include the following:

1. Covered Parking Structures. Garage or carport, whether attached or detached.

2. Livable Accessory Buildings. Detached, roofed, enclosed structures designed for human habitation or occupancy. Examples include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), guest houses, home offices, or similar habitable spaces.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
83 3. Non-Livable Accessory Buildings. Detached, roofed structures not designed or intended for human habitation. Examples include workshops, greenhouses, agricultural buildings, barns, pens, stables, sheds, and storage rooms.

D. Exempt Accessory Structures. The following types of structures are not subject to the provisions of this section:

1. Attached Enclosed Spaces. Livable or non-livable spaces that are attached to and part of the main building pursuant to Section 30.140.030, Building Attachment, and not used for covered parking. These include enclosed additions such as storage rooms, studios, or other interior spaces regardless of whether they have interior access to the main building.

These structures are subject to all standards and regulations applicable to the main building.

2. Attached Unenclosed Areas. Exterior roofed shade or entry features such as arcades, porticoes, porches, trellises, gazebos, patio covers, and similar, that are attached to the main building, unenclosed, and are not designed or used for covered parking.

3. Unroofed Structures. Structures without a solid roof, such as fountains, hot tubs, benches, fences, open trellises, and unroofed decks.

4. Yard Buildings. Minor accessory buildings meeting the standards in Section

30.140.240, Yard Buildings.

Accessory buildings are defined in Chapter 30.300, Definitions, and may include, but are not limited to, non-livable buildings used as garages, carports, workshops, barns, greenhouses, agricultural buildings, pens, stables, sheds, and storage rooms; and livable floor area such as detached Accessory Dwelling Units, bedrooms, playrooms, or guestrooms.

C.E. Residential Units in Accessory Buildings. The unauthorized use of accessory buildings for residential purposes is prohibited. Unauthorized or unpermitted Residential Building Elements listed in subsection 30.140.150.E, Determination of Residential Unit, shall not be installed in an accessory building without first obtaining all required City approvals and permits. Bathing facilities, more than one sink, or a kitchen are prohibited unless approved as a residential unit, or an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to subsection D, Additional Residential Building Elements, below and a Performance Standard Permit, Chapter 30.255
D.F. Additional Residential Building Elements.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
84 1. An accessory building is limited to the following residential building elements:
a. One partial bathroom (a room with only a toilet and lavatory sink); or b. One utility or bar sink.

2. A full bathroom with bathing facilities, more than one sink, or a kitchen are prohibited in accessory buildings. The installation of any cooking appliance, including but not limited to a stove, range, microwave, toaster oven, hot plate, or similar device, is considered a kitchen.

3. Exceptions to these limitations may be approved as follows:
a. The building is approved as a residential unit or an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); or
b. The building is approved as a guest house consistent with the standards in Section 30.140.115, Guest Houses; or
c. Additional residential building elements are approved pursuant to this subsection and granted a Performance Standard Permit in accordance with Chapter 30.255.

4. The Community Development Director may determine whether proposed residential building elements would result in separate residential occupancy. A Performance Standard Permit issued under Subsection F.3.c must include a condition of approval providing for the automatic expiration of limited-term approvals or rescission of the permit if the City determines there is evidence of separate residential occupancy.

The additional residential building elements that may be considered for a Performance Standard Permit, are limited to those which in the determination of the Community Development Director would not result in separate residential occupancy. The Performance Standard Permit shall include a Recorded Agreement providing for the automatic expiration of limited term approvals, or rescission of the permit or approval, if the City determines there is evidence of separate residential occupancy.

E.G. Relation to Existing Structures. Accessory buildings and structures may only be constructed on a lot on which there is a permitted main building or land use to which the accessory building is related, with the exception of accessory buildings and structures used for Agriculture, Community Garden, or Market Garden uses, pursuant to Section 30.185.070, Agriculture, and Section 30.185.130, Community and Market Gardens.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
85 F.H. Setbacks.

1. Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of main buildings in the zone, except as provided in Subsections H.2 through H.4.

2. One-story accessory buildings less than 17 feet in height and not exceeding 1,000 square feet may use the same setback as covered parking structures serving four or fewer spaces, or as allowed by Section 30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards.

3. Accessory buildings used for the care and keeping of animals shall be subject to the distance limitations in Title 6 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code.

4. Accessory buildings used for agricultural operations are subject to the distance limitations in Section 30.185.070, Agriculture.

G.I. Maximum Height. Accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed two stories and 30 feet in height, or as otherwise limited by this Title.

H.J. Front Yard Limitation. Detached accessory buildings, except covered parking or a building used exclusively as an Accessory Dwelling Unit approved under Section 30.185.040, are prohibited in a front yard.

K. Design Style. New accessory buildings, additions to accessory buildings, and exterior alterations must incorporate architectural elements that either match the exterior materials, colors, and finishes of the main building, or existing accessory building. Roof form and pitch, window proportions, and door styles must be consistent with those of the main building. Variations may be approved by the applicable Design Review body if the proposed design does not adversely affect the visual character of the site or surrounding area.

I. Design Review Required. Design review approval by the appropriate Design Review body pursuant to Title 22 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code shall be required for any new building, additions, or other exterior alterations to an existing accessory building, when any of the following apply:

1. The aggregate floor area of all detached accessory buildings on the lot is greater than 500 square feet; or
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
86 2. The cumulative total of all buildings, or portions of buildings, on the lot providing covered parking, result in three or more covered parking spaces on the lot.

Exception for Accessory Dwelling Units. Design review approval under this subsection is not required for any portion of an accessory building proposed for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit approved under Section 30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units.

J.L. Maximum Floor Area – Single-Unit Residential Uses. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all development located in single unit zones; or in all zones, on lots developed with a single residential unit, Single-Unit Residential use, as defined in Section 30.295.020.A.1, and no other principal uses. Agriculture pursuant to Section 30.185.070, or Community and Market Gardens pursuant to Section 30.185.130. The maximum floor area for attached or detached covered parking and other detached accessory buildings and structures is as follows:

1. Maximum Total Square Footage Per Lot.
a. Lots less than 5,000 square feet: 1,000 square feet
b. Lots 5,000 square feet up to 9,999 square feet: 1,300 square feet c. Lots 10,000 square feet up to 14,999 square feet: 1,500 square feet d. Lots 15,000 square feet up to 19,999 square feet: 1,750 square feet e. Lots 20,000 square feet or larger: 1,950 square feet

2. Covered Parking. Other than to permit the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit pursuant to Section 30.185.040, detached accessory buildings in excess of 500 square feet shall not be permitted unless the total amount of required covered parking is provided per Chapter 30.175, Parking Regulations.

3. Maximum in a Single Building. The maximum floor area in any single detached building shall not exceed 1,250 square feet. The floor area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to or constructed above a new or existing covered parking structure shall not be included in the calculation of floor area pursuant to this subsection.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
87 4. Maximum Livable Floor Area. The maximum cumulative detached livable floor area in accessory buildings per lot, excluding the livable floor area of a permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit, shall not exceed 500 square feet.

M. Rooftop Decks Prohibited. No rooftop deck or rooftop viewing area shall be placed on the roof of an accessory building or structure unless approved by the applicable Design Review body.

30.140.025 Balconies and Upper Story Decks
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish objective standards that allow balconies and upper story decks as architectural features while minimizing visual and privacy impacts on surrounding properties.

B. Privacy Standards – Single-Unit and Two-Unit Residential Development. All new or altered upper story unenclosed landings, decks, and balconies on lots developed with single-unit or two-unit residential development must comply with all of the following standards:

1. Size and Placement.
a. The structure must not exceed 16 feet in width and 10 feet in depth, exclusive of handrails, guardrails, wing walls, and uncovered steps. b. Only one balcony or deck is permitted per building façade. Balconies or decks on the same façade or on façades that meet at a building corner must not be combined into a single structure that exceeds 16 feet in width or 10 feet in depth.

2. Setback from Lot Lines. Any upper-story unenclosed landing, deck, or balcony greater than 20 square feet must be located a minimum of 15 feet from all interior lot lines and meet the front setback or comply with allowed encroachments pursuant to Section

30.140.090, Encroachments.

3. Rooftop Decks. Rooftop decks are prohibited unless approved by the applicable Design Review body pursuant to Chapter 30.220.

4. Exceptions. Variations to the privacy standards in this subsection may be approved by the applicable Design Review body, provided the structure complies with all applicable base zone setback and development standards.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
88 C. Encroachments.

1. Setbacks. The cantilevered portion of a balcony or upper story deck may encroach into front setbacks, but not interior setbacks, consistent with Section 30.140.090, Encroachments, provided no new ground supports are placed within the setback area.

2. Stepbacks. An unenclosed balcony, deck, terrace, or similar usable open space may be located within an upper story stepback, provided there is no further encroachment beyond the plane of the floor below.

D. Open Yards.

1. Qualifying Open Yard Area. Balconies and upper story decks may be used to satisfy the required open yard area for multi-unit and mixed-use projects consistent with the standards in Section 30.140.140, Open Yards.

2. Overhangs into Open Yards. A balcony or upper story deck may overhang into required open yards, consistent with Section 30.140.090, Encroachments.

E. Uncovered Structures. The portion of a balcony or upper story deck that encroaches into a required setback, stepback, or open yard must:

1. Remain uncovered, except for an awning; or

2. Be located above or below another balcony or upper story deck, provided there are no direct vertical connections between them, such as stairs, ladders, or structural supports, other than the wall from which they are cantilevered. A minimum vertical clearance of seven feet shall be maintained, measured from grade or the top of the lower balcony slab to the underside of the balcony slab directly above.

F. Guardrail and Windscreen Materials.

1. Transparency and Height.
a. Guardrails shall not exceed 42 inches in height, or the minimum height required by the Building Code, whichever is greater.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
89 b. Guardrails shall not exceed 50% opacity, consisting of open elements such as bars, balusters, or railings. Solid materials, including glass panels, are not considered open elements and do not meet this transparency requirement unless otherwise approved by the applicable Design Review body.
c. Variations to these guardrail standards may be approved by the applicable Design Review body to ensure consistency with the building’s architectural style, as defined in applicable design guidelines.

2. Reflective Materials. Glass or other reflective materials used on windscreens or guardrails must be oriented or treated to minimize glare onto streets, pedestrians, or surrounding structures.

G. Lighting. All outdoor lighting associated with decks, balconies, exterior stairways, and landings shall be fully shielded and downward directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
90 FIGURE 30.140.025: BALCONIES AND UPPER STORY DECKS
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
91 30.140.030 Building Attachment.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish objective standards for determining when buildings and structures are considered attached or detached. These standards ensure consistent application of development standards and promote a cohesive architectural relationship between main and accessory buildings on a property.

A. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to all main and accessory buildings, or portions thereof, and structures having a solid roof supported by columns or walls. All buildings and structures must either be classified as attached or detached in accordance with the standards in this section.

If a building or roofed structure or portion of a building or roofed structure, does not meet the minimum connection standards of Subsection 30.140.030.B, Required Minimum Connection, below, the building or roofed structure, or portion of a building or roofed structure, shall be subject to all of the standards and limitations for separate main or accessory buildings in this Title.

C. Required Separation. Any building, roofed structure, or portion thereof that does not meet the minimum connection standards in Subsection D shall be considered detached. Detached buildings or structures must be physically separated and unconnected from other buildings or structures and are subject to all applicable standards and limitations for detached main or accessory buildings under this Title.

B.D Required Minimum Connection. Buildings or roofed structures shall be considered attached when the structures meet the following minimum connection standards.:

1. Enclosed Buildings. Enclosed buildings shall be considered attached when the buildings share either:
a. A common building wall or floor-to-ceiling connection with minimum dimensions a minimum of eight feet by eight feet of common building wall, or floor to ceiling connection; or
b. An interior connection, such as a hallway or room, with share a minimum dimensions of seven feet by seven feet of interior connection, such as a hallway or room.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
92 2. Unenclosed Structures. Unenclosed roofed structures such as carports, patio covers, or similar, shall be are considered attached when they share a solid roof connection with a minimum dimension of eight feet. An unenclosed structure, such as a breezeway, shall not be used to attach enclosed buildings. Breezeways or other similar unenclosed connections do not qualify as attachment between enclosed buildings.

FIGURE 30.140.030: BUILDING ATTACHMENT

30.140.040 Development Adjacent to Unincorporated Lots.

Where development is subject to limitations based upon the adjacent lot, and the adjacent lot is located outside the City of Santa Barbara City Limit, the adjacent lot shall be regarded as within the AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
93 City of Santa Barbara in a zone most similar in terms of allowed uses or maximum residential density to the lot’s zoning in the subject jurisdiction, as determined by the Community Development Director.

30.140.050 Development Along Mission Creek.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide controls on development adjacent to the bed of Mission Creek within the City of Santa Barbara. These controls are necessary:

1. To prevent undue damage or destruction of developments by flood waters;

2. To prevent development on one parcel from causing undue detrimental impact on adjacent or downstream properties in the event of flood waters; and

3. To protect the public health, safety and welfare.

B. Applicability. No person may construct, build, or place a development within the area described in Subsection 30.140.050.C, Development Limitation Area, unless said development has been previously approved as provided in Subsection 30.140.050.E, Approval Required. The development must also comply with the City of Santa Barbara's adopted Floodplain Management regulations.

C. Development Limitation Area. The limitations of this section shall apply to all land within the area of the Mission Creek watercourse pursuant to Section 30.15.040, Determining Creek Top of Bank, and all land located within 25 feet of the top of either bank of Mission Creek within the City of Santa Barbara.

D. Development Defined. Development, for the purposes of this section, shall include any structure requiring a building permit; the construction or placement of a fence, wall, retaining wall, steps, deck (wood, rock, or concrete), or walkway; any grading; or, the relocation or removal of stones or other surface which forms a natural creek channel.

E. Approval Required. Prior to construction of a development in the area described in Subsection 30.140.050.C, Development Limitation Area, the property owner shall obtain approvals as follows:

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
94 1. Any development subject to the requirement for a building permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission on appeal, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2. Any development not requiring a building permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director, or the Planning Commission on appeal. A description of the development shall be submitted showing the use of intended development, its location, size and manner of construction.

F. Development Standards. No development in the area subject to this section shall be approved unless it is found that it will be consistent with the purposes set forth in Subsection

30.140.050.A, Purpose.

1. The Community Development Director, or the Planning Commission on appeal, shall consider the following in determining whether the development is consistent with Subsection 30.140.050.A, Purpose:
a. That the proposed new development, additions, alterations, and improvements, will not significantly reduce existing floodways, realign stream beds or otherwise adversely affect other properties by increasing stream velocities or depths, or by diverting the flow, and that the proposed new development will be reasonably safe from flow-related erosion and will not cause flow-related erosion hazards or otherwise aggravate existing flow-related erosion hazards. b. That proposed reconstruction of structures damaged by fire, flood or other calamities will comply with Subparagraph 1.a above, or be less nonconforming than the original structure and will not adversely affect other properties. c. The report, if any, of a qualified soils engineer or geologist and the recommendations of the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
d. Whether denial of approval would cause severe hardship or prohibit the reasonable development and use of the property.

2. The Community Development Director, or the Planning Commission on appeal, may consider the following factors as mitigating possible hazards which might otherwise result from such development:

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
95 a. Where the development is located on a bank of the creek which is sufficiently higher than the opposite bank to place the development outside a flood hazard area.
b. Where the creek bed adjacent to the development is sufficiently wide or the creek bank slope sufficiently gradual that the probability of flood hazard is reduced. c. Where approved erosion or flood control facilities or devices have been installed in the creek bed adjacent to the development. d. Where the ground level floor of the development is not used for human occupancy and has no solid walls.
e. Where the development is set on pilings so that the first occupied floor lies above the 100-year flood level, and such pilings are designed to minimize turbulence.

3. The Staff Hearing Officer, or the Planning Commission on appeal, may grant a Modification to required Open Yards or setbacks required by the applicable zone, pursuant to Chapter 30.250, Modifications, in order to enable a structure to comply with the Development Limitation Area in Subsection 30.140.050.C, or to be relocated to a safer or more appropriate location on the lot.

G. Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to developments in the area defined in Subsection 30.140.050.C, Development Limitation Area:

1. All applicants shall receive an environmental assessment.

2. All applications shall be referred to the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City Parks and Recreation Department Creeks Division for review and comment.

3. Upon completion of the above review and comment, the proposed development shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director as provided in Subsection

30.140.050.E, Approval Required. The Community Development Director shall give the applicant and any other person requesting to be heard, an opportunity to submit oral or written comments prior to a decision. The Community Development Director shall send by mail notice of the decision to the applicant. The decision of the Community Development Director shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or any interested person to the Planning Commission within 10 days by the filing of a written appeal with the Community AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
96 Development Department. The Community Development Department shall schedule the matter for a noticed public hearing by the Planning Commission pursuant to 30.205, Common Procedures. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final.

30.140.060 Development on Lots Divided by Zone Boundaries.

A. Generally. Where a lot is divided by a zone boundary, the regulations applicable to each zone shall be applied to the area within the zone, and no use, other than parking serving a principal use on the site, shall be located in a zone in which it is not an allowed use.

B. Accessory Facilities. Accessory landscapeing, fences, screening or retaining walls, and usable open space may be located on the lot without regard for zone boundaries but must comply with the standards of the applicable zone.

C. Density. The maximum density allowed, if any, shall be calculated according to the lot area within each zone and the corresponding allowable density for that zone, and distributed as follows:

1. Residential Single Unit Zones. Up to the allowable density for the Residential Single Unit portion of the site may be located on the area of the lot in the Residential Single Unit Zone. If the lot is divided by multiple RS Zone designations, then the allowed density is one unit per lot.

2. Other Zones. The resulting maximum permitted allowed number of units may be distributed on the lot without regard for zone boundaries, as long as all portions of the project comply with the development standards of the zone in which they are located and all other provisions of this section.

30.140.070 Development on Substandard and Publicly Reduced Lots.

A. Use of Legally Created Substandard Lots. Any lot or parcel of land that was legally created may be used as a building site even when consisting of less area or lot dimensions than that required by the regulations for the zone in which it is located. Lot area per residential unit requirements and all other provisions of this Title shall apply. No substandard lot shall be AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
97 subdivided or further reduced in area or dimensions unless required for a public purpose by a public agency or unless granted a Modification pursuant to Chapter 30.250, Modifications.

B. Conformity of Lots Reduced for Public Purposes. Where any existing parcel of land is reduced in size or lot dimensions below those required by this Title by reason of the acquisition or dedication of a portion thereof, along any perimeter of such parcel for any public purpose by any public agency, such parcel as so reduced shall be considered as conforming to the provisions of this Title as a legal lot. This section shall not apply to property acquired by a public agency as part of a subdivision of more than one lot:.

1. Minimum lot area and street frontage required by this Title shall not apply.

2. In applying residential density and Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, the area of such lot shall be considered as that which existed immediately prior to such acquisition or dedication.

3. All setbacks and other development standards for new development shall be measured and calculated from the resulting lot line created by said acquisition or dedication.

4. For provisions related to existing structures that become nonconforming due to public acquisition or dedication, refer to Section 30.165.035, Structures Made Nonconforming by Public Acquisition.

30.140.080 Discontinuation of Use.

A. Nonresidential Use. A use shall be considered discontinued when the use ceases for a period of 12 consecutive months and evidence that the use has been discontinued occurs. The 12- month limitation may be extended to a maximum of 24 additional months at the Community Development Director’s sole discretion if due diligence in obtaining permits has been demonstrated.

Elements to be considered in determining whether a use has been discontinued include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following:

1. Site is vacated;

2. Business license or other required license lapse;

3. Building is closed for business;
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
98 4. There are no persons, materials, equipment, or products occupying the buildings, structures, or site;

5. Utilities are terminated; or

6. Lease is terminated.

B. Residential Use. A legal residential use shall not be considered discontinued, regardless of the length of time of nonuse.

30.140.090 Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards.

A. Applicability. Required setbacks, stepbacks, landscape areas, and open yard areas shall remain open, unenclosed, and unobstructed from the ground or allowed finished surface upward, except as provided in this section. The provisions of this section do not apply to:

1. Section 30.140.050, Development along Mission Creek;

2. Section 30.140.190, Street Widening Setback Lines; or

3. This section applies only to encroachments on private property and does not authorize encroachments into the public right-of-way or utility easements.

B. General Limitations. All encroachments allowed under this section shall comply with the following limitations:

1. Vertical Clearance.
a. Wall-mounted encroachments into setbacks or stepbacks shall be elevated at least 18 inches above the adjacent finished floor or adjacent grade, whichever is higher, to ensure they do not create occupiable floor area or rest directly on a horizontal surface, in accordance with the definition of a wall-mounted structure. b. Encroachments located above a required open yard must maintain a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet, measured from the finished grade or finished surface directly beneath the encroachment to the lowest point of the encroaching structure.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
99 2. Floor Area Not Allowed. Encroachments shall not be designed or constructed to provide usable interior floor area within a building or structure.

3. Below or At Grade Structures. Structures located below finished grade, or with a finished surface level no more than 10 inches above existing grade, are not considered encroachments. This includes non-vehicular paved areas such as patios, decks, pathways, dooryards, or steps, provided the surface is not part of the building’s roof structure.

4. Screening Enclosures. Enclosures intended to screen an encroachment must comply with the same setback and minimum distance requirements applicable to the encroaching feature.

5. Nonconforming Features. Encroachments are allowed within both conforming and nonconforming setbacks, stepbacks, landscape areas, and open yards, provided they maintain the minimum required distance from the property line and comply with all applicable standards in this section. The extent of horizontal encroachment shall not be limited solely due to the nonconforming status of the open yard or setback area.

6. Building Code Compliance. All encroachments shall comply with applicable provisions of the Building Code.

7. Encroachments into Required Landscape Areas. If a required landscape area overlaps a setback, stepback, or open yard, the features listed in Table 30.140.090.C may also encroach into the required landscape area, provided they comply with the same standards and limitations that apply to those features elsewhere.

8. Classification of Structures. All features subject to this section shall be classified based on their physical characteristics, placement, and functional design, as determined by the Community Development Director. Reclassification to avoid applicable standards is prohibited.

C. Allowed Encroachments. The features listed in Table 30.140.090.C: Allowed Encroachments may encroach into setbacks, stepbacks, landscape, and open yard areas, subject to the standards specified in the table and the specific limitations in Subsection D. Where “Front” is indicated it refers to the Front Yard, Front Setback, and Front Stepback. Where “Interior” is indicated it refers to the Interior Setback and Interior Stepback. Where “No limit” is indicated in any column, the feature may extend without a maximum dimension in that category; however, it must AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
100
still meet any applicable minimum distance from the lot line set forth in this section or elsewhere in this Title.

TABLE 30.140.090.C: ALLOWED ENCROACHMENTS
“–” Encroachment Not Allowed; “MZE” Minor Zoning Exception Required Maximum Encroachment
Feature
Front Interior Open Yard
Minimum
Distance from
Lot Line
Limitations/Additional
Regulations
Architectural Elements
Architectural Features
(Wall-Mounted) 3 ft 3 ft 3 ft 2 ft See Definitions, §30.300.010 “A” Bay Windows 3 ft – 3 ft 2 ft
Chimneys
(Attached) 3 ft 3 ft 3 ft 3 ft Must serve the interior of a building Eaves 3 ft 3 ft 3 ft 2 ft
Porch (Front) 10 ft
3 ft; or same as
residence if
nonconforming
–
5 ft (front),
3 ft (interior)
One per unit; See
Subsection D.3
Rain Gutters and
Downspouts 6 in 6 in 6 in N/A Allowed projection beyond the roof eave Stoops, Landings, and
Outside Steps 10 ft 3 ft 3 ft 5 ft (front), 3 ft (interior) First-floor level only;
See Subsection D.3
Wing Wall One wing wall per lot line allowed Per Building Code ≤1 ft thick, ≤9 ft tall
Functional Elements
Mechanical
Equipment
(Roof-Mounted)
May match roof or roof parapet, if
screened consistent with
§30.140.155, Screening
N/A 2 ft
See §30.140.130,
Mechanical and Other
Equipment
Mechanical
Equipment
(Wall-Mounted)
18 in 18 in 18 in 2 ft
See §30.140.130,
Mechanical and Other
Equipment
Mechanical
Equipment
(Ground-Mounted)
Max. 50 sq. ft No limit Max. 50 sq. ft 10 ft (front),
3 ft (interior)
See §30.140.130,
Mechanical and Other
Equipment
Solar Energy Systems
(Roof-Mounted)
May match roof eaves if parallel
and ≤10 in. above roof N/A 2 ft See §30.140.170, Solar Energy Systems Solar Energy Systems
(Ground-Mounted) 3 ft No limit –
10 ft (front),
3 ft (interior)
Max. height: 30 in
(front), 6 ft (interior)
See §30.140.170, Solar
Energy Systems
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
101
TABLE 30.140.090.C: ALLOWED ENCROACHMENTS
“–” Encroachment Not Allowed; “MZE” Minor Zoning Exception Required Maximum Encroachment
Feature
Front Interior Open Yard
Minimum
Distance from
Lot Line
Limitations/Additional
Regulations
Storm Water
Management
Equipment (Rain
Barrels/Cisterns)
Max. 50 sq. ft Max 2 per
setback
Max 2 per
open yard area
10 ft (front)
2 ft (interior)
Cumulative max.
capacity: 1,000 gallons;
Max. height: 6 ft
Trash/Recycling
Enclosures (Unroofed) Max. 50 sq. ft No limit –
10 ft (front)
2 ft (interior)
See §30.140.220, Trash
Recycling, and Personal
Outdoor Storage
Yard Building
(<6 ft tall) – No limit No limit No limit See §30.140.240, Yard Buildings Yard Building
(6–8 ft tall) – No limit 3 ft 3 ft See §30.140.240, Yard Buildings Outdoor Living and Circulation
Accessible
Parking/Access
Improvements
No limit No limit – No limit ADA-compliant features
only
Balconies and Upper
Story Decks 3 ft –
Max. 20% per
Subsection D.2 2 ft
See §30.140.025,
Balconies and Upper
Story Decks
Driveways (On Grade) No limit No limit – No limit
Not exceeding the
width necessary for
vehicular access
Driveway Gate No limit No limit –
20 ft (front),
unless waived
by the Public
Works Director
See Subsection D.5
Entryway Trellis,
Arbor, Gate 1 per lot line 1 per lot line N/A No limit Se Subsection D.1 Fences and Walls No limit No limit No limit No limit See §30.140.110, Fences and Hedges
Landscape
Accessories
(Residential)
Max. 50 sq. ft
Allowed only
where front and
interior setbacks
intersect
No limit No limit See Definitions
§30.300.120 “L”
Open Yard Amenities
(Residential) – –
Max. 20% per
Subsection D.2 N/A
Outdoor Furniture
(Nonresidential) No limit – – No limit Must be movable
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
102
TABLE 30.140.090.C: ALLOWED ENCROACHMENTS
“–” Encroachment Not Allowed; “MZE” Minor Zoning Exception Required Maximum Encroachment
Feature
Front Interior Open Yard
Minimum
Distance from
Lot Line
Limitations/Additional
Regulations
Patio Covers, Solid
Roof (Attached)
3 ft for
overhang only
3 ft for overhang
only
Max. 20% per
Subsection D.2 2 ft See §30.140.142, Patio Covers
Patio Cover, Solid
Roof (Detached) –
3 ft for overhang
only
Max. 20% per
Subsection D.2 2 ft See §30.140.142, Patio Covers
Planter Beds &
Terraces (≤42 in
height)
No limit No limit No limit No limit See §30.140.110,
Fences and Hedges
Swimming Pools &
Spas (Below-Grade) No limit No limit No limit 15 ft (front), 5 ft (interior) See §30.140.210,
Swimming Pools
Uncovered
Decks/Patios
(≤10 in. high)
No limit No limit No limit No limit
Not considered
encroachments; see
§30.140.090.B.3
Uncovered Decks
(≤18 in. high) –
With MZE
approved by the
Community
Development
Director
No limit N/A See Ch. 30.245, Minor
Zoning Exceptions
Uncovered Decks
(≤36 in. high) – – No limit N/A Allowed in open yard only D. Specific Limitations. The following limitations apply to features listed in Table

30.140.090.C:

1. Entryway Trellis, Arbor, or Gate. An entryway trellis, arbor, or gate may encroach into required setbacks, subject to the following limitations. These structures are intended solely as entry features and are distinct from larger patio covers or trellises allowed in open yard areas under Subsection D.2 and Section 30.140.142, Patio Covers. Ground supports for these structures may be located within required setbacks, notwithstanding the limitations in Subsection D.2.b
a. Quantity. One entryway trellis, arbor, or gate is allowed per lot line within required setbacks.
b. Height and Area Limits.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
103
i. Within required setbacks, an overhead structure shall not exceed 9 feet in height and 18 square feet in area.
ii. Within required open yard areas, an overhead structure shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
c. Design. A roofed trellis must be constructed of lattice or other roof material which allows light and air to pass through a minimum of 50% of the roof surface as defined in Section 30.300.200 “T”.
d. Placement. The structure must be located over a walkway or entry path and shall not obstruct required access or visibility.
e. Additional Standards. All structures shall comply with applicable design and screening requirements in Section 30.140.142, Patio Covers.

2. Open Yard.
a. Encroachments into required open yard areas shall not exceed 20% of any individual open yard area, or a cumulative total of 20% of the total required open yard area per lot.
b. Where an encroachment into required open yard areas includes a covered structure (e.g., patio cover, pergola, trellis), the area beneath the cover must be unenclosed, as defined in Section 30.300.210 “U,” and must be designed and used for outdoor purposes, such as a patio, seating area, or similar amenity. Ground supports may be located in the open yard area, but shall not be located within required setbacks, unless otherwise allowed by this section.

3. Front Porches, Stoops, Landings, and Outside Steps. To qualify for the encroachments allowed under this section, front porches, stoops, landings, and outside steps must meet all of the following standards:
a. Maximum Dimensions:
i. A front porch may extend across up to 100% of the width of the front façade of the building it serves. A front porch that is more than 16 feet wide must not exceed 6 feet in depth, and the front porch must not exceed 10 feet in depth, exclusive of handrails, guardrails, wing walls, and uncovered steps.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
104
ii. Stoops and landings must not exceed 16 feet in width and 10 feet in depth, exclusive of handrails, guardrails, wing walls, and uncovered steps; b. The structure must be unenclosed, as defined in Section 30.300.210 “U”; c. The structure must be located at the first-floor level only; d. Only one front porch is allowed per unit. Multiple stoops and landings are allowed per unit if each complies with the dimensional, location, and design standards of this subsection.
e. Nonconforming Buildings. For nonconforming buildings, a front entry porch may encroach into the interior setback to the same extent as the existing buiding, provided that:
i. The porch faces the street; and
ii. No portion of the porch, except for uncovered steps, is located closer than two feet to the interior property line.
f. The finished surface must be no more than 6 feet above finished grade. If covered, the roof height must not exceed 12 feet above the finished floor. g. The structure must use the same exterior materials, roof pitch, and architectural detailing as the structure it serves. Different architectural details or materials may be approved by the applicable Design Review body.

4. Rain Barrels and Cisterns. Shall be maintained in good condition to prevent accumulation of material that attracts mosquitoes or other vectors.

5. Driveway Gates and Opening Devices. Driveway gates and their associated opening devices may encroach into required setbacks, subject to the following standards:
a. Gate Height. Consistent with fence heights in Section 30.140.110, Fences and Hedges.
b. Gate Width. The gate width shall not exceed the width of the driveway it serves.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
105
c. Opening Devices. Gate motors, arms, or control boxes may encroach up to 18 inches into a required setback, provided they are located entirely on private property and do not obstruct access or visibility.
d. Design. Gates and associated equipment shall be screened or finished in a manner consistent with the design of the gate and surrounding improvements.

A. Applicability. Required setbacks, and open yard areas shall be open, unenclosed, and unobstructed by structures from the ground upward, except as provided in this section. The provisions of this section do not apply to Development Along Mission Creek, pursuant to Section 30.140.050, Street Widening Setbacks, pursuant to Section 30.140.190, or public utility easements which are to remain unobstructed.

B. Limitations. The following limitations shall apply to all allowed encroachments:

1. Encroachments shall not provide floor area within a building or structure;

2. Structures constructed below grade, or less than 10 inches above existing grade, are not considered an encroachment;

3. Enclosures for any encroachment are subject to the same setback and distance requirements as the encroachment.

4. Encroachments up to the maximum allowed by this section may be made, in both conforming and nonconforming setbacks and open yards, provided the minimum distance to the property line is met; and

5. Encroachments are subject to the applicable requirements of the Building Code.

C. General Encroachments. The following may encroach into setbacks, and open yards, subject to the specified standards.

1. Architectural Projections. A cantilevered architectural building projection, such as awnings, cornices, eaves, and canopies, located at least 30 inches above adjacent grade and at least 18 inches above finish floor, may encroach up to three feet into any setback or open yard, but shall be no closer than two feet to any property line and shall have a minimum of seven feet vertical clearance below. Rain gutters may encroach an additional six inches beyond the roof eave.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
106

2. Balconies and Upper Story Decks. An uncovered balcony or upper story deck may encroach up to three feet into a front setback or open yard, but shall be no closer than two feet to any property line and subject to the following:
a. Size. The overall size of each balcony or upper story deck shall be limited to a maximum of six feet deep and 16 feet wide, excluding railings.
b. Ground Supports. No new ground supports for the balcony or upper story deck may be located in the setback or open yard.
c. Vertical Clearance. The cantilevered portion of the balcony or upper story deck shall have a minimum vertical clearance of seven feet.
d. Uncovered. A balcony or upper story deck shall be uncovered by any structure other than an awning. However, a balcony or upper story deck may be placed above another balcony or upper story deck if there are no horizontal connections of any kind between balconies and upper story decks except the wall from which the balconies and upper story decks are cantilevered. e. Guardrails. The guardrails on balconies and decks shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Building Code, and the design of the guardrail shall be at least 50% transparent or see through (consisting of open spaces with bars, balusters, railings, or similar). Decorative elements on balconies or decks that exceed the height limitation or guardrails that are less than 50% transparent may be approved by the appropriate Design Review body on a case-by-case basis to achieve consistency with the architectural style of the site.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
City Council Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
107
FIGURE 30.140.090.C.2: BALCONY AND UPPER STORY DECK ENCROACHMENTS

3. Bay Windows. A bay window, or similar protruding window construction, with a sill located at least 30 inches above adjacent grade and at least 18 inches above finish floor, may encroach up to three feet into a front setback or open yard, except private open yard, but shall be no closer than two feet to any property line.