Agenda packet, first session — Santa Barbara City Council, August 11, 2026

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Kristen W. Sneddon
Mayor Pro Tempore
Kelly McAdoo
City Administrator
Oscar Gutierrez
Ordinance Committee Chair
John S. Doimas
City Attorney
Eric Friedman
Finance Committee Chair
Meagan Harmon
Mike Jordan
Wendy Santamaria
City Hall
735 Anacapa Street
http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov
AUGUST 11, 2026, 2:00 PM
AGENDA
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT: At the beginning of each meeting of the City Council, Finance Committee, or Ordinance Committee, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item not on the Council's agenda. Any person wishing to make such address should first complete and deliver a "Request to Speak" form prior to the time that public comment is taken up by the City Council. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not allowed during general public comment. The time allotted for general public comment at the beginning of the 2:00 p.m. session is 30 minutes.

Any member of the public who did not speak during the 2:00 p.m. session but who submitted a request to do so during the 2:00 p.m. 30 minute session may do so at the end of the meeting when the additional “Public Comment (If Necessary)” is announced. The City Council, upon majority vote, may decline to hear a speaker on the grounds that the subject matter is beyond their jurisdiction.

REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to speak must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon when their item is called. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+Y for Windows and Option+Y for Macs. City staff will activate the speaker’s microphone when the speaker’s name is called. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+M for Windows or Command-Shift-A for Macs.

HOW TO REMOTELY OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING
• Web: https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/j/89359334270 (Participation via Zoom) • Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 893 5933 4270 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute) • Online Streaming: Council meetings are streamed live at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP • TV: Each regular City Council meeting is broadcast live in English and Spanish on City TV Channel 18 and rebroadcast in English on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays at 8:00 a.m., and in Spanish on Sundays at 3:00 p.m.

Each televised Council meeting is closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Check the City TV program guide at www.santabarbaraca.gov/citytv for rebroadcasts of Finance and Ordinance Committee meetings.

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comments may also be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting. All public comments submitted via email will be provided to City Council and will become part of the public record.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
ORDER OF BUSINESS: Regular meetings of the Finance Committee and the Ordinance Committee begin at 12:00 p.m. The regular City Council meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

REPORTS: Copies of the reports relating to agenda items are available for review at http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP.In accordance with state law requirements, this agenda generally contains only a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. Should you wish more detailed information regarding any particular agenda item, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the Council Agenda Report (a "CAR") online at the City's website (http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP). Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are posted to the City’s website as soon as reasonably feasible.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar is comprised of items that will not usually require discussion by the City Council. A Consent Calendar item is open for discussion by the City Council upon request of a Councilmember, City staff, or member of the public. Items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by a single motion. Should you wish to comment on an item listed on the Consent Agenda, after turning in your "Request to Speak" form, you should come forward to speak or raise your hand in Zoom at the time the Council considers the Consent Calendar.

LANGUAGE TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION: The City of Santa Barbara offers live Spanish translation and interpretation for City Council Meetings via the Wordly platform. Follow the directions below to access the service. • Go to: https://attend.wordly.ai/join/QQBV-6746
o Ensure the Session ID QQBV-6746 is displayed.
o Select “Spanish” and click on the “Attend” button.
o You can now read the captions on your device and/or listen to the translation of the City Council meeting. o Click the speaker button to hear a text-to-speech version of the translated dialogue. • If you have any questions or concerns, please contact City TV at 805-564-5311.

SPANISH INTERPRETATION: If you need interpretation of your communications to Council from Spanish into English, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 564-5309 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification of at least 48 hours will usually enable the City to make arrangements.

INTERPRETACIÓN EN ESPAÑOL: Si necesita una interpretación del español al inglés, para sus comunicaciones al Consejo, comuníquese con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al 564-5309, o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Si es posible, la notificación de al menos 48 horas generalmente permitirá a la Ciudad hacer los arreglos.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: If you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange. 08/11/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 1 AUGUST 11, 2026 AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 2:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Subject: Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That Council waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the consent agenda and the public hearing consent agenda and authorize reading by title only, pursuant to City Charter Section 511, unless otherwise requested by a member of the City Council; this waiver shall not apply to emergency ordinances, which shall be read in full as required by Section 511.

2. Subject: Proposed Lease Agreement with On The Land, LLC [Agreement] Recommendation: That Council approve a 5-year Lease Agreement with Two 5- year Options to Extend the Term at the Mutual Consent of Both Parties with On The Land, a California Limited Liability Company, at an Initial Base Rent of $13,050 Per Month for Space Located at 113 Harbor Way.

3. Subject: Proposed Lease Agreement with Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc. [Agreement]
Recommendation: That Council approve a five-year lease agreement with Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc., for the approximately 864 square feet of ground floor office space, designated as 113 Harbor Way, Suite 108.

4. Subject: Response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report on Gas Leaf Blowers in the City of Santa Barbara
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report titled “The 1997 Gas Leaf Blower Initiative: A Voter-Approved mandate Without Action.”
08/11/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 2

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

5. Subject: Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Certifying the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022040209) and Adopting Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
B. The title of the Resolution has been read; if there is no objection from any Councilmember present, further reading is waived pursuant to Santa Barbara City Charter § 511.

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS & ENGAGEMENTS

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Council Agenda Report
Agenda Date: August 11, 2026
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Waterfront Department
Subject: Proposed Lease Agreement with On The Land, LLC [Agreement] Recommendation:

That Council approve a 5-year Lease Agreement with Two 5-year Options to Extend the Term at the Mutual Consent of Both Parties with On The Land, a California Limited Liability Company, at an Initial Base Rent of $13,050 Per Month for Space Located at 113 Harbor Way.

Discussion
The upstairs restaurant space in the Waterfront Center Building, located at 113 Harbor Way, became vacant following the decision by the Anchor Rose Restaurant not to renew their lease beyond December 31, 2025. As a result, this change created an opportunity for new businesses to consider leasing the space.

In light of this vacancy, the Waterfront Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to lease the available space. The RFP was advertised on both the City and Department websites. Staff also distributed the RFP to current tenants and individuals on the interested parties list.

Additionally, notices were posted at all Marina Gates, outside the vacant building, and on the Santa Barbara area Craigslist webpage as well as LoopNet.

At the time the RFP closed, only one proposal was received, and following a comprehensive review process by subject matter experts, On the Land, LLC, was selected as the qualified proposal to occupy the space. The basic lease terms of the proposed lease are as follows:
• Term: Five year lease, with 2 five-year options to extend the term at the mutual written consent of both parties.
• Base Rent: $13,050 per month, not including CAM charges, utilities, and taxes • Percentage Rent: Ten percent (10%) of the “Gross Receipts” up to and including Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) over a full lease year, and nine percent (9%) of the “Gross Agenda Item No. 2
Council Agenda Report
Proposed Lease Agreement with On The Land, LLC [Agreement]

Page 2 ends

Receipts” in excess of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) up to and including Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000), and eight percent (8%) of the “Gross Receipts” in excess of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) up to and including Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000), and seven percent (7%) of the “Gross Receipts” in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) over a full lease year.
• Annual Rent Adjustment: Annual 3% increase beginning on January 1, 2027, and every January 1 thereafter.
• Insurance: On The Land, LLC is required to procure and maintain, for the duration of the lease period, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the possession, occupancy, operation, improvement, or use of the facility by the lease, their guests, agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

Budget/Financial Information
The lease revenues are assumed in the Waterfront Department’s Fiscal Year 2026 operating budget, and will be included in future budgets.

The Harbor Commission recommended approval of the proposed lease agreement at their March 19, 2026 meeting.

A copy of the contract/ agreement may be requested from the Waterfront Department for public review by emailing [email protected].

AB 339 Compliance: Staff has reviewed Government Code section 3504.1 and determined that the noticing provisions do not apply to this contract.

Attachment:

1. Site Plan
Prepared by: Cesar Barrios, Waterfront Business Manager Submitted by: Mike Wiltshire, Waterfront Director
Approved by: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
SECOND FLOOR PLAN if if
0 20
Seo le (Feet)
40 REVISIONS On the Land LLC
Exhibit "A"
1------__J��mii 1=
20 Brian Bosse, Business Manager T. Lawler
t-----------1'"'""';;;-,, -3/
-:--9/
-:--20-2-0---f;;;;;��ll"'-'3""' H
----'a
rc""b-°-" or"-"W
"'--"a----'
y =�---b�-'__:_ 11___:":'30'"':-"" 114"________j
City of Santa Barbara
Waterfront Department 2 of 2
Attachment

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Council Agenda Report
Agenda Date: August 4, 2026
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Waterfront Department
Subject: Proposed Lease Agreement with Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc. [Agreement]
Recommendation:

That Council approve a five-year lease agreement with Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc., for the approximately 864 square feet of ground floor office space, designated as 113 Harbor Way, Suite 108.

Discussion
Following the vacancy of the office space on January 1, 2026, the Waterfront Department issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) on February 26, 2026, advertising the available office space within the historic Waterfront Center Building. As a result of this process, Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc. (MOA) was selected to lease the premises.

The facility will fulfill two principal roles:
• Administrative Headquarters: Serving as the central office for MOA staff, enabling effective management of maritime training programs and community outreach initiatives.
• Immersive Learning Center: Operating as a public-facing Tall Ship Experience Center featuring interactive experiences, digital storytelling, and hands-on educational displays. Utilizing advanced lighting, sound, visual media, and interactive technology, the center will simulate elements of life at sea and introduce visitors to traditional sailing vessels, as well as the ecology and history of the Waterfront, the Santa Barbara Channel, and the adjoining Channel Islands.

Agenda Item No. 3
Council Agenda Report
Proposed Lease Agreement with Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc. [Agreement]

Page 2 ends

Inspired by the Mystic Whaler, Santa Barbara’s official 110-foot schooner, the Tall Ship Experience Center extends the vessel’s mission by promoting teamwork, preserving maritime heritage, and encouraging ocean stewardship in a land-based setting.

While the Mystic Whaler functions as a leading floating classroom for youth education, the Experience Center will broaden accessibility for all audiences. Through carefully crafted interactive storytelling and science-focused exhibits, visitors will gain foundational knowledge in maritime traditions and regional ecology prior to embarking on shipboard experiences.

The basic lease terms of the proposed lease are as follows:
• Term: 5-year term
• Base Rent: $4,147 per month ($4.80 per square foot)
• Percentage Rent: 10% of gross receipts from merchandise, services, educational activities, or special events held in the leased space or on the Mystic Whaler vessel when berthed or anchored within Santa Barbara waters.
• Annual Rent Adjustment: Cost of Living increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
• Insurance: Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc. is required to procure and maintain, for the duration of the lease period, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the possession, occupancy, operation, improvement, or use of the facility by the lease, their guests, agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

Budget/Financial Information
The lease revenues are assumed in the Waterfront Department’s Fiscal Year 2027 operating budget, and will be included in future budgets.

The Harbor Commission recommended approval of the proposed lease agreement at their May 21, 2026 meeting.

A copy of the contract/ agreement may be requested from the Waterfront Department for public review by emailing [email protected].

AB 339 Compliance: Staff has reviewed Government Code Section 3504.1 and determined that the noticing provisions do not apply to this contract.

Council Agenda Report
Proposed Lease Agreement with Mystic Ocean Adventures, Inc. [Agreement]

Page 3 ends

Attachment:

1. Site Plan
Prepared by: Cesar Barrios, Waterfront Business Manager Submitted by: Mike Wiltshire, Waterfront Director
Approved by: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
OFFICE SPACE #108
Attachment

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Council Agenda Report
Agenda Date: August 11, 2026
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: City Administrator’s Office
Subject: Response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report on Gas Leaf Blowers in the City of Santa Barbara
Recommendation:

That Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report titled “The 1997 Gas Leaf Blower Initiative: A Voter-Approved Mandate Without Action.”
Discussion
On June 15, 2026, the City received a letter requesting review of and responses to a Grand Jury Report titled “The 1997 Gas Leaf Blower Initiative: A Voter-Approved Mandate Without Action.” (Attachment 1), which analyzed the City’s implementation and enforcement of City Municipal Codes regulating the use of leaf blowers. The City must respond to the Grand Jury’s report within 90 days of receipt.

The Grand Jury recounted the history that led to the current Santa Barbara Municipal Code

9.16.050 Leaf Blowers – Restriction on Use and 9.16.060 Use of Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers Prohibited, including an initial ordinance regulating the use of leaf-blowers in 1987 and a 1991 update introducing decibel limitations. In 1997, a ballot initiative was passed prohibiting the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers within City limits and the City Council then adopted ordinance amendments creating a certification program for allowed electric leaf blowers and a requirement that business tax certificate applicants be provided guidelines for allowed uses.

These code sections were renumbered in 2016 to the current code sections.

The Grand Jury report discusses the environmental and climate impacts of gas-powered leaf blowers, incuding emissions and pollutants stirred up when used. Leaf blowers can also operate at noise levels that can have negative health effects.

Agenda Item No. 4
Council Agenda Report
Response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report on Gas Leaf Blowers in the City of Santa Barbara

Page 2 ends

In analyzing the historical and current City practices around leaf blowers, the following conditions were noted:
• City staff and contractors use gas-powered leaf blowers for road re-paving preparation. • Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD) and zoning code enforcement officers are tasked with enforcing these code sections; however, due to the low priority nature of these calls police response is typically delayed.
• Sustainability & Resilience Code Enforcement Officers also respond to complaints with an educational approach; they do not take enforcement action. • The Parks and Recreation Department is authorized and directed to create guidelines for safe and proper use of electric leaf blowers and to create a certification process for electric leaf blowers that do not exceed the 65 decibel limit. • The Finance Department is required to provide a copy of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code 9.16.050 Leaf Blowers – Restriction on Use chapter and the Parks and Recreation leaf blower guidelines to each person obtaining a City abusiness tax certificate for operating a gardening or landscaping maintenance service within the City.

The report concludes that the existing Municipal Code has not been effectively implemented and enforcement actions have not addressed widespread violations.

There is currently no commercially available alternative equipment to gasoline-powered blowers that can effectively prepare pavement surfaces for resurfacing operations. Without the use of blowers that meet the required push-force and sustained run-time specifications, pavement resurfacing work would become less effective and significantly reduce the success and longevity of resurfacing projects. A forthcoming ordinance amendment will include language establishing this narrow operational exception and clarifying that it remains in effect only until viable zero-emission equipment, compliant with applicable noise limits, becomes available for this specific application.

The City of Santa Barbara is committed to implementing solutions that will create behavior change and result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and noise pollution. As such, City staff will assess existing enforcement resources for immediate changes, draft an update to the Municipal Code for improvements to the enforcement process, develop and distribute easily accessible educational materials, and explore additional opportunities to promote the industry transition from gasoline-powered blowers to electric options. With the Council Agenda Report
Response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report on Gas Leaf Blowers in the City of Santa Barbara

Page 3 ends

backdrop of the State of California’s ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered leaf blowers in 2024, the City is investigating a buy-back program to replace exisiting gasoline-powered leaf blowers and electric leaf blowers that exceed the decibel limit.

The City’s response letter to the Grand Jury (Attachment 2) details the City’s responses to the findings and recommendations.

Budget/Financial Information
There is no direct budget impact from the recommended action of sending the response letter.

Existing staff time and resources necessary will be utilized to implement the proposed City responses.

Sustainability Impact
Decreased use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce particulate air pollution, moving the City closer to its goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035.

Attachments:

1. The 1997 Gas Leaf Blower Initiative: A Voter-Approved mandate Without Action

2. City of Santa Barbara’s Response to the Grand Jury
Prepared by: Chris Clark, Environmental Services Specialist II Brian D’Amour, Public Works Director
Christpher Payne, Assistant Chief of Police
Jill Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director
Liz Smith, Community Engagement Manager
Lyndsay Maas, Assistant Finance Director
Submitted by: Alelia Parenteau, Acting Deputy City Administrator Approved by: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 1
THE 1997 GAS LEAF BLOWER INITIATIVE:

A Voter-Approved Mandate Without Action

SUMMARY
In 1997, City of Santa Barbara (City) residents took a clear stand by passing a ballot measure banning gasoline-powered leaf blowers (gas blowers) within city limits. This voter-led and approved mandate reflected a clear community concern, yet decades later, it remains widely disregarded.

Gas blowers generate significant noise and air pollution, posing adverse health effects for both users and bystanders, while also creating an ongoing nuisance for the community. As of 1997, use of gas blowers is illegal within the City.

The City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code (City Code) goes further, banning the sale of electric blowers that do not meet the City's established noise limit of 65 decibels, restricting operational use within 250 ft of residential zones between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Monday through Saturday, and banning the use entirely on Sundays and national holidays. Furthermore, under the City Code, the Parks and Recreation Department must certify individual blowers annually. In addition, the City Finance Department Business Office must inform businesses using them of the requisite City Code governing their proper use to mitigate the nuisance and adverse health effects associated with inhalation of pollution and debris for the user of the blower and bystanders.

The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that enforcement of the City Code relating to leaf blower usage is insufficient. While there have been many citizen complaints, they have not been adequately addressed. The illegal use of gas blowers within the City continues to this day by City staff and other operators, including City contractors and residents. Furthermore, the Grand Jury has identified City departments failing to enforce the City Code. Despite this clear voter-passed mandate, lack of meaningful enforcement has nullified the will of the voters.

The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council (City Council) ensure the City’s gas blower ban is fully implemented and enforced. This includes directing City departments to enforce the City Code, establish a consistent process for responding to violations, enforcing compliance in City operations, and making electric leaf blower guidelines accessible to the public and affected businesses.

Attachment 1
2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 2

BACKGROUND
Leaf blowers became commercially widespread in the United States during the latter half of the twentieth century. Early handheld blowers evolved from backpack motorized crop sprayers commonly used in agriculture during the 1950s and 1960s. Landscapers and maintenance personnel modified these sprayers by removing the chemical spray component to use solely as an air-blowing device. In 1970, the Japanese manufacturer Echo (Formerly Kioritz Corporation) entered the backpack blower market, contributing to its greater commercialization.1
Recurring droughts across California resulted in restrictions on using water to clean driveways. This contributed to the rise of the gas blower market. Cities across California began implementing restrictions on leaf blower use, with some jurisdictions banning them outright.2
With the increasing use of leaf blowers in the local community, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4452 in 1987, creating Section 9.16.020 of the City Code. This newly adopted section, titled ‘Leafblowers’, established general regulations governing the use of blowers within city limits, including designated areas of operation, permissible hours, and prohibited conduct.

In 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinances 4718 and 4720, further amending Section

9.16.020. These amendments retitled the section ‘Leafblowers - Restriction on Use” and expanded regulations. The ordinances imposed additional responsibilities on the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and Finance Department. The City also aligned its regulations with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) noise level standard, recognizing a 65-decibel limit and prohibiting the use and sale of leaf blowers exceeding that threshold. As a result, the Parks and Recreation Department was directed to develop formal operational guidelines which were to be distributed to applicants obtaining a landscaping or gardening business license.

With city efforts to strike a balance between regulation and continued use, many residents felt that more needed to be done to address the nuisance and adverse health effects associated with gas blowers. In 1997, City resident, Ashley Brilliant (1933-2025) led a ballot initiative to prohibit entirely the use of gas blowers within City limits:
1 https://www.batteryleafblowers.com/history-leaf-blower/, accessed May 20, 2026. 2 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-29-me-27606-story.html, accessed May 20, 2026.
2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 3
to secure and promote the public health, comfort, safety and welfare, and to protect the rights of its citizens to privacy and freedom from nuisance, it is the purpose of this ordinance to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noises at levels which are detrimental to the health and welfare of the community, and to minimize airborne dust and pollen.3 After collecting more than 9,000 signatures from local residents, the measure was placed before voters.

In September 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5024, further amending Section 9.16.020. These amendments added restrictions and directed the creation of a certification program through the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, it mandated the City Finance Department Business Office to distribute both the City Code and the City’s established blower guidelines to applicants seeking a landscaping or gardening business license.

On November 4, 1997, City residents approved the ballot measure enacting Ordinance 5036, adding Section 9.16.021 to the City Code and prohibiting the use of gas blowers within city limits.

In 2016, the City amended portions of the Noise chapter and renumbered the leaf blower provisions. Sections 9.16.020 and 9.16.021, relating to leaf blower usage, were redesignated as Sections 9.16.050 and 9.16.060.

The Grand Jury examined how the city has implemented its restrictions on leaf blower use and how it enforces its gas blower ban as put forth by the residents of the City.

3 https://www.ashleighbrilliant.com/leafblowers.html, accessed May 20, 2026. 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 4

METHODOLOGY
In developing this Report, the Grand Jury conducted interviews with key personnel of the following agencies:
 City of Santa Barbara, Public Works Department
 City of Santa Barbara, Sustainability and Resilience Department  City of Santa Barbara, Police Department
 City of Santa Barbara, Parks and Recreation Department  City of Santa Barbara, Finance Department
 City of Santa Barbara, Administrator’s Office
 City of Santa Barbara, Office of the City Attorney
 Santa Barbara County, Air Pollution Control District
Additionally, the Grand Jury reviewed the Santa Barbara City Municipal Code, literature on the adverse health effects associated with gas blower use, and records received from the referenced agencies.

DISCUSSION
Risks to The Health and Safety of Residents and Non-Compliant Operators Environmental Pollutants
While the City of Santa Barbara has focused on initiatives that lead the City towards carbon neutrality, continued use of gas blowers throughout the community undermines these goals by producing significant amounts of pollution into the community.4 Gas blowers use less efficient two-stroke engines burning a mixture of gasoline and oil, often not equipped with an emissions control device. As a result, the exhaust produces high levels of pollutants that have adverse health effects. Emissions from gas blowers include nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG), both of which can produce ozone when exposed to sunlight.5,6 Additional pollutants of concern include fine 4 https://sustainability.santabarbaraca.gov/programs/climate-action-plan, accessed May 20, 2026.
5 https://sustainability.wustl.edu/rethinking-lawn-equipment2/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20air%20pollution,air%20quality%20and%20huma n%20health, accessed May 20, 2026.
6 https://www.ourair.org/leaf-blowers/, accessed May 20, 2026. 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 5
particulate matter. The adverse health effect associated with these pollutants include early death, heart attack, stroke, asthma, and congenital heart failure.7 The California Air Resources Board has equated the emissions from one hour operation of two-stroke models to those of an automobile traveling for 15 hours or over 1,000 miles.8 FIGURE 1

ONE HOUR BLOWER USE EQUATES TO
15 CARS DRIVING FOR ONE HOUR
Noise Pollution
Gas blowers produce intense low-frequency noise, exceeding safe exposure limits, and have negative health effects on the operator and those in close proximity to the source.9 While the operator is most susceptible to harm from the noise emission of gas blowers, the low-frequency sound produced can penetrate windows, walls, and travel 7 https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/gas-leaf-blowers-are-health-hazards/, accessed May 20, 2026.
8 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engine-fact-sheet, accessed May 20, 2026.
9 https://ccbirdalliance.org/the-downside-of-gas-powered-leaf-blowers-less-pollutingalternatives/, accessed May 20, 2026. 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 6
greater distances, creating a persistent nuisance for the community during the operation of these devices. A 2015 study published by the National Library of Medicine found that commercial grade gas blowers generate sound levels higher than the ANSI standard level of 65 decibels. Of the three blowers tested, sound levels measured at 50 ft reached 77.6 decibels or higher, well above the recognized ANSI standard.10 Airborne Debris
While the speed of the propelled air from blowers varies, some can reach up to 200 miles per hour or more.11 Improper use of this equipment can project debris that may contain both biological and chemical pollutants, recirculating it into the community, adversely affecting the health of the operator and nearby residents.12 City Use of Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers
While the City Code contains no exemption, restrictions on leaf blower use are not universally followed among City staff and contractors. The City of Santa Barbara Public Works Department, particularly the Streets Division and its contractors, use gas blowers for road re-pavement purposes, operating in non-compliance with the City Code. As of the writing of this report, it is the Grand Jury’s understanding that the Public Works Department is in the process of phasing out the use of gas blowers. However, the city has been planning to transition to electric blower use for years with no clear timeline showing that this transition is being implemented. While contractors are expected to comply with applicable laws, their use of gas blowers reflects a failure to ensure contractors comply with the City Code.

Enforcement (non-enforcement)
Under the City Code, violations of Chapter 9.16 (Noise), including Sections 9.16.050 (Leaf Blowers – Restrictions on Use) and 9.16.060 (Use of Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers Prohibited), are enforceable once verified by either zoning enforcement officers or the Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD).13 In practice, enforcement authority primarily rests with the SBPD, which operates a tiered dispatch system designed to prioritize calls involving immediate threats to life and safety. Leaf blower complaints are categorized as lower-priority calls.
10 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6707732/, accessed May 20, 2026. 11 https://theropshop.com/rugged-u/blog/leaf-blower-tips-cfm-vs-mph, accessed May 20, 2026.
12 https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/gas-leaf-blowers-are-health-hazards/, accessed May 20, 2026.
13 Santa Barbara Municipal Code § 9.16.110 (Ord. 5740, 2016), accessed May 20, 2026. 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7
Officers are typically not available to respond to a gas blower complaint. By the time an officer becomes available to respond, the non-compliant operator may no longer be present. Response times for these lower-tiered calls vary day-to-day and are dependent on overall calls received by the SBPD.

While enforcement of gas blower violations presents challenges due to the need for a timely response, the City has demonstrated that various short-term targeted enforcement efforts can improve compliance, reduce violations, and give community emphasis that the City Code will be enforced.

In addressing illegal short-term vacation rentals, City Council used an enforcement approach that produced measurable results without requiring permanent staffing.14 In an attempt to address ongoing non-compliance and the absence of active enforcement, a similar model could be applied for the enforcement of the gas blower ban. A shortterm enforcement task force would allow the City to proactively identify and address violations in real time, establishing a visible enforcement presence to signal that the law will be enforced.

As another example, between 1982 and early 1990, Santa Barbara experienced extreme drought conditions leading City Council to implement restrictions on water usage through changes to the City Code. To enforce the new laws around water usage, the City implemented a program in which it tasked two Drought Enforcement Officers to enforce the City Code specific to water usage. The Drought Enforcement Officers were tasked to patrol the streets of Santa Barbara City, looking for residents violating the City Code, issuing warnings for first offenses with further non-compliance resulting in fines.15
While the City emphasizes education over penalization, this approach has not resulted in compliance with the gas blower ban implemented almost three decades ago. A targeted enforcement effort would create immediate accountability and demonstrate that continued violations of the gas blower ban within the community will not go unaddressed.
14 https://www.independent.com/2025/08/04/city-of-santa-barbara-chips-away-atillegal-short-term-vacation-rentals/, accessed May 20, 2026. 15 https://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Demand-ReductionDuring-Drought.City-of-Santa-Barbara.pdf, accessed May 20, 2026. 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 8
Sustainability & Resilience Department
The City’s Sustainability and Resilience Department (S&R) leads in public education regarding restrictions on leaf blower use. The Department and its code enforcement officers rely on an educational approach when interacting with non-compliant operators.

The Department receives service requests (complaints) submitted through SB Connect, the City’s online service request platform. Leaf blower complaints filed through SB Connect are routed to S&R. Although S&R takes the lead on education and outreach, it does not enforce the City Code provisions relating to leaf blower usage.

Despite receiving leaf blower complaints, S&R staff cannot issue citations or take enforcement action. S&R’s role is limited to education and obtaining voluntary compliance. While S&R attempts to contact reported violators to provide information about the City Code provisions on leaf blower usage, staffing constraints limit the department’s ability to consistently respond to complaints or conduct in-person educational outreach.

Complaints With No Enforcement
The Grand Jury reviewed multiple sources of data to assess how leaf blower complaints are received, tracked, and enforced. This includes SBPD’s calls-for-service records, as well as complaints submitted through SB Connect, to better understand reporting avenues and enforcement outcomes.

There are two separate intake pathways to submit leaf blower complaints to the SBPD.

In practice, no formalized consistent referral process has been adopted between the two, contributing to the lack of enforcement.

The Grand Jury reviewed Santa Barbara Police Department calls-for-service records for leaf-blower related complaints from January 2023 through January 2026. During this period, there were a total of 140 calls-for-service; however, enforcement activity was essentially absent. Most calls resulted in minimal or no action, with outcomes such as gone on arrival, canceled calls, or non-enforcement responses such as ‘Be On the Lookout' broadcasts. Overall, the data reflected calls-for-service that did not show meaningful enforcement of the City Code on blower regulations.

The Grand Jury also reviewed SB Connect data concerning leaf blower-related complaints from 2024 through 2025. During this period, a total of 87 complaints were submitted, 43 in 2024, and 44 in 2025. S&R did not forward complaints inputted into SB 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 9
Connect to the SBPD for enforcement review. The locations of complaints submitted to SB Connect and SBPD are shown on the map below.

FIGURE 2

MAP OF SB CONNECT AND SBPD LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINT LOCATIONS SB Connect does not work as an effective enforcement pathway for leaf blower complaints, as the response times do not line up with the immediate nature of these violations. By the time an SB Connect complaint is reviewed and acted upon, noncompliant operators are likely to be gone.

The Grand Jury identified little to no overlap in complaints of records received from SBPD and complaints input into SB Connect.

Parks and Recreation Department
As outlined in Section 9.16.050.F of the City Code, the City Parks & Recreation Director is “… authorized and directed to adopt guidelines for the proper use of leaf blowers, which guidelines shall promote the safe and efficient use of leaf blowers, while also mitigating, to the extent possible, the noise and nuisance effects of leaf blowers….” 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 10
While a Parks and Recreation Department pamphlet on leaf blower guidelines does exist, and while it was accessible on the City’s website at one point, the Grand Jury was unable to locate it through the City’s website searchable pathways. This pamphlet provided simple operational guidelines as outlined in the City Code and emphasized the illegality of gas blowers, but failed to provide information regarding the proper disposal methods of blower debris. The Grand Jury has found that this document is not easily accessible to the public, or those seeking gardening or landscaping business licenses, contributing to non-compliant use within City limits.

In addition, the City Code requires the Parks and Recreation Department to create a certification process for blowers operating within the community. This program is important as not all electric blowers are universally compliant with the City’s adopted noise standard. Blowers would meet the certification requirements so long they generated 65 decibels or less, consistent with the American National Standard Institute’s (ANSI B175.2-1990) standard for handheld and backpack gas blowers.

Through this process, certification stickers would be applied to leaf blowers meeting that standard, and certification would be valid for one year. Operating a blower without a valid certification sticker constitutes an infraction.

Annual certification and information dissemination to operators on the proper use of leaf blowers is vital to ensure leaf blowers are operated safely and in compliance with local law. The Grand Jury has found that no certification program or process exists within the Parks and Recreation Department.

Business Office
The City Code directs the Finance Department to provide a copy of the City noise ordinances (Chapter 9.16) and the leaf blower guidelines to each person that is obtaining a business license to operate a gardening or landscaping maintenance service within the city.

The City of Santa Barbara no longer issues “business licenses,” instead issuing “business tax certificates.” While terminology may have shifted, the intent of the City Code provision directing the distribution of the Chapter 9.16 and electric blower guidelines remains unchanged.
2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 11
The Finance Department Business Office has no standardized process requiring the distribution of Chapter 9.16 (Noise) and leaf blower guidelines to those seeking to operate a landscaping or gardening business within city limits.

CONCLUSION
In 1997, the City of Santa Barbara residents made it clear that the use of gas blowers would be prohibited. Yet three decades later, this directive has not meaningfully been honored. Gas blowers continue to be used throughout the city, by City staff and other operators, while the existing complaint and enforcement process fails to adequately address widespread violations. The City must take the steps necessary to enforce the gas blower ban and ensure all leaf blower regulations in the City Code are enforced.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1: The City of Santa Barbara is not enforcing the voter-approved law prohibiting the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in the community by allowing continued use by City staff, contractors, and residents in violation of Section 9.16.060 of the City Code.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council fully and effectively enforce Section 9.16.060 of the City Code. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 2: The City of Santa Barbara staff and its contractors are using gasolinepowered leaf-blowers in municipal operations in direct violation of the City Code.

Recommendation 2a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council direct City staff to comply with Section 9.16.060 of the City Code by ceasing its own use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in City operations. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Santa Barbara enforce compliance with section 9.16.060 of the City Code through agreements with its contractors, including prohibiting the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in Citycontracted operations. To be implemented by December 31, 2026. 2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 12
Finding 3: The City of Santa Barbara’s current enforcement model for its gasolinepowered leaf blower ban is not effective and does not result in enforcement of the City Code.

Recommendation 3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council develop a proactive enforcement model that ensures immediate response to violations of the City Code, holding non-compliant operators accountable. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Recommendation 3b: The Grand Jury recommends that Santa Barbara City Council create a short-term patrol-based enforcement task force to address violations of the gasoline-powered leaf blower ban and establish a visible enforcement presence. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 4: The Parks and Recreation Department has not made its leaf blower usage guidelines readily accessible, limiting community awareness and resulting in continued noise disturbances, air pollution, and repeated quality of life impacts on residents throughout the community.

Recommendation 4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council direct the Parks and Recreation Department to make these guidelines readily accessible to the public. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 5: The Parks and Recreation Department has not adopted a leaf blower certification program, resulting in no effective method to identify equipment compliance or non-compliance, in violation of Section 9.16.050.E of the City Code.

Recommendation 5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council direct the Parks and Recreation Department to adopt a leaf blower certification program, in compliance with the City Code. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

2025-2026 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 13
Finding 6: The Finance Department is not providing a copy of Chapter 9.16 of the municipal code and the established Parks and Recreation leaf blower guidelines to each person obtaining a business license (tax certificate) or gardening or landscaping, in violation of Section 9.16.050.F of the City Code.

Recommendation 6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council direct the Finance Department to provide a copy of Chapter 9.16 of the municipal code and leaf blower guidelines to each person obtaining a business license (tax certificate) for gardening or landscaping, in compliance with the City Code. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit.

Responses to Findings shall be either:
 Agree
 Disagree with an explanation
 Disagree partially with an explanation
Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:
 Has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule
 Requires further analysis, with an analysis completion date of fewer than 6 months after the issuance of the report
 Will not be implemented with an explanation of wh
City Council, City of Santa Barbara – 90 days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Recommendations 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6
Attachment 2
 Please consider the environment before printing this letter.

August 11, 2026
The Honorable Patricia Kelly
Presiding Judge
Santa Barbara County Superior Court
1100 Anacapa Street
P.O. Box 21107
Santa Barbara, California 93121 – 1107
Reference: Response to Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report titled, “The 1997 Gas Leaf Blower Initiative: A Voter-Approved Mandate Without Action” received June 15, 2026.

Honorable Patricia Kelly and Grand Jury Foreperson:

Please find attached the City of Santa Barbara’s response to the above referenced Grand Jury report. As directed by the Grand Jury, all responses are provided in accordance with Sections 933 and 933.05 of the California Penal Code.

Should the Grand Jury have any questions regarding the City’s response, or wish to follow up with the City, please contact me or City Administrator Kelly R. McAdoo.

Sincerely,
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Cc: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Santa Barbara City Councilmembers
Kelly R. McAdoo, City Administrator
Attachment
City of Santa Barbara’s Response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report: The 1997 Gas Leaf Blower Initiative: A Voter-Approved Mandate Without Action The City of Santa Barbara’s responses below are to all the findings and recommendations as identified in the Grand Jury’s report.

Finding 1: The City of Santa Barbara is not enforcing the voter-approved law prohibiting the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in the community by allowing continued use by City staff, contractors, and residents in violation of Section 9.16.060 of the City Code.

Response to Finding 1: Disagree partially. The City of Santa Barbara has been addressing community complaints regarding the use of gas leaf blowers with resources from the Sustainability & Resilience and Police Departments. These contacts have ended with education and warnings when City employees have been able to respond to the scene while the gas-powered leaf blowers are still in use.

The City agrees that gasoline-powered leaf blowers have been used by some City departments and contractors hired by the City as described in the response to Finding 2 below. The City is looking for viable alternatives for the gasoline-powered leaf blowers that are used in the repair and maintenance of critical infrastructure.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council fully and effectively enforce Section 9.16.060 of the City Code. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 1: Will be implemented. The City will be researching different enforcement models and resources to be used to fully and effectively enforce

9.16.060 of the Municipal Code which is outlined in the responses to Recommendation 3a and 3b. The target deadline for enforcement to begin is the week of December 14, 2026.

Finding 2: The City of Santa Barbara staff and its contractors are using gasoline powered leaf-blowers in municipal operations in direct violation of the City Code.

Response to Finding 2: Disagree partially. The City of Santa Barbara partially disagrees with this finding. City staff and contractors operate, to the maximum extent practicable, in compliance with Section 9.16.060 of the Municipal Code, which implements Measure D97’s purpose of protecting public health, comfort, and welfare by prohibiting unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and minimizing airborne dust and pollutants from gasoline-powered leaf blowers. The limited use of gasoline-powered blowers by City personnel is confined to a single, highly specialized context: pavement resurfacing operations, where they perform a critical engineering function that cannot yet be achieved with commercially available zero-emission equipment.

During resurfacing, gasoline-powered blowers are used solely for the preparatory surface-cleaning phase immediately prior to tack coat application. This phase demands equipment capable of delivering high blowing force (greater than 50 N) and sustained run time in harsh, dusty conditions. Current battery-powered blower models do not provide adequate force, duty cycle, or durability for this task, and field trials have demonstrated an unacceptable risk of poor surface preparation when relying on existing electric alternatives. In this specific context, insufficient cleaning compromises the bond between the existing pavement and the new surface layer, leading to delamination, early cracking, and premature failure.

From an engineering and environmental standpoint, thorough debris removal before tack coat is essential to ensure pavement longevity. When the bond fails and resurfaced streets deteriorate early, the City must return more frequently for additional grinding, paving, and related construction activities. That outcome conflicts with Chapter 9.16’s intent to reduce community exposure to repeated construction noise and nuisance conditions, and it increases cumulative environmental impacts through higher material consumption, construction-related emissions, and traffic disruption. By using high-capacity blowers once at the outset to ensure a successful, long-lasting resurfacing, the City avoids multiple future cycles of noisy, disruptive repair work at the same location.

Pavement resurfacing itself is infrequent and technically demanding. On a typical local residential or arterial street, resurfacing occurs roughly once every twenty years, and the short duration of the preparation phase means that gasoline-powered blower use at any given location is measured in hours over multiple decades. In practice, this makes the activity both rare and tightly constrained, unlike routine landscape maintenance or daily cleaning where the ordinance is rightly aimed at eliminating chronic gas-blower noise and dust.

The City fully acknowledges the environmental and community concerns associated with gasoline-powered leaf blowers, including noise impacts, air-quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. Consistent with those concerns and the purpose of Section 9.16.060, City policy strictly limits their use to the resurfacing surface-cleaning operation described above and prohibits them for all other City maintenance and construction activities. This narrow operational exception is designed to align with the ordinance’s underlying objectives by avoiding greater, long-term noise and environmental burdens that would result from shortened pavement life and more frequent repair projects.

City staff remain committed to reducing reliance on gasoline-powered equipment wherever feasible and to advancing the goals of Measure D97. The City actively tracks developments in battery-powered blower technology and participates in equipment evaluations with vendors and peer agencies. As soon as commercially available zero-emission blower models can demonstrate the necessary blowing force, run time, and reliability for resurfacing operations under field conditions, the City will transition this activity to such equipment and fully eliminate gasoline-powered blowers from pavement resurfacing work.

In summary, while the City recognizes and supports the community’s interest in minimizing environmental impacts and improving quality of life, present equipment limitations and basic pavement-performance requirements necessitate a narrowly tailored, technical exception for resurfacing surface-cleaning. That exception is constrained to rare, short-duration operations and is justified by its role in protecting long-term pavement integrity, thereby reducing the total number of noisy, disruptive, and emission-intensive repair cycles that residents experience over the life of the roadway.

Response to Recommendation 2a: Will not be implemented. City staff will continue to comply with Section 9.16.060 of the Municipal Code, aside from a single, clearly defined operational allowance related to pavement resurfacing. This activity requires equipment with performance capabilities that battery-powered blowers do not yet reliably provide.

Maintaining the ability to fully clean pavement surfaces is essential to ensure that resurfacing materials bond correctly and that newly treated streets achieve their intended service life.

The City understands the community’s concerns regarding the noise and emissions associated with gasoline-powered tools. For this reason, their use is otherwise prohibited across all routine maintenance and construction functions. Staff will continue to evaluate emerging zero-emission equipment and intend to transition to battery-powered alternatives for resurfacing work as soon as technology offers sufficient power, endurance, and reliability to support this critical infrastructure process.

A forthcoming ordinance amendment will include proposed language establishing this narrow operational exception and clarifying that it remains in effect only until viable zeroemission and noise compliant equipment becomes available.

Recommendation 2b: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Santa Barbara enforce compliance with section 9.16.060 of the City Code through agreements with its contractors, including prohibiting the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in City contracted operations. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 2b: Will be implemented. City staff will review all standard construction and maintenance contract templates to ensure that the prohibition on gasoline-powered leaf blowers is clearly stated and consistently enforced. Existing contract language already requires compliance with the Municipal Code, and this clarification will strengthen expectations for contractor operations. This will be achieved by December 31, 2026.

An exception will be applied solely to pavement resurfacing work, where specialized equipment is needed to achieve the level of surface preparation required for lasting pavement performance. Contractors performing these activities will be subject to the same narrowly tailored allowance as City staff.

Outside of this specific function, contractors will be required to utilize compliant, zeroemission equipment in all City contracted maintenance and construction work. Staff will also incorporate updated guidance into preconstruction meetings and ongoing contract oversight to ensure that both new and existing contractors understand and adhere to these requirements.

Finding 3: The City of Santa Barbara’s current enforcement model for its gasoline-powered leaf blower ban is not effective and does not result in enforcement of the City Code.

Response to Finding 3: Agree. The City recognizes that our ability to respond to gasolinepowered leaf blower complaints in a timely manner is the difference between being able to enforce the Municipal Code or not.

Response to Recommendation 3a: Requires further analysis. Leaf blowers are typically utilized during daylight hours at the end of a job by most users. If the City is unable to respond within a short timeframe, it is common that the users are no longer on site. The City will be evaluating the current response model to look for improvements in response time and identify additional employees who possess the necessary qualifications to conduct the enforcement. This analysis should be completed by December 1, 2026.

Recommendation 3b: The Grand Jury recommends that Santa Barbara City Council create a short-term patrol-based enforcement task force to address violations of the gasolinepowered leaf blower ban and establish a visible enforcement presence. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 3b: Will be implemented. As stated in the response to recommendation 3a, once the City has identified the employees who possess the necessary qualifications to conduct enforcement, we will establish a plan for conducting directed patrols visible to the public. These patrols will also be available to respond to community calls about the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers. The expected start date for these patrols would be the week of December 14, 2026.

Response to Finding 4: Disagree partially. Over the years, the Parks and Recreation Department has used a variety of methods to inform the community about the leaf blower rules. With a change in staffing and the evolution of the City’s outreach methods, the guidelines were not consistently distributed. The Parks Division has always maintained copies at its office on 402 East Ortega, and ensured that both Parks staff and landscape and tree contractors comply with the rules.

Response to Recommendation 4: Will be implemented. The Parks and Recreation Department will update its leaf blower guidelines, provide the guidelines in a readily accessible location on the City’s website, and make available at the public counter in the Parks Office, in addition to providing it to all City landscape and tree contractors. The Department will also disseminate the leaf blower guidelines to the community through its various social media channels. Will be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response to Finding 5: Agree. The Parks and Recreation Department did not develop a leaf blower certification program for several reasons. While there are established landscape businesses in the community, there are countless individual landscapers and gardeners. A compliance program must be voluntary.

Response to Recommendation 5: Will be implemented. The Parks and Recreation Department will develop a list of electric leaf blowers that meet the requirements of the City’s adopted noise standard. All landscapers that seek certification would present their equipment to the Parks Manager or designee and be placed on a certified list. The Department will disseminate the list of approved equipment, and requirements to have leaf blowers certified through outreach to all known landscape companies and City contractors, as well as through its webpage and social media channels. Voluntary participation by community members that hire landscapers and gardeners will be critical to the success of the program. Will be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 6: The Finance Department is not providing a copy of Chapter 9.16 of the municipal code and the established Parks and Recreation leaf blower guidelines to each person obtaining a business license (tax certificate) for gardening or landscaping, in violation of Section 9.16.050.F of the City Code.

Response to Finding 6: Disagree partially. The Finance Department did provide a copy of Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code and the established Parks and Recreation leaf blower guidelines to each person obtaining a business tax certificate for gardening and landscaping from 1997 to 2022. In 2023, the Finance Supervisor who was aware of this municipal code requirement retired, and the business tax certificate processing was transitioned to an external third-party, which resulted in this task inadvertently getting dropped.

Response to Recommendation 6: Will be implemented. The Finance Department will resume providing a copy of Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code and the established Parks and Recreation leaf blower guidelines to each person obtaining or renewing a business tax certificate for gardening, landscaping, or contractor businesses annually. Additionally, the Finance Department will require each person obtaining a business tax certificate for gardening, landscaping, or contractor businesses to acknowledge the prohibition on gas-powered leaf blower use under Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code when applying for or renewing a business tax certificate online. To be implemented by December 31, 2026.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Council Agenda Report
Agenda Date: August 11, 2026
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]
Recommendation:

That Council:

Executive Summary
The City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of Housing Plan programs pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program EIR (Program EIR), adoption of the CEQA Findings of Fact, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will complete the environmental review process and will allow for streamlined environmental review of future Housing Plan programs and housing development projects.

Adoption of the MMRP supports implementation of Program HE-9 (Resource Protection and Development Certainty) of the 6th Cycle Housing Element by establishing the framework for environmental resource protection and improving certainty for future housing projects.

Agenda Item No. 5
Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 2 ends

Discussion
Project Description
The Program EIR evaluates the City of Santa Barbara’s Housing Plan, described in Chapter 3.0, “Project Description,” of the Program EIR. The Housing Plan consists of 32 programs included in the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated amendments to the Municipal Code, General Plan, and/or Local Coastal Program to maintain consistency with the Housing Element and State law. The Housing Plan programs accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,001 housing units. The Housing Plan includes existing, ongoing, and future programs, including but not limited to, HE-1 (Adaptive Reuse), HE-6 (Facilitate Production of Accessory Dwelling Units), HE-7 (Objective Design and Development Standards), HE-10 (Multi-Unit Housing Program), HE-12 (Prioritize Deed Restricted Affordable Housing), HE13 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) and HE-19 (Short-Term Rental Framework and Ordinance).

CEQA Analysis
The City of Santa Barbara complied with all CEQA procedural requirements for preparation, public review, noticing, and consideration of impacts for the Program EIR. The Program EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Housing Plan, including the construction of approximately 8,001 additional housing units, and analyzes all environmental resource areas required under CEQA. The Program EIR concludes that many impacts would be less than significant and would not require mitigation, while other potentially significant impacts related to future construction and development, infrastructure improvements, and population growth can be addressed through feasible mitigation measures. Although many of these environmental issues are currently addressed on a projectby-project basis through existing development review processes, the mitigation measures in the Program EIR establish consistent, enforceable resource protection standards that would be applied citywide and ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

No significant and unavoidable environmental impacts were identified. A weblink to the Final Program EIR is provided in Attachment 1. Key environmental issue areas are summarized below.

Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 3 ends

Air Quality
Future development could generate temporary impacts related to construction emissions, increased regional air pollutants, and diesel particulate matter that could exceed applicable significance thresholds. The Program EIR includes mitigation that would require implementation of construction equipment emission control measures. Mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Biological Resources
Future development has the potential to affect sensitive biological resources, including creeks, riparian habitat, nesting birds, native trees, and other sensitive habitats. Mitigation measures would apply to qualifying development projects and would require creek protections, riparian habitat protections, seasonal construction restrictions to protect nesting birds, and preservation or replacement of protected native trees. Mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Future development has the potential to affect archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, historical resources, or human remains during future ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation measures require archaeological and tribal cultural resource assessments where appropriate, monitoring during ground disturbance, consultation with Native American tribes, procedures for inadvertent discoveries, and protection of historical resources through project review and compliance with applicable preservation standards. Mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Future development on sites with existing or historic contamination could expose construction workers, the public, or future residents to hazardous materials. The Program EIR requires environmental site assessments for properties with known or potential contamination and implementation of remediation or risk-management measures consistent with applicable regulatory agency requirements before development proceeds. Mitigation through these measures would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Noise
Construction associated with future development would generate temporary noise affecting nearby residences and sensitive receptors. Some construction activities such as pile driving have the potential to impact sensitive receptors and historic structures. New residential Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 4 ends

development could be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City’s noise standards. Mitigation measures would apply to qualifying development projects and would require a constructionnoise management plan, vibration control plans where appropriate, and incorporation of feasible noise attenuation measures during project design. Mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Transportation
The Program EIR evaluates transportation impacts using the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodology required under CEQA. Because the Housing Plan emphasizes infill development, mixed-use neighborhoods, and housing located near jobs, services, and transit, implementation is not expected to result in significant VMT impacts. Accordingly, transportation impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Utilities and Public Services
Future housing growth would increase demand for water, wastewater treatment, stormwater facilities, solid waste services, and other public infrastructure. The Program EIR evaluates whether existing and planned infrastructure can accommodate anticipated growth and finds that existing infrastructure planning, capital improvement programs, and regulatory requirements will accommodate demand increases. The Housing Plan would generally result in infill development in locations already served by existing City infrastructure; however, future development may require construction of new utility connections and facilities to serve the development and would potentially require replacement or upgrades to existing undersized or older infrastructure in certain areas of the city. Implementing mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR for air quality, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and hazards and hazardous materials would reduce impacts related to construction of utility connections and upgrades to a less-than-significant level.

Alternatives Analysis
Two alternatives are analyzed in the Program EIR:
• Alternative 1 (No Project) assumes that the Housing Plan programs and associated implementing actions are not adopted or implemented. Under this alternative, residential development would continue at the existing growth rate. The Program EIR concludes that the No Project Alternative would not reduce impacts identified in the Program EIR or satisfy the City's housing obligations under State housing law.

Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 5 ends

• Alternative 2 (Additional Housing) assumes implementation of the Housing Plan with additional measures to increase residential density and accelerate housing production beyond what is outlined in the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element. This alternative provides an analysis of a higher-growth scenario in which housing production exceeds RHNA assumptions. It is intended to illustrate potential environmental effects associated with greater housing capacity. The Additional Housing Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the Housing Plan, but potentially greater in magnitude due to increased development intensity and population growth. Most impacts under the Additional Housing Alternative would be addressed through the same mitigation measures identified for the Housing Plan; however, increased growth could contribute to potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, depending on regional thresholds and attainment assumptions.

Comparatively, the Program EIR found the Housing Plan to be the environmentally superior alternative that would result in the fewest environmental impacts.

Public Review
The Draft Program EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from January 30, 2026, through March 17, 2026. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on March 12, 2026. During the public review period, the City received five comment letters, in addition to the comments made during the Draft Program EIR Planning Commission hearing. Comments addressed topics including air quality, biological resources, schools, transportation, alternatives, and housing policy. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments, which are included in Section 8.0, “Responses to Comments,” of the Final Program EIR.

In response to the comments received, the Final Program EIR includes revisions and clarifications, including refinements to mitigation measures to improve implementation and monitoring. None of the revisions constitute significant new information requiring recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Final EIR Certification
Under CEQA Guidelines 15090, the City Council has the responsibility to determine whether:
• The Program EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 6 ends

• The Program EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis; and • The City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Program EIR.

Certification of the Final Program EIR does not approve the Housing Plan; rather, certification acknowledges that the environmental review has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that the environmental information has been considered by City Council before making subsequent decisions regarding the Housing Plan programs.

CEQA Findings
CEQA requires the decision-making body to adopt Findings of Fact for each significant impact identified in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines 15091). Attachment 2 contains the CEQA Findings of Fact with the City's findings for each impact and the supporting evidence, demonstrating that identified impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures.

The Program EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure mitigation measures identified within a certified EIR are implemented. The MMRP is within Attachment 3 and identifies each mitigation measure from the Program EIR, the responsible implementing agency or department, implementation timing, and procedures for monitoring compliance.

Many mitigation measures are programmatic in nature and will be implemented as future actions, Municipal Code amendments, or standard conditions applied to qualifying development projects.

It is important to note that the target dates identified for City mitigation implementation actions in the MMRP are intended for planning purposes and do not constitute binding deadlines. Actual implementation schedules are subject to the City's annual work program, staffing availability, budget appropriations, funding, and other resource considerations. As funding and staffing become available, implementation actions may be phased over multiple fiscal years. The status of each City implementation action will be included in the General Plan Annual Progress Report.

Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 7 ends

Environmental Review
The Program EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, reflects the independent judgment of the City, and provides decision-makers with information regarding the environmental consequences of implementing the Housing Plan programs.

Budget/Financial Information
Preparation of the Housing Plan Program EIR was funded through previously appropriated Community Development Department budget allocations and SB 2 grant funding.

Adoption of the recommended actions does not authorize capital expenditures.

Implementation of future Housing Plan programs and mitigation measures will occur over time and will be addressed through future City budget and work program processes, or projectspecific funding sources, as applicable.

Sustainability Impact
Certification of the Housing Plan Program EIR supports implementation of Housing Plan programs. The Program EIR identifies measures to reduce environmental impacts from future development and supports informed public decision-making.

Note: The Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report for the August 11, 2026 City Council Meeting, is available for inspection at the Community Development Department, 630 Garden Street and is also available electronically for view online at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/HousingEIR.

Attachments:

1. Final Housing Plan Program EIR (link provided)

2. CEQA Findings of Fact

3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared by: Julia Pujo, Environmental Analyst
Submitted by: Allison DeBusk, Community Development Director Council Agenda Report
Certification of the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH202240209) [Resolution]

Page 8 ends

Approved by: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1:

The Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report for the August 11, 2026 City Council Meeting, is available electronically for view online at:

SantaBarbaraCA.gov/HousingEIR.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022040209

1.0 Introduction and Legal Authority
These Findings of Fact are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. by the City of Santa Barbara (City) as the lead agency for the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) State Clearing House Number (SCH) 2024100348. Findings are based upon the entire administrative record, including the Draft EIR, Final EIR, technical appendices, comments received during the public review period, written responses to comments, staff reports, and all other information contained in the record of proceedings.

1.1 Project Description Summary
The project evaluated in the Final EIR is the City of Santa Barbara Housing Plan, described in Section 3.0, Project Description of the Final EIR. The Housing Plan consists of programs included in the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated amendments to the Municipal Code, General Plan, and/or Local Coastal Program to maintain consistency with the Housing Element and State law. The Housing Plan provides the framework for meeting state housing requirements and accommodating the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,001 units. The Housing Plan includes existing, ongoing, and future programs including but not limited to the following:
 HE-1 (Adaptive Reuse): Develop and adopt an adaptive reuse ordinance and prepare outreach materials, forms, and applications.
 HE-2 (La Cumbre Plaza Planning Area): Prepare and adopt a planning document for the La Cumbre Plaza site to facilitate full residential development.  HE-4 (Use-By-Right Permitting): Ensure sites identified for housing in the 4th (vacant) and 5th (vacant and nonvacant) cycles allow use-by-right approval when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to very low- and low-income households.

ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 2 ends

 HE-5 (Process Improvements): Implement some of the process improvements identified in the Novak Report and Government Constraints Analysis in phases: Phase 1 for single unit residential; Phase 2 for multi-unit and mixed-use residential.  HE-7 (Objective Design and Development Standards): Adopt a new Title in the Municipal Code to implement Objective Design and Development Standards for multiunit and mixed-use residential and amend the zoning ordinance to outline objective design review process and findings.
 HE-8 (Innovative Housing Types): Conduct outreach and update the zoning ordinance to facilitate more innovative housing types.
 HE-9 (Resource Protection and Development Certainty): Adopt Municipal Code amendments and Master Environment Assessment procedures to protect resources and streamline development approval.
 HE-10 (Multi-unit Housing Program): Amend the Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program ordinance to further facilitate multi-unit housing.  HE-11 (Livable Neighborhoods): Promote and preserve Rental Housing Mediation Program, complete the State Street Master Plan, complete pedestrian and bikeway projects in underserved locations, support CDBG funding for projects in low- and moderate-income areas, and facilitate electrification of housing stock. Target 1-2 improvements per year.
 HE-12 (Prioritize Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing): Conduct a feasibility study, develop strategies, and amend the zoning ordinance to increase deed-restricted units, incentivize affordable housing on small sites and promote consolidation of small lots, consider local preference policy, and implement water and sewer preference policy.  HE-13 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance): Conduct a feasibility study and update the inclusionary housing ordinances per the results of the study.  HE-14 (City Land Registry): Evaluate all City-owned land for affordable housing potential and prioritize city-owned sites for housing.
 HE-20 (Evaluate Hotel Zones): Monitor hotel development trends, review zones that allow both hotels and residential use, and amend the zoning ordinance to prioritize residential development over hotels in targeted areas. Study fractional ownership trends and amend the zoning ordinance if necessary to protect long term housing stock.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 3 ends

1.2 Procedural Compliance with CEQA
The City of Santa Barbara complied with all CEQA procedural requirements for preparation, circulation, noticing, and consideration of impacts, for the Housing Plan Program EIR.

A 30-day scoping process commenced with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR on April 11, 2022. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse and Santa Barbara County Clerk on April 11, 2022 and was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, and potentially interested parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The City received seven written responses to the NOP including two responses from state and local agencies and five responses from public commenters. The City noticed and held a public scoping meeting on April 21, 2022 at 1:00 PM at Santa Barbara City Hall, City Council Chambers during the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission hearing. During which, the City received verbal comments from two individuals and the Planning Commission.

The NOP, NOP comments, and NOP comment responses are included in Appendix A of the Final EIR.

The Draft Housing Plan Program EIR was published on January 30, 2026, and a Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on the same date, initiating a 45-day public review period. The Notice of Availability was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested parties, and members of the public, and was published in a local newspaper of general circulation. The Draft EIR was made available for public review electronically on the City’s website and in hard copy at the City’s Planning Counter and the Santa Barbara Public Library. During the public review period, a noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on March 12, 2026 at 1:00 PM at Santa Barbara City Hall, City Council Chambers, to receive public comment on the Draft EIR. During the public review period, the City received five comment letters on the Draft EIR, in addition to verbal comments made by one individual and the Planning Commission during the Draft EIR public hearing.

Following the close of the public review period, the City prepared written responses to all substantive environmental comments received on the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088. The responses to comments, together with revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR, are contained in the Final EIR.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 4 ends

1.3 Location and Custodian of the Administrative Record Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings forming the basis of the CEQA Findings of Fact are located at 630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Department. The Administrative Record includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. The Notice of Preparation (NOP), scoping comments, and all materials prepared in connection with the environmental scoping process.

2. The Draft Housing Plan Program EIR, including all technical appendices, figures, maps, tables, and supporting studies.

3. The Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, proof of publication, public notices, and all documents related to the public review of the Draft EIR.

4. All written comments received on the Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public review period, together with all oral testimony received during duly noticed public hearings.

5. The Final Housing Plan Program EIR, including the Responses to Comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and all documents incorporated therein by reference.

6. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.

7. Staff reports, resolutions, presentations, memoranda, correspondence, and other materials prepared for or presented to the Planning Commission and City Council relating to the Housing Plan and the Final EIR.

8. The Housing Plan, General Plan, Housing Element, Municipal Code, and all other planning documents, ordinances, policies, and regulations relied upon in the preparation of the Final EIR or considered during the decision-making process.

9. All reports, studies, memoranda, technical analyses, maps, data, and other documents prepared by or on behalf of the City relating to the environmental review of the Housing Plan, including all documents incorporated into the Final EIR by reference.

10. All written and verbal comments, documentary evidence, and other information presented at public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Housing Plan and the Final EIR.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 5 ends

11. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings for the Housing Plan and the Final EIR as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

2.0 Findings for Certification of the Final EIR
Based on the findings and the entire administrative record, the City of Santa Barbara, as lead agency, certifies that:

1. The Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH No. 2022040209) has been completed in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines;

2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the Housing Plan; and

3. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Santa Barbara as lead agency.

3.0 Findings for Less than Significant Impacts
The Final EIR identifies several environmental issue areas where implementation of the Housing Plan would result in less than significant impacts and therefore, do not require mitigation, as demonstrated in applicable sections of Chapter 4 of the Final EIR. The following environmental issue areas were determined to result in less-than-significant impacts:
 Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Chapter 4.1 of the Final EIR)  Agriculture and Forestry Resources (Chapter 4.11.1 of the Final EIR)  Energy (Chapter 4.11.2 of the Final EIR)
 Geology and Soils (Chapter 4.11.3 of the Final EIR)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Chapter 4.5 of the Final EIR)  Hydrology and Water Quality (Chapter 4.11.4 of the Final EIR)  Land Use and Planning (Chapter 4.11.5 of the Final EIR)  Mineral Resources (Chapter 4.11.6 of the Final EIR)
 Population and Housing (Chapter 4.11.7 of the Final EIR) CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 6 ends

 Public Services (Chapter 4.11.8 of the Final EIR)
 Recreation (Chapter 4.11.9 of the Final EIR)
 Schools (Chapter 4.8 of the Final EIR)
 Transportation (Chapter 4.9 of the Final EIR)
 Wildfire (Chapter 4.11.10 of the Final EIR)
Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in the Final EIR supports the conclusion that these impacts would be less than significant.

4.0 Findings for Potentially Significant Impacts
The Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Housing Plan. As described below, mitigation measures incorporated into the Housing Plan and adopted through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) avoid or substantially lessen each significant impact to a lessthan-significant level.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, a public agency cannot approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment;

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency; or

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible. The concept of infeasibility also encompasses whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the project’s underlying goals and objectives, and whether an alternative or mitigation measure is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. (See City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410; CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 7 ends

California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957.))
The City has made one or more of these specific findings for each significant impact associated with the Housing Plan. Findings are presented below, along with a presentation of facts in support of the findings. These findings are based on substantial evidence contained in the totality of the administrative record before the City.

4.1 Air Quality
Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
 Impact AQ-1. The Housing Plan would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan, and therefore would not promote the release of a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the south central coast air basin is in non-attainment.

This impact would be less than significant.
 Impact AQ-3. Future development facilitated by the Housing Plan would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people or expose future residents to odors that would produce a public nuisance or hazard. This impact would be less than significant.

Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that these impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for these impacts.

Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
 Impact AQ-2. Construction associated with future development facilitated by implementation of the Housing Plan could result in temporary emissions of criteria air pollutants and diesel particulate matter that could exceed applicable significance thresholds.

Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Housing Plan that avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect.

Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 requires implementation of construction equipment emission control measures through future Municipal Code amendments and project-level CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 8 ends

review. Evidence presented in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that implementation of MM AQ-1 will reduce construction emissions to a lessthan-significant level. The City adopts MM AQ-1 as part of the MMRP.

4.2 Biological Resources
Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
 Impact BIO-6. Development forecasted in accordance with the Housing Plan would not be located within an area delineated on a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that this impact would be less than significant.

Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
 Impact BIO-1. The Housing Plan would accommodate new residential and mixed-use development that may have an adverse effect on habitats used by special-status species. Impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact BIO-2. The Housing Plan could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, creeks, and sensitive natural communities. Impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with mitigation.  Impact BIO-3. Implementation of the Housing Plan would have a potentially substantial adverse effect on Wetlands. Compliance with Federal, State, and City regulations would minimize the direct removal, filling, and hydrological interruption of wetlands. Impacts to State or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact BIO-4. The Housing Plan would be consistent with federal, state, and City regulations developed to minimize impacts to species movement, wildlife corridors, CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 9 ends

and nursery sites. Impacts to the movement of fish and wildlife species would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact BIO-5. Implementation of the Housing Plan could result in the removal of trees and vegetation. Impacts related to conflicts with City Tree Preservation Ordinance and other Tree Protection Guidelines would be less than significant with mitigation.

Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Housing Plan that avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect. The Final EIR requires the following mitigation measures:
 MM BIO-1, requiring development of creek protection regulations applicable to future development adjacent to City creeks.
 MM BIO-2, requiring preparation of regulatory standards and Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines protecting riparian vegetation and habitat.  MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys, seasonal avoidance measures, and biological monitoring where appropriate.
 MM BIO-4, requiring development of oak woodland protection standards, tree protection measures, and restoration requirements.

Evidence presented in Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that implementation of the above mitigation will reduce biological resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City adopts MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, MM BIO3, and MM BIO-4 as part of the MMRP.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
 Impact CUL-3. Ground disturbing activities associated with development forecasted in accordance with the Housing Plan could result in disturbance of human remains.

Impacts on human remains would be less than significant.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 10 ends

Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in Chapter 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that this impact would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
 Impact CUL-1. The Housing Plan could result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources that are eligible but not yet designated. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact CUL-2. Projected development facilitated by the Housing Plan could impact previously undiscovered archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Impacts on archaeological and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact CUL-4. Projected development facilitated by the Housing Plan would be subject to adopted City regulatory requirements developed to minimize impacts to potential tribal cultural resources. Compliance with consultation conducted pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 and the City MEA Guidelines would minimize potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

Evidence presented in Chapter 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that implementation of the above mitigation will reduce cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City adopts MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3 as part of the MMRP.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 11 ends

4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
 Impact HAZ-1. Development facilitated by the Housing Plan could result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations would minimize the risk of potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.  Impact HAZ-3. Development facilitated by the Housing Plan could occur within 0.25 mile of a school. However, compliance with local, State, and federal regulations related to hazardous materials would minimize the risk of hazardous emissions or exposure to acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. This impact would be less than significant.
 Impact HAZ-5. Compliance with Local, State and federal regulations would minimize safety hazards as residential development would not occur within an Airport Safety Zone or Airport Noise Contour. This impact would be less than significant.  Impact HAZ-6. Development facilitated by the Housing Plan would not result in changes to emergency evacuation routes nor would it substantially increase roadway congestion such that the use of an evacuation route would be hindered. Impacts would be less than significant.
 Impact HAZ-7. Development facilitated by the Housing Plan that would occur within High Fire Hazard Areas would be required to comply with local and State regulations and would undergo site-specific development review. This impact would be less than significant.

Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in Chapter 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that these impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for these impacts.

Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
 Impact HAZ-2. Compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations would minimize potential hazards from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 12 ends

conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact HAZ-4. Development facilitated by the Housing Plan could result in development on Cortese List sites. Impacts related to development on a Cortese List site would be less than significant impact with mitigation.

Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Housing Plan that avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect. The Final EIR requires the following mitigation measures:
 MM HAZ-1, requiring the preparation of a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment for site-specific development.
 MM HAZ-2, requiring Municipal Code amendments to address potential site contamination in the event that contamination is encountered during construction.  MM HAZ-3, requiring Municipal Code amendments to address the inadvertent discovery of oil and gas wells or infrastructure during construction.

Evidence presented in Chapter 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Resources, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that implementation of the above mitigation will reduce impacts related to site contamination to a less-than-significant level. The City adopts MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, and MM HAZ-3 as part of the MMRP.

4.5 Noise
Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
 Impact N-2. Residential development forecasted under the Housing Plan would generate operational noise typical of the urban environment. However, long-term operational noise from residential sources would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Therefore, permanent operational noise increases would be less than significant.
 Impact N-5. Residential development under the Housing Plan would not occur within an Airport Noise Contour. This impact would be less than significant.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 13 ends

Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in Chapter 4.7, Noise, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that these impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for these impacts.

Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
 Impact N-1. Construction of residential development forecasted under the Housing Plan may exceed applicable standards. Mitigation Measure N-1 would mandate implementation of a Construction Noise Management Plan for projects with construction activities that could impact sensitive receivers, minimizing construction noise associated with new residential development and resulting in a less than significant impact.
 Impact N-3. Construction of residential development forecasted under the Housing Plan could generate vibration levels that have the potential to damage historic or other old buildings/structures. However, Mitigation Measure N-2 would require planned construction activities to prepare a Vibration Control Plan to reduce/control construction such that vibration levels do not cause damage. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact N-4. Residential development forecasted under the Housing Plan could be exposed to outdoor noise levels above the City’s land use compatibility standards in addition to the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard. However, existing City General Plan policies, in combination with the City’s project review and permitting process, would reduce potential impacts of future noise on new housing development. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Finding. The City finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Housing Plan that avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect. The Final EIR requires the following mitigation measures:
 MM N-1, requiring a Construction Noise Management Plan for site-specific development.
 MM N-2, requiring a Vibration Control Plan for site-specific development.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 14 ends

 MM N-3, requiring a Noise Study and site-based attenuation for site-specific development.

Evidence presented in Chapter 4.7, Noise, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that implementation of the above mitigation will reduce noise impacts to a less-thansignificant level. The City adopts MM N-1, MM N-2, and MM N-3 as part of the MMRP.

4.6 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
 Impact UTIL-2. Projected development forecasted in accordance with the Housing Plan would increase water demand, but would not exceed the projections of the Enhanced Urban Water Management Plan such that a water shortage would occur.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
 Impact UTIL-3. Projected development forecasted in accordance with the Housing Plan would result in an increase in wastewater generation; however, this increase would not exceed the design capacity of the El Estero Water Resource Center. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
 Impact UTIL-3. New residential development forecasted in accordance with the Housing Plan would not generate solid waste that would exceed the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise conflict with federal, State, or local solid waste management and reduction statutes or regulation. This impact would be less than significant.

Finding: The City finds that the evidence presented in Chapter 4.10, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that these impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for these impacts.

Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
 Impact UTIL-1. Future residential development forecasted in accordance with the Housing Plan may require new utility service infrastructure connections or upsizing of utility mains. Planned housing development is anticipated to occur in developed areas supported by, or adjacent to, existing utility infrastructure. Compliance with applicable City and State regulations, and mitigation measures within this Program EIR would CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 15 ends

ensure environmental impacts associated with connections to existing utility infrastructure or other utility upgrades would be minimized. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Housing Plan that avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect. The Final EIR requires the following mitigation measures:
 AQ-1 Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures.  CUL-1 Historical Resources Protection.
 CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Protection.
 CUL-3. Tribal Cultural Resources Protection.
 HAZ-1 Environmental Site Assessment.
 HAZ-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Contamination.
 HAZ-3 Inadvertent Discovery of Oil or Gas Well.
 N-1 Construction Noise Management Plan
 N-2 Vibration Control Plan.

Evidence presented in Chapter 4.10, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Final EIR supports the conclusion that implementation of mitigation measures will reduce impacts related to construction of utilities to a less-than-significant level. The City adopts these mitigation measures as part of the MMRP.

5.0 Findings Regarding Alternatives
The Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives meeting most of the Housing Plan objectives. The alternatives evaluated include the No Project Alternative and the Additional Housing Alternative.

5.1 Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative)
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a “no project” alternative be evaluated in an EIR to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) specifies that when the project is the revision of an existing land use or CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 16 ends

regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of the existing plan conditions. Because the project is a plan to implement programs in the adopted and certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, the No Project Alternative would result in not implementing the programs within the proposed Housing Plan that are necessary to meet the City’s obligations under State housing law, including the requirement to plan for and accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.

Alternative 1 (No Project) assumes that the Housing Plan programs and associated amendments to the Municipal Code, General Plan, and Local Coastal Program are not adopted or implemented. Existing development standards and policies contained in the City of Santa Barbara General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Coastal Land Use Plan would remain in place. Under this alternative, residential development would continue at the existing growth rate based on historical permitting trends but would not implement Housing Plan programs necessary to meet the City’s obligations under state housing law, including planning for the RHNA allocation. Growth was estimated using the City’s 2015– 2022 permitting data, which shows an average of 230 housing units permitted annually.

For the purposes of this analysis, the No Project Alternative assumes this average rate continues through 2035, resulting in approximately 2,760 new housing units.

Finding: The City finds that the No Project Alternative would not reduce impacts identified in the Final EIR nor satisfy the City's housing obligations under state housing law. Evidence presented in Chapter 6, Alternatives of the Final EIR, demonstrates that the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts on these environmental issue areas compared to the Housing Plan. The No Project Alternative would not implement mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.

5.2 Alternative 2 (Additional Housing Alternative)
Alternative 2 (Additional Housing) assumes implementation of the Housing Plan with additional measures to increase residential density and accelerate housing production beyond what is analyzed for the proposed project. This alternative provides an analysis of a higher-growth scenario in which housing production exceeds RHNA assumptions. It is intended to illustrate potential environmental effects associated with greater housing capacity. Under this alternative, housing growth would increase by approximately 807 additional units, resulting in a total of 8,808 residential units by 2035. This includes the City’s RHNA allocation plus an 11 percent buffer.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 17 ends

The Additional Housing Alternative accounts for expanded implementation of Housing Plan programs and assumes additional policy actions to further increase density such as HE-1 (Facilitate Conversion of Nonresidential Buildings to Housing), HE-7 (Objective Design Standards), HE-10 (Multi-Unit Housing Program), and HE-12 (Prioritize DeedRestricted Affordable Housing). It also assumes the City would adopt additional measures to facilitate housing development, including requiring minimum residential densities, increasing density ranges in the AUD Program, increasing density in targeted areas, and revising zoning regulations to round up density calculations.

Finding: The City finds that the Additional Housing Alternative would result in similar types of environmental impacts, but potentially greater in magnitude due to increased development intensity and population growth. Evidence presented in Chapter 6, Alternatives of the Final EIR, demonstrates that most impacts would be addressed through the same mitigation measures identified for the proposed project; however, increased growth could contribute to potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, depending on regional thresholds and attainment assumptions. All mitigation measures applicable to the proposed Housing Plan would also apply to this alternative.

5.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse environmental impacts associated with the project or program.

Finding: The City finds that the Housing Plan represents the environmentally superior alternative after implementation of the adopted mitigation measures.

6.0 Findings for Growth Inducing Impacts
Finding: The City finds that the Final EIR adequately evaluates the growth-inducing effects of the Housing Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d). The Housing Plan is intended to accommodate anticipated housing needs identified through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and General Plan planning process. Although CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 18 ends

implementation of the Housing Plan will facilitate residential development, such growth is planned, anticipated, and consistent with the City's long-range planning objectives.

7.0 Findings for Cumulative Impacts
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the Final EIR evaluates the cumulative impacts of the Housing Plan. CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).

Thus, if the effects of the proposed Project, in combination with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future related projects within the region will be significant, the proposed Project’s incremental effects must be analyzed to determine if the proposed Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). Supportive evidence for the below finding is found in the “Cumulative Effects” sections of each resource topic analysis in the Final EIR.

Finding: The City finds that the Final EIR adequately analyzes cumulative impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. The adopted mitigation measures reduce the Housing Plan's contribution to cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level.

8.0 Findings Regarding Response to Comments
In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared to address comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day Draft EIR public review period. Refer to Chapter 8, Response to Comments, and Appendix G, Revisions to the Draft EIR, for specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review. Revisions to the Final EIR provide clarification, additional explanation, updated information, and minor refinements where appropriate, but do not alter the environmental conclusions of the Draft EIR. These changes do not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation as defined in Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Findings of Fact
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 19 ends

Finding: The City finds that the Final EIR contains written responses to comments received during the public review period in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.

9.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Findings CEQA requires that an agency adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prior to approving a project that includes mitigation measures. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the adopted mitigation measures for the project are implemented, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Findings of Fact for the Housing Plan find that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Housing Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and that mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the Housing Plan are feasible. The MMRP for the Housing Plan has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15091(d) and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Finding: The City finds that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures adopted in the MMRP. The City finds that the MMRP has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.

ATTACHMENT 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022040209
Purpose and Legal Authority
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Santa Barbara as part of certification of the Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MMRP identifies the actions necessary to implement each mitigation measure, the responsible City department or agency, the timing for implementation, and the procedures for monitoring compliance.

The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department is responsible for coordinating implementation of the MMRP and will work with other City departments and responsible agencies, as appropriate, to ensure mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with CEQA. The mitigation measures in the MMRP include City implementation actions such as preparation of Municipal Code amendments, Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines, application procedures, and adoption of standard conditions of approval. Once adopted, these regulations, guidelines, and procedures will become mandatory requirements for qualifying development projects. Compliance for individual projects will be verified through the City's development review process, including application completeness review, environmental review, conditions of approval, permit issuance requirements, field inspections, monitoring reports, and other compliance procedures.

The target dates identified for City implementation actions in this MMRP are intended for planning purposes and do not constitute binding deadlines. Actual implementation schedules are subject to the City's annual work program, staffing availability, budget appropriations, funding, and other resource considerations. Priorities for implementation may be established by City Council direction. As funding and staffing become available, implementation actions may be phased over multiple fiscal years. The status of each City implementation action will be included in the General Plan Annual Progress Report.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 2 ends

Air Quality
MM AQ-1. Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures The City of Santa Barbara shall develop and enforce appropriate Municipal Code amendments, or other adopted regulations, to require individual residential projects of three or more units and involving demolition, mass grading, or excavation and trenching phases of longer than two months, to use off-road heavy-duty diesel engines that meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Tier 4 emission standards, or zero-emission off-road equipment, to the extent that this equipment is commercially available. “Commercially available” means the availability of required equipment in geographic proximity to the project site and within a reasonable timeframe relative to critical path construction timing. If Tier 4 equipment is not commercially available, construction contractors shall use equipment meeting CARB Tier 3 standards or higher and shall employ CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters, or other equivalent emissions control technologies achieving comparable reductions in diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions. All equipment shall be kept in working order and maintained in operable condition according to manufacturer’s specifications, as applicable. Projects shall comply with all the applicable regulatory requirements, including applicable regulations of CARB and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

Verification and Monitoring:This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to building permit issuance and throughout construction.  Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During construction, compliance with approved measures will be verified through field inspections by City of Santa Barbara Building Division and/or APCD. APCD may inspect equipment and will respond to complaints.

Implementation Timing and Status: Preparation of ordinance amendments will be initiated by 2027 with completion thereafter in 2028.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 3 ends

Biological Resources
MM BIO-1. Creek Protections Requirements
The City of Santa Barbara Sustainability and Resilience Department and Community Development Department shall develop creek protections through amendments to the City’s Municipal Code with requirements applicable to new development and substantial redevelopment occurring in proximity to City creeks consistent with State laws.

New development and substantial redevelopment in areas adjacent to creeks shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade creeks and adjacent habitat.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, throughout construction, and during any post-construction monitoring.  Prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, the Community Development Department and/or City Creeks Division must verify that creek protection measures are incorporated into project plans. Measures must be shown on project plans or included as project conditions of approval. Project applicants with jurisdictional resources within the project site must demonstrate compliance with applicable resource agency requirements, which may include requirements of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or Santa Barbara County Flood Control District.
 During construction, compliance with approved creek protection measures will be verified through field inspections by City of Santa Barbara Building Division and/or Creeks Division and any applicable jurisdictional resource agencies. Permit conditions shall remain in effect throughout construction or the duration specified in the approved conditions of approval.
 Any conditions of approval requiring post-construction monitoring shall remain in effect until the applicable performance standards have been achieved, as determined by the Community Development Department and/or Creeks Division.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 4 ends

Implementation Timing and Status: Implementation is in progress. Following extensive public outreach, the Sustainability and Resilience Department issued a Request for Proposals for the Creek Protections Ordinance and Analysis in late 2025. Sustainability and Resilience will present a status update and request approval of the consultant contract from City Council in Summer/Fall 2026. The City’s consultant will conduct updated mapping and geospatial analysis to support ordinance development. The consultant team will work in conjunction with the City Attorney and Sustainability and Resilience Department to prepare a revised draft Creek Protections Ordinance, anticipated in Spring 2027, with a target completion date of end of 2027.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM BIO-2. Riparian Vegetation Protection
The City of Santa Barbara shall develop regulatory standards for riparian vegetation protection and amend the Municipal Code with requirements applicable to new development and/or redevelopment within and adjacent to riparian habitat. The regulatory standards will be included in adopted Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) Guidelines for Biological Resources and developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The MEA Guidelines may also be implemented by appropriate Municipal Code amendments. The regulatory standards will at a minimum:
i) Avoid the removal of riparian vegetation and mature native trees when feasible, or require alternative or compensatory mitigation when avoidance is not feasible;
ii) Preserve and protect native tree saplings, understory vegetation, and habitat functions associated with riparian corridors;
iii) Provide landscaping compatible with the continuation and enhancement of riparian habitat, consisting of appropriate native species and avoiding nonnative invasive species; iv) Include conditions of approval for habitat restoration of degraded riparian habitat and where development and/or redevelopment creates direct or indirect impacts to the affected habitat;
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 5 ends

v) Require projects to ensure no net loss of riparian habitat acreage, connectivity, function, or value through avoidance or onsite restoration, where feasible; and
vi) Require preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for projects with potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitat, detailing buffer implementation, restoration/enhancement techniques, performance criteria, and post-construction monitoring.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, throughout construction, and during any post-construction monitoring.  During development application completeness review, the project applicant must submit a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for review and acceptance by the Community Development Department and/or Creeks Division.  Prior to discretional project approval or building permit issuance, the Community Development Department and/or City Creeks Division must verify that riparian protection measures are incorporated into project plans. Measures must be shown on project plans or included as project conditions of approval. Project applicants with jurisdictional resources within the project site must demonstrate compliance with applicable resource agency requirements.
 During construction, compliance with approved riparian protection measures will be verified through field inspections by City Building Division and/or Creeks Division and any applicable jurisdictional resource agencies. Permit conditions shall remain in effect throughout construction or the duration specified in the approved conditions of approval.
 Any conditions of approval requiring post-construction monitoring shall remain in effect until the applicable performance standards have been achieved, as determined by the Community Development Department and/or Creeks Division. If applicable, a Final Monitoring Report prepared by a qualified Biologist shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 6 ends

Implementation Timing and Status: The Community Development Department intends to prepare the MEA Guidelines for Biological Resources and Municipal Code amendments with a target completion date of end of 2027.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM BIO-3. Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification
The City of Santa Barbara shall develop regulatory standards for nesting birds and amend the City’s Municipal Code to implement requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds. The regulatory standards will be included in adopted Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) Guidelines for Biological Resources and developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The MEA Guidelines may also be implemented by appropriate Municipal Code amendments. The regulatory standards will at a minimum:
i) Avoid construction activities that could impact nesting birds during the nesting bird season (generally February 1 – August 30); ii) If avoidance is not feasible, require pre-construction nesting bird surveys and if necessary, monitoring by a qualified biologist;
iii) Establish procedures to protect active nests or avoid impacts if encountered; and
iv) Identify nesting bird protections on project plans.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to building permit issuance and throughout construction.  During development application completeness review, the Community Development Department shall determine if project construction could potentially impact nesting birds, such as project sites within or adjacent to ESHA, creeks, wetlands, special wildlife areas, or known breeding areas. Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. Prior to the commencement of construction during the nesting season (generally February 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 7 ends

through August 30), the project applicant must submit a pre-construction nesting bird survey completed by a qualified biologist within 14 days, to the Community Development Department.
 During construction, the project biologist shall ensure measures to protect active nests remain in effect as specified in the approved conditions of approval.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM BIO-4. Oak Woodland Protection
The City of Santa Barbara shall develop regulatory standards for oak woodland protection and amend the City’s Municipal Code with requirements applicable to new development and/or redevelopment sited within and adjacent to oak woodland habitat. The regulatory standards will be included in adopted Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) Guidelines for Biological Resources and developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The MEA Guidelines may also be implemented by appropriate Municipal Code amendments. The ordinance will at a minimum:
i) Avoid the removal of mature oak trees when feasible, or require alternative or compensatory mitigation when avoidance is not feasible; ii) Preserve and protect native tree saplings and understory vegetation; iii) Provide landscaping compatible with the continuation and enhancement of oak woodland, consisting of appropriate native species and avoiding nonnative invasive species; and iv) Include standard conditions of approval for habitat restoration of degraded oak woodland where development and/or redevelopment creates direct or indirect impacts to the affected habitat.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 8 ends

Measures must be shown on project plans or included as project conditions of approval.
 During construction, compliance with approved oak woodland protection measures will be verified through field inspections by City of Santa Barbara Building Division. Permit conditions shall remain in effect throughout construction or the duration specified in the approved conditions of approval.
 Any permit conditions requiring post-construction monitoring shall remain in effect until the applicable performance standards have been achieved, as determined by the Community Development Department.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1. Historical Resources Protection
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall amend the Municipal Code as necessary to ensure the protection of eligible historic resources that have not been formally designated. Key provisions include the following:
i) Identify and add Historic Resources to the Local Register of Historical Resources. The City Architectural Historian or qualified designee shall Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 9 ends

identify structures, sites, or features eligible for inclusion on the Local Register of Historical Resources based upon the criteria established for the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR Part 60), California Register of Historical Resources (PRC 5024.1), and/or the Historic Preservation Ordinance (SBMC 30.157).
ii) Planning Application Requirements. The Community Development Department shall amend the planning application checklist to require a historic resource evaluation for structures over 50 years old. iii) Application Completeness Requirement. Planning Applications shall not be deemed complete and/or approved for demolition permits until compliance with the historic resource evaluation requirements under the Historic Preservation Ordinance SBMC Chapter 30.157 have been demonstrated.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance.  During development application completeness review, the City Architectural Historian shall determine if a historic resource evaluation is required. Where applicable, eligible resources shall be considered for inclusion on the Local Register of Historical Resources in accordance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance (SBMC Chapter

30.157). Project applications shall not be deemed complete or approved for demolition until compliance with the historic resource evaluation requirements has been demonstrated.
 Prior to the issuance of building permits, projects proposing alteration or demolition a historic resource shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission, consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance (SBMC Chapter 30.157).

Implementation Timing and Status: Implementation is in progress. The City Council adopted amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 6203) in December 2025, which substantially implements this mitigation measure. The Community Development Department, Planning Division intends to amend the planning application checklist consistent with state law, by end of 2026.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 10 ends

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM CUL-2. Archaeological Resources Protection
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall amend the Municipal Code with requirements applicable to development involving substantial ground disturbance occurring in areas with potential for known or unknown archaeological resources to exist. The amendments to the Municipal Code shall implement and enforce archaeological resource protections requirements.

The City shall require development or redevelopment projects that have the potential to impact areas identified as archaeologically sensitive to complete an archaeological resource report. Archaeological resource reports shall identify site-specific measures to avoid or lessen effects in areas of suspected but not known archaeological resources. Measures may include, but are not limited to, archaeological monitoring and implementation procedures in the event of an unanticipated discovery.

Where archaeological resources are identified and may be impacted by the project, the City shall require additional testing and evaluation, or other measures to minimize significant impacts, such as site avoidance.

If resources are determined to be significant or unique, avoidance of the resource shall be the preferred mitigation. If site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific measures shall be identified. Measures may include, but are not limited to, a Phase III Data Recovery Program or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, and during construction.
 During development application completeness review, the Community Development Department shall determine if an archaeological resource evaluation is required.  Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as project conditions of approval. Standard conditions to protect Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 11 ends

archaeological resources apply to all projects with ground disturbance. If applicable, the project applicant must submit a contract with a qualified archaeologist to the Community Development Department, subject to review and approval. During construction, if resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted immediately and measures for appropriate management or treatment of the find shall be applied as recommended by a qualified archaeologist. Work shall not resume until authorized by the Community Development Department. The project archaeologist shall ensure measures to protect archaeological resources remain in effect throughout construction or the duration specified in the approved conditions of approval.  Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, the project applicant must submit documentation verifying compliance with approved conditions of approval. A Final Monitoring Report prepared by a qualified archaeologist shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, subject to review and approval.

Implementation Timing and Status: Implementation is in progress. The City Council adopted the updated MEA Guidelines for Archaeological Resources in April 2025, which partially implements this mitigation measure. The Community Development Department intends to amend the Archaeological Preservation Ordinance (SBMC Chapter 22.12) for consistency with the updated MEA Guidelines for Archaeological Resources with a target completion date of end of 2027.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM CUL-3. Tribal Cultural Resources Protection
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall amend the Municipal Code with requirements applicable to development involving substantial ground disturbance occurring in areas with potential for tribal cultural resources to exist. The amendments to the Municipal Code shall implement and enforce tribal cultural resource protection requirements. Measures may include, but are not limited to, coordination with tribal representatives, Native American monitoring, and implementation procedures in the event of an unanticipated discovery.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 12 ends

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, and during construction.
 During development application completeness review, the Community Development Department shall determine if tribal notification or consultation is required.  Prior to project approval or building permit issuance, the Community Development Department shall conduct tribal notification or consultation with tribal representatives.

Upon the request from tribal representatives, reasonable measures to protect tribal cultural resources will be applied as project conditions of approval. If applicable, the project applicant must submit a contract with a Native American monitor to the Community Development Department, subject to review and approval.  During construction, if resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted immediately and measures for appropriate management or treatment of the find shall be applied in consultation with local Chumash representatives. Work shall not resume unless authorized by the Community Development Department. The Native American monitor shall ensure measures to protect tribal cultural resources remain in effect throughout construction or the duration specified in the approved conditions of approval.
 Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, the project applicant must submit documentation verifying compliance with approved conditions of approval. If applicable, a Final Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, subject to review and approval.

Implementation Timing and Status: Implementation is in progress. The City Council adopted the MEA Guidelines for Tribal Cultural Resources in April 2025, which partially implements this mitigation measure. The Community Development Department intends to amend the Archaeological Preservation Ordinance (SBMC Chapter 22.12) for consistency with the MEA Guidelines for Tribal Cultural Resources with a target completion date of end of 2027.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 13 ends

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1. Environmental Site Assessment
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall develop regulatory standards and amend the Municipal Code to implement and enforce the following requirements:

The City shall require the preparation of a project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with the most current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice or the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) for:
i) Any Clean Up Program Site listed on the State Water Control Resource Board data management system (GeoTracker) or included on the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) program, including an open or closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case or other Cortese List site. ii) Any site located within the City’s Area of Potential Contaminated Fill that results in any of the following:
(1) Demolition of existing structures;
(2) Changes to an existing foundation;
(3) New foundation; and/or
(4) New stormwater infiltration basins.
(5) Sites that have been exclusively used as single-family land use are excluded from the above requirement, unless otherwise recommended by an environmental oversight agency.

In instances where specific Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) are identified which may require further sampling, a qualified hazardous materials environmental professional with site characterization experience shall prepare a Phase II ESA. If the Phase II ESA reveals RECs, the environmental professional shall identify remedial activities controlled by federal, state, and local regulations.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 14 ends

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, and during construction.
 During development application completeness review, the Community Development Department shall determine if an environmental site assessment or additional information on site contamination is required. The environmental site assessment shall be reviewed by the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and/or the applicable regulatory oversight agency. Regulatory oversight agencies may include Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and/or Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division.
 Prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, the Community Development Department will verify that development application implements requirements by the CUPA and/or the applicable regulatory oversight agency.

Measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval.  During construction, compliance with approved measures will be verified through field inspections by City Building Division and/or applicable regulatory oversight agency.

Permit conditions shall remain in effect throughout construction or the duration specified in the approved conditions of approval, or as specified in the Project Phase II Environmental Site Assessment or Corrective Action Plan .  Any conditions requiring post-construction monitoring shall remain in effect until the applicable performance standards have been achieved, as determined by the regulatory oversight agency.

Implementation Timing and Status: Implementation is in progress. The City has procured a consultant. The Community Development Department intends to prepare the MEA Guidelines for Hazardous Materials and Municipal Code amendments with a target completion date of 2027.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 15 ends

MM HAZ-2. Inadvertent Discovery of Contamination
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall develop regulatory standards and amend the Municipal Code to implement and enforce the following requirements in the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater contamination could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction at a development site:
i) Construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately.
ii) Following discovery, the contractor shall notify Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Environmental Health Services or other appropriate federal, state, or local regulatory oversight agency, and the City Environmental Analyst, immediately.
iii) A qualified environmental professional will be required to conduct an investigation to identify risks and describe measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to building permit issuance and throughout construction.  Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During construction, if contamination is encountered or suspected, work shall be halted immediately and measures for appropriate management or treatment of the find shall be applied as recommended by the applicable regulatory oversight agency. Work shall not resume until authorized by the regulatory oversight agency.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 16 ends

MM HAZ-3. Inadvertent Discovery of Oil or Gas Well
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall develop regulatory guidelines and amend the Municipal Code to implement and enforce the following requirements in the event that any unrecorded oil or gas wells are uncovered during excavation or grading:
i) Construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately.
ii) The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Environmental Health Services, , and Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) shall be notified immediately to determine if remedial action may be required.
iii) The property owner shall be responsible for ensuring all remedial actions recommended by these agencies are implemented.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to building permit issuance and throughout construction.  Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During construction, if an oil or gas well or infrastructure is encountered or suspected, work shall be halted immediately and measures for appropriate management or treatment of the find shall be applied as recommended by the applicable regulatory oversight agency. Work shall not resume until authorized by the Community Development Department.

Implementation Timing and Status: Implementation is in progress. The City has procured a consultant. The Community Development Department is preparing the MEA Guidelines for Hazardous Materials and Municipal Code amendments with a target completion date of end of 2027.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 17 ends

Noise
MM N-1. Construction Noise Management Plan
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall develop a requirement for a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) through amendments to the Municipal Code. The CNMP shall be implemented during construction within 85 feet of noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, churches, hotels, as well as some park and open space areas) for development and substantial redevelopment projects that have one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) Construction of one or more new subterranean levels; (2) Construction of three or more new housing units (excluding ADUs); (3) More than 3,000 cubic yards of excavated soils and grading; (4) The potential for pile driving.

CNMPs shall include the following:
i) Project-specific best management practices (BMPs) in addition to the construction timing limits currently established in Municipal Code Section

9.16.040. BMPs include, but are not limited to, silencers, enclosures, sound barriers, smart back-up alarms, strategic construction staging, and/or placement of restrictions on equipment or construction techniques.

Projects that require pile driving shall be subject to the preparation of a construction noise analysis to determine appropriate BMPs. ii) Identification of haul routes to reduce construction noise effects on sensitive receptors, ensure safety measures are in place, and minimize disruption to the surrounding roadway network. The identified haul route shall be utilized by all haul trucks throughout the duration of construction. iii) Notification requirements including written notice to all property owners and residents within the project vicinity.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 18 ends

iv) Information and procedures for responding to noise complaints.

Implementation Timing and Status: Preparation of ordinance amendments will be initiated by 2027 with completion thereafter in 2028.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM N-2. Vibration Control Plan
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall develop a requirement for a Vibration Control Plan through amendments to the Municipal Code, which requires projects involving impact pile drivers within 60 feet of a structure to prepare a Vibration Control Plan. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods required to minimize vibration, including, but not limited to:
i) Survey of baseline conditions at potentially affected historic and/or residential structures within a 60-foot radius of the construction site; ii) Alternative installation methods for pile driving (e.g., pile cushioning, drilled piles, cast-in-place systems) within 60 feet of a building to reduce impacts associated with seating the pile;
iii) Vibration monitoring prior to and during pile driving operations occurring within 60 feet of a building;
iv) Use of rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment; v) Avoidance of the use of vibrating equipment when allowed by best engineering practices.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 19 ends

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, and during construction.

Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During development application completeness review, the Community Development Department shall determine if a Vibration Control Plan is required. The project applicant must submit a Vibration Control Plan to the Community Development Department, subject to review and approval.  Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During construction, City of Santa Barbara Building Division will verify compliance during field inspections and will respond to complaints.

Implementation Timing and Status: Preparation of ordinance amendments will be initiated by 2027 with completion thereafter in 2028.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant.

MM N-3. Noise Study and Site-based Attenuation
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department shall update the Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Noise and amend the Municipal Code as necessary, with requirements applicable to multi-unit residential development projects within an area with a noise contour potentially exceeding the acceptable noise level for residential uses.

A site-specific Noise Study shall be completed for residential development located in areas where noise contours indicate that noise levels are above 65 dBA. The Noise Study shall document the existing noise conditions onsite and recommend attenuation strategies and techniques to reduce interior and exterior living area noise levels to acceptable levels as specified in the Environmental Resources Element Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The Noise Study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer. The Noise Study shall measure and report the existing ambient Average Day-Night (Ldn or CNEL) noise environment within the project site, including transportation noise sources and any transient or nuisance noise sources.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Housing Plan Program EIR (SCH2022040209)

Page 20 ends

All noise control techniques and recommendations in the report shall be incorporated into the project design to reduce exterior noise to at or below 65 dBA and interior noise to at or below 45 dBA.

Verification and Monitoring: This mitigation measure shall apply to all qualifying development projects prior to discretionary project approval or building permit issuance, and during construction.

Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During development application completeness review, the Community Development Department shall determine if a Noise Study is required. The project applicant must submit a Noise to the Community Development Department, subject to review and approval.
 Prior to building permit issuance, measures must be shown on project plans or included as conditions of approval. During construction, City of Santa Barbara Building Division will verify compliance during field inspections and will respond to complaints.

Implementation Timing and Status: Preparation of ordinance amendments will be initiated by 2027 with completion thereafter in 2028.

Residual Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant. 1 Resolution No.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CERTIFYING THE FINAL HOUSING PLAN PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2022040209) AND

ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara prepared the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2022040209) for the Housing Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Final Housing Plan Program EIR consists of the Draft EIR, comments received during the public review period, responses to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and all other information incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Housing Plan Program EIR.

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

1. The City Council certifies the Final Housing Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022040209) in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines section 15090, based on the following findings:
a. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines;
b. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the Housing Plan; and
c. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Santa Barbara as lead agency.

2. The City Council adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093.

3. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097.

Santa Barbara City CouncilAugust 11, 2026

Santa Barbara City Council
August 11, 2026