Mission Canyon Community Plan EIR - Long Range Planning ...

MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN 

VOLUME I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 

Prepared by: 

09EIR-00000-00002 

County of Santa Barbara 

SCH #2009061066 

Planning and Development 

Long Range Planning Division 

123 E. Anapamu Street 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 MARCH 2011

Mission Canyon Community Plan 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

Volume I: EIR 

Prepared by: 


Planning and Development 



Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Contacts: 

Jeff Hunt, Director 

June Pujo, Supervising Planner 

Rosie Dyste, Planner 

(805) 568-3532 

March 2011 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY MARCH 2011 DRAFT

MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 

1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................ 1-3 

1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES ......................................................................................................... 1-5 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................................................. 2-5 

2.4 MAJOR POLICY SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2-5 

2.5 PROJECT BUILDOUT ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 2-9 

2.6 DECISION-MAKER ACTIONS REQUIRED ................................................................................................................ 2-15 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 LOCAL GEOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.3 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.4 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.5 REGIONAL AND LOCAL ACCESS ............................................................................................................................ 3-3 

3.6 PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES PROVIDED FOR THE PLAN AREA .................................................................................. 3-3 

3.7 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................. 4-13 

4.2.1 Ambient Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-13 

4.2.2 Global Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 4-25 

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 4-35 

4.4 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 4-99 

4.5 ENERGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-119 

4.6 FIRE PROTECTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4-121 

4.7 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES ................................................................................................................................... 4-163 

4.8 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-175 

4.9 PUBLIC FACILITIES ......................................................................................................................................... 4-179 

4.10 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ........................................................................................................................ 4-187 

4.11 WATER RESOURCES, DRAINAGE AND FLOODING ............................................................................................ 4-233 

5.0 POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 

5.2 POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 

6.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED ........................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................... 6-3 

6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED BUILDOUT .............................................................................................................. 6-8 

6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................................... 6-14 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY I MARCH 2011 DRAFT


7.0 OTHER CEQA REQUIRED DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................................... 7-1 

7.1 GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS .............................................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 7-2 

7.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 7-3 

7.4 ISSUES FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................................................................................ 7-4 

8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 2- 1 VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................................................ 2-3 

FIGURE 2- 2 EXISTING SETTING ......................................................................................................................................... 2-4 

FIGURE 2- 3 NEIGHBORHOODS ........................................................................................................................................ 2-12 

FIGURE 2- 4 BUILDOUT MAP .......................................................................................................................................... 2-13 

FIGURE 4.3- 1 VEGETATION AND HABITATS ....................................................................................................................... 4-39 

FIGURE 4.3- 2 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT OVERLAY........................................................................................... 4-46 

FIGURE 4.3- 3 SALMONID BARRIERS ................................................................................................................................ 4-55 

FIGURE 4.3- 4 FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION LOCATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4-57 

FIGURE 4.6- 1 JESUSITA FIRE DAMAGE ........................................................................................................................... 4-124 

FIGURE 4.6- 2 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE ................................................................................................................... 4-132 

FIGURE 4.6- 3 PROPOSED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 4-149 

FIGURE 4.6- 4 EVACUATION TRAVEL TIME WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................. 4-152 

FIGURE 4.6- 5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EVACUATION ...................................................................................... 4-155 

FIGURE 4.6- 6 EVACUATION TRAVEL TIME WITH OPTIMIZED TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................... 4-157 

FIGURE 4.7- 1 GEOLOGIC FEATURES .............................................................................................................................. 4-165 

FIGURE 4.10- 1 ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY SEGMENTS ................................................................................ 4-188 

FIGURE 4.10- 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................... 4-194 

FIGURE 4.10- 3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 4-198 

FIGURE 4.10- 4 AVERAGE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS ................................................................................................. 4-204 

FIGURE 4.10- 5 BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................... 4-211 

FIGURE 4.10- 6 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................ 4-212 

FIGURE 4.10- 7 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 4-216 

FIGURE 4.10- 8 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................ 4-217 

FIGURE 4.11- 1 WATERSHEDS ...................................................................................................................................... 4-235 

FIGURE 4.11- 2 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY ...................................................................................................................... 4-237 

FIGURE 4.11- 3 WATER PRESSURE ZONES ...................................................................................................................... 4-248 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE ES- 1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................ 7 

TABLE 2- 1: MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN BUILDOUT SUMMARY ............................................................................... 2-11 

TABLE 2- 2: BUILDOUT SUMMARY BY NEIGHBORHOOD ........................................................................................................ 2-11 

TABLE 2- 3: BUILDOUT UNITS BY LOT SIZE ........................................................................................................................ 2-14 

TABLE 4.2- 1: CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ................................................................... 4-14 

TABLE 4.2- 2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT SANTA BARBARA – EAST CANON PERDIDO MONITORING STATION ................................. 4-15 

TABLE 4.2- 3: CLEAN AIR PLAN POPULATION FORECAST ..................................................................................................... 4-20 

TABLE 4.2- 4: SBCAG COUNTYWIDE POPULATION FORECAST .............................................................................................. 4-20 

TABLE 4.2- 5: ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN BUILDOUT (LBS/DAY) 

....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-24 

TABLE 4.2- 6: INTERIM SIGNIFICANCE GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................. 4-29 

TABLE 4.2- 7: ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS FROM BUILDOUT PER YEAR ............................................................ 4-30 

TABLE 4.2- 8: CO2E BUILDOUT EMISSIONS PER SERVICE POPULATION/YEAR .......................................................................... 4-30 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY II MARCH 2011 DRAFT


TABLE 4.3- 1: DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITHIN OR NEAR PLAN AREA ............................. 4-49 

TABLE 4.3- 2: DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF SPECIAL STATUS BIRDS WITHIN MISSION CANYON. ........................................... 4-58 

TABLE 4.3- 3: ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT ACRES .............................................................................................. 4-69 

TABLE 4.3- 4: BUILDOUT PARCELS AND PERCENT ESH ........................................................................................................ 4-69 

TABLE 4.4- 1: MISSION CANYON RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ................................................................................. 4-103 

TABLE 4.4- 2: HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SITES ................................................................................................................ 4-105 

TABLE 4.4- 3: COUNTY DESIGNATED LANDMARKS IN MISSION CANYON ............................................................................... 4-106 

TABLE 4.6- 1: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE FLOW CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 4-128 

TABLE 4.6- 2: FIRE FLOW RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 4-128 

TABLE 4.6- 3: SYSTEMWIDE TRAVEL STATISTICS RESULTS FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS .......................................................... 4-151 

TABLE 4.9-1: SANITARY SEWER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY FOR TUNNEL ROAD AREA .......................................................... 4-180 

TABLE 4.9-2: SANITARY SEWER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY FOR PALOMINO ROAD .............................................................. 4-180 

TABLE 4.9-3: POTENTIAL GENERATION OF LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL WASTE ..................................................................... 4-185 

TABLE 4.10- 1: ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4-191 

TABLE 4.10- 2: ROADWAY DESIGN AND ACCEPTABLE CAPACITY ......................................................................................... 4-192 

TABLE 4.10- 3: EXISTING (2009) ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATING CONDITIONS .................................................................. 4-195 

TABLE 4.10- 4: EXISTING (2009) STATE ROUTE 192 SEGMENT OPERATING CONDITIONS ....................................................... 4-196 

TABLE 4.10- 5: EXISTING (2009) INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4-200 

TABLE 4.10- 6: TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES ................................................................................................ 4-210 

TABLE 4.10- 7: FUTURE (2030) ROADWAY SEGMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 4-219 

TABLE 4.10- 8: FUTURE (2030) STATE ROUTE 192 SEGMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................. 4-221 

TABLE 4.10- 9: FUTURE (2030) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................. 4-222 

TABLE 4.10- 10: INTERSECTION MITIGATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 4-229 

TABLE 4.11- 1: MISSION CREEK AND OUTLET POLLUTANTS (303(D) LIST) ............................................................................ 4-240 

TABLE 4.11- 2: WATER QUALITY DATA (ENTIRE LENGTH OF MISSION CREEK) ....................................................................... 4-242 

TABLE 4.11- 3: WATER DEMAND FACTORS FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS.................................................................................... 4-247 

TABLE 4.11- 4: MISSION CANYON MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND PROJECTIONS .......................................................................... 4-247 

TABLE 4.11- 5: HYDRAULIC EVALUATION OF MISSION CANYON AREA .................................................................................. 4-249 

TABLE 5- 1: POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 

TABLE 6.1- 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................ 6-5 

TABLE 6.2- 1: POTENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS FOR DOWNZONING .............................................................................................. 6-9 

TABLE 6.2- 2: SLOPE DENSITY FORMULA ............................................................................................................................ 6-9 

TABLE 6.2- 3: SLOPE DENSITY FORMULA RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 6-10 

TABLE 6.2- 4: REDUCED BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN ...................................................... 6-10 

APPENDICES 

(bound under separate cover) 

APPENDIX A NOP and Response Letters 

APPENDIX B Buildout Table 

APPENDIX C Cumulative Development Tables 

APPENDIX D GHG Worksheets and Substantial Evidence 

APPENDIX E Supplemental Biological Resources Study 

APPENDIX F Hydraulic Analysis 

APPENDIX G Traffic Simulation for Fire Evacuation 

APPENDIX H Traffic Study 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY III MARCH 2011 DRAFT


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY IV MARCH 2011 DRAFT

MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Executive Summary 

This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives, 

environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the 

proposed project. 

Project Applicant/Lead Agency 


Planning and Development Department 



Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Contacts: 

Jeff Hunt, Director 

June Pujo, Supervising Planner 

Rosie Dyste, Senior Planner 

(805) 568‐3380 

Project Location 

Mission Canyon is an unincorporated community located in the South Coast area of Santa 

Barbara County, adjacent to and north of the City of Santa Barbara. The Mission Canyon plan 

area (plan area) is located mostly within the Mission Creek watershed in the foothills of the 

Santa Ynez Mountains. State Route 192 (Foothill Road) is the only main regional transportation 

route that traverses the plan area. The plan area is within the City of Santa Barbara’s Sphere of 

Influence but there are no current proposals to annex the plan area to the City. 

Background 

The project is an update to the Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan which was originally adopted 

in 1984. Since the Specific Plan’s adoption over 25 years ago, approximately 52 new homes 

were built and many others were remodeled and expanded, approximately half of the existing 

residences were converted from septic to sanitary sewer service, the Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden acquired more acreage and the existing County Landmark designation in the garden 

was expanded to include several parcels and more features, new Very High Fire Hazard Severity 

Zone designations were adopted by the State for State and Local Responsibility Areas, and 

wildfires in 2008 and 2009 resulted in evacuation orders and devastated the upper canyon 

resulting in the loss of approximately 70 homes and native habitat. These changes have 

occurred while the existing infrastructure, particularly roads, remained the same as when they 

were originally laid out. 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ES-1 MARCH 2011 DRAFT


In recognition of the need to develop updated planning guidelines and standards and to 

address ongoing and new issues in Mission Canyon, the County Board of Supervisors initiated 

an update to the 1984 Specific Plan to be replaced by the Mission Canyon Community Plan 

when adopted. 

Project Description and Objectives 

The plan area encompasses approximately 1,120 acres and contains 1,140 parcels. Currently, 

there are 1,014 residential units and several public/institutional buildings including Fire Station 

15, Santa Barbara Woman’s Club, County Parks Department’s administrative buildings at Rocky 

Nook County Park, and Santa Barbara Botanic Garden buildings and structures. There are no 

changes proposed to land use and zoning and the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan 

calculated 157 new residential units at buildout. 

The project objectives are as follows: 

1. Replace the 1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan with a Community Plan that reflects 

community goals as articulated by the Mission Canyon Planning Advisory Committee in 

the Vision Statement of the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan (see below). 

2. Adopt Community Plan policies, development standards and actions to plan for the 

buildout of the plan area using existing Land Use densities and primary Zone District 

designations compatible with community character, with adequate services and 

infrastructure for public health and safety. 

3. Adopt Residential Design Guidelines to articulate and implement the community’s 

desire to preserve neighborhood character and charm. 

4. Amend the Land Use and Development Code to implement applicable policies, 

development standards and action items from the Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan goals reflect the community’s desire to enhance fire 

safe practices, improve pedestrian and bicyclist circulation, and assure the compatibility of new, 

remodeled, or rebuilt structures with existing development. The Mission Canyon Planning 

Advisory Committee articulated key goals for the plan as follows: 

• Maintain and enhance existing community qualities, including Mission 

Canyon’s natural scenic beauty and charm; 

• Improve fire safe practices including vegetation management, defensible 

space, hydrants and water supply, road safety, and emergency ingress and 

egress; 

• Protect public views of the ocean, mountains, and scenic corridors; 

• Provide for the reasonable use of property and limited additional 

development that is compatible with the natural terrain and with the scale 

and character of existing structures in the area; 



Alternatives 

• Assure that development does not exceed availability of adequate services 

and infrastructure to provide for public health and safety; 

• Develop plans for possible post-disaster recovery and reconstruction that 

balances the likely conflict between the desire for rapid recovery and the 

competing desire to rebuild a community more resistant to future disaster; 

• Protect sensitive habitats and other biological resources; 

• Protect watershed function, groundwater and surface water quality, and 

prevent flooding and erosion; 

• Provide safe and efficient circulation systems and improve pedestrian and 

bicyclist access and safety; 

• Promote water conservation, resource recovery, green building practices, 

and energy conservation and generation; 

• Preserve open space; 

• Protect historic and cultural resources; and 

• Improve aesthetics through the application of Residential Design Guidelines. 

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this EIR examines a reasonable range of 

alternatives to the proposed project that potentially minimize environmental impacts while 

achieving most of the main project objectives. The alternatives assessed in this EIR include: 

No Project Alternative assumes that buildout would follow the existing zoning and land use 

designations; however, an additional 36 Residential Second Units are presumed under this 

alternative because a proposed policy to limit second units would not be adopted. The No 

Project Alternative also assumes that the new policies, development standards and actions 

from the proposed plan would not be implemented. 

Reduced Buildout Alternative would reduce the residential buildout potential on parcels large 

enough to support a lot split by increasing the required minimum lot area for development of a 

single family home. The methods analyzed to reduce buildout included downzoning i.e., 

rezoning single family residential zones to require larger minimum lot and building site areas for 

example from 1-E-1 (1 acre gross minimum lot and building site area) to 5-E-1 (5 acres gross 

minimum lot and building site area) or application of a slope density formula i.e., increase 

minimum lot area by 1.5 – 3.0 times depending on the percent of average slope. These 

methods would reduce buildout by approximately 47% by downzoning and 34% using a slope 

density formula. 

The analysis finds that the Reduced Buildout Alternative is environmentally superior to both the 

Project and to the No Project Alternative as it would maximize reductions in potentially 

significant impacts while attaining the Plan’s objectives. 



Required Actions and Approvals to Implement the Project 

The County Board of Supervisors must take the following actions to implement the Draft 

Mission Canyon Community Plan and its implementing document, the Mission Canyon 

Residential Design Guidelines. 

1. Replace the 1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan. 

2. Amend the Santa Barbara County General Plan by adopting text and map 

amendments to the Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

3. Approve map amendments to the County of Santa Barbara Zoning Map to incorporate 

the new Mission Canyon Plan Overlay. 

4. Approve text amendments to the Santa Barbara County Code, Chapter 35, Land Use and 

Development code to incorporate the new Mission Canyon Plan Overlay, Outdoor 

Lighting Regulations and other amendments. 

5. Approve the Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines. 

6. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

7. Adopt findings of overriding considerations for any environmental impacts which have 

been determined to not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with implementation 

of the project. 

Environmental Analysis 

This EIR addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed Plan as determined in the County Initial Study (IS), responses to the Notice of 

Preparation (NOP) and input at the EIR scoping meeting. Potentially significant impacts on the 

following environmental resources are addressed in detail: 

• Aesthetics/Visual Resources 

• Air Quality 

• Biological Resources 

• Cultural and Historic Resources 

• Energy 

• Fire Protection 

• Geologic Processes 



• Noise 

• Public Facilities 

• Transportation and Circulation 

• Water Resources, Flooding, Drainage and Water Supply 

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Table ES-1 presents a summary of potential environmental effects identified in this EIR. 






Table ES- 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

CLASS I — POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE 

Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After 

Mitigation 

IMPACT BIO-2: Plan buildout could 

significantly impact 

environmentally sensitive plant 

communities and habitat. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

MM-BIO-2.1: Incorporate proposed land use and biological 

resource goals, policies, development standards and actions (or 

functional equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon Community 

Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

MM-BIO-2.2: Revise Environmentally Sensitive Habitat mapping 

(additions underlined). 

Policy BIO-MC-3: The following biological resources and 

habitats, as identified and generally described by the Plan shall 

be presumed to be “environmentally sensitive,” provided that 

the biological resource(s) or habitat(s) actually present on a 

project site satisfy one or more of the criteria listed in Policy BIO- 

MC-2. These resources and habitats shall be identified on a 

Mission Canyon Community Plan Environmentally Sensitive 

Habitat (ESH) Overlay Map to the extent that their general or 

specific locations are known: 

• Habitats containing Nuttall’s scrub oak or other special 

status animal or plant species or rare natural communities; 

Under a reasonable 

worst-case scenario, 

project impacts to 

sensitive plant 

communities and habitat 

would not be fully 

mitigated and would 

remain a Class I, 

significant and 

unavoidable impact. 





Mitigation 

• Central and Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and 

Woodland; 

• Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest; 

• California Sycamore Riparian Forest; 

• Coast Live Oak/Olive Riparian Woodland 

• Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest; 

• Wetland Habitats 

• Native grasslands or other habitats with understory 

dominated by native grass species. 

The scale of the overlay map precludes complete accuracy 

in the mapping of habitat areas. In some cases, the precise 

location of habitat areas is not known and is therefore not 

mapped. In addition, the migration of species or discovery of 

new habitats may result in the designation of new areas, or sitespecific 

reviews may indicate different habitat designations. As 

new information becomes available, Planning & Development 

will periodically update the boundaries of the designations. 

Where proposed development could impact environmentally 

sensitive habitat present on site, a biological report, prepared by 

a County approved biologist shall be required. The report shall 

follow the County’s and CDFG’s most current guidelines as 

determined by Planning & Development. 

Action BIO-MC-1.1: The Land Use & Development Code shall 

be amended to include an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 

overlay district for the Mission Canyon area (ESH-MC). Location 

of biological resources/habitat areas shall be depicted on the 





Mitigation 

ESH-MC overlay map as amended by the July 2009 Mission 

Canyon Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment. 

MM-BIO-2.3: Clarify permit requirements for ve g e t a t i o n removal 

i n d e s i g n a t e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e h a b i t a t . E x i s t i n g 

Development Standard in the draft plan shall be revised as an 

action to amend the zoning ordinance as follows (additions 

underlined, deletions struck through): 

DevStd BIO-MC-2.2: Except for vegetation management plans 

approved by Santa Barbara County Fire Department, a Land Use 

Permit shall be required for the following activities: 

a. The removal of native vegetation, for purposes other than 

vegetation clearance for fuel management consistent 

with DevStd BIO-MC-2.1, along 50 liner feet or more of a 

creek bank or removal that, when added to the previous 

removal of native vegetation within the affected habitat 

on the site, would total 50 or more linear feet of native 

vegetation along a creek bank. 

Action BIO-MC-4.2: Amend the zoning ordinance to: 1) 

regulate and provide criteria for the removal of vegetation and 

mature native trees in designated Environmentally Sensitive 

Habitat areas and 2) identify activities that are exempt from 

permits, in addition to other existing permit review provisions 

and policy. 

1. The intent of the exemptions is to allow for compliance with 





Mitigation 

State and local Defensible Space laws while protecting 

environmentally sensitive habitat. Exempted activities shall 

not involve any grading or use of heavy equipment within 

riparian areas. Exempt activities include: 

• Removal of non-native trees or immature native trees. 

• Removal of surface debris. 

• Removal of exotic or invasive species as shown on a Countyapproved 

list. 

• Removal of vegetation in non-riparian oak woodland or forest 

within the minimum Defensible Space area from permitted or 

non-conforming buildings or other structures as defined in 

the ordinance. 

• Selective limbing of mature trees for required Defensible 

Space as defined in the ordinance. 

• Thinning, pruning or mowing of vegetation (except trees) to 

no less than that required to meet fuel modification criteria 

(in no case less than a 4 inch stubble) and leaving the roots 

intact. 

2. A Land Use Permit shall be required for: 

• Removal of mature native trees. 

• Removal of riparian vegetation. 

• Removal of oak woodland or forest understory vegetation not 

within the minimum area of Defensible Space as defined in 

the ordinance. 





Mitigation 

3. A Minor Conditional Use Permit shall be required for: 

• Removal of riparian vegetation for a distance of 500 feet or 

more along a creek that disturbs the habitat. 

• Removal of 1 acre or more of vegetation within an oak 

woodland or forest habitat, exclusive of the minimum area 

required for Defensible Space, as defined in the ordinance. 

4. The amendment shall include the following definitions: 

Riparian Vegetation, Mature Native Tree, Defensible Space, 

Fuel Modification, Limbing, Heavy Equipment and Vegetation 

Removal. 

LUDC Ordinance Addition: Amend the Mission Canyon 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Overlay Zone permit and 

processing requirements as initiated to clarify intent and 

terminology for Land Use Permits for native vegetation removal. 

MM-BIO-2.4: Increase riparian habitat buffer. The proposed 

revision would be as follows (deletions struck through, additions 

underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.3: Development shall be required to include 

the following buffer areas from the boundaries of 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH), unless it would preclude 

development of a parcel to such extent that an unconstitutional 

deprivation of property occurs: 





Mitigation 

• Creeks and Steelhead critical habitat streams — 50 feet from 

the geologic top of creek bank. 


Woodland, Coast Live Oak/Olive Riparian Woodland, 

California Sycamore Riparian Forest and Central Coast Arroyo 

Willow Riparian Forest — 50 feet, as measured from the 

geologic top of creek bank. When this habitat extends 

beyond the geologic top of creek bank, the buffer shall 

extend an additional 25 50 feet from the outside edge of the 

Central and Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and 

California Sycamore Riparian Forest canopy. 

• Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest — 25 feet from edge of 

canopy. 

• Habitats containing Nuttall’s scrub oak or other special status 

animal or plant species or natural communities — 25 feet 

minimum, full extent to be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. 

• Wetland Habitats —50 feet from edge of wetland habitat. 

• Buffer areas from other types of ESH shall be determined on 

a case-by-case basis. 

These buffers areas may be adjusted upward or downward on a 

case-by-case basis given site specific conditions. Adjustment of 

the buffer shall be based on site-specific conditions such as 

slopes, biological resources, and erosion potential, as evaluated 

and determined by Planning & Development and other the 

County agencies, such as Environmental Health Services and the 

Flood Control District. Buffer areas may be adjusted to avoid 





Mitigation 

precluding development of a parcel to such extent that an 

unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. 

DevStd BIO-MC-4.1: Vegetation clearance for fuel management 

Fuel modification for defensible space within ESH and ESH 

buffers shall maintain the habitat’s structural integrity and 

ecological functions that physically support species (i.e., stream 

bank stabilization, erosion control and water quality, shading 

effects of tree canopies). 

Policy BIO-MC-8: Native riparian vegetation, including trees, shall 

be protected as part of a stream or creek development buffer. 

New Development shall be setback a minimum of fifty [50] feet 

from the geologic top of bank of any stream or creek or outside 

edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. When the 

riparian habitat extends beyond the geologic top of bank, the 

buffer shall extend an additional 25 feet from the outside edge of 

the riparian canopy. Buffer areas may be adjusted upward or 

downward on a case-by-case basis given site-specific conditions 

Adjustment of the buffer shall be based on site-specific 

conditions such as slopes, biological resources, and erosion 

potential, as evaluated and determined by the County. Planning 

& Development and other County agencies, such as 

Environmental Health Services and the Flood Control District. 

Buffer areas may be adjusted to avoid precluding reasonable 

primary use development of a parcel to such extent that an 

unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. Public or 

privately initiated restoration of degraded riparian areas to their 





Mitigation 

former state shall be encouraged. 

MM-BIO-2.5: Revise Development Standard for Environmentally 

Sensitive Habitat areas (deletions struck through, additions 

underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.8: New development on parcels entirely 

covered with ESH shall be subject to the following development 

standards. Development of a parcel shall not be precluded to an 

extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs: 

1. The area of permitted ground disturbance for development, 

inclusive of defensible space area required for vegetation 

clearance, shall be proportional to the size of the parcel. 

1. The main structure and accessory structures All permitted 

development and uses, including structures, roadways, 

landscaping, and agricultural uses, shall be clustered in one 

contiguous area to avoid fragmenting the habitat. 

2. Development shall be located adjacent to existing access roads 

and infrastructure to avoid fragmenting the habitat. subject to 

the requirements of “1” and “2” listed above. 

3. If impacts to ESH are greater than 0.5 acres, restoration of 

degraded native habitat shall be required at a 2:1 ratio. For 

parcels impacts less than 0.5 acres, enhancement (e.g., 

invasive species removal) of on-site adjacent ESH shall be 

required at a minimum 2:1 ratio. 





Mitigation 

IMPACT BIO-5: Buildout of the plan 

area could directly and indirectly 

impact Special Status animal and 

plant species and habitats. 

MM-BIO-5.1: Incorporate proposed visual resource policy and 

development standard (or functional equivalent) from the draft 

Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon 


MM-BIO-5.2: Require a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for 

projects that affect Special Status species and nesting birds. 

(additions underlined). 

Policy BIO-MC-11: Development shall include provisions to 

minimize impacts to special status animals and nesting birds 

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

DevStd BIO-MC-11.1: When special status animal species 

are found on or near a site during biological review for projects, 

or if the project may affect nesting birds protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the applicant shall submit to 

the County a mitigation and monitoring plan that details 

protections to be implemented for identified species during 

project construction and development. The plan shall include 

compensatory habitat mitigation, if applicable. The mitigation 

plan shall contain the following elements: 

Under a reasonable 

worst-case scenario, 

project impacts to Special 

Status animal and plant 

species and habitat would 

not be fully mitigated and 

would remain a Class I, 


unavoidable impact. 





Mitigation 

• Pre-construction surveys (including nesting bird surveys); 

• Project avoidance and/or minimization measures, 

including work window restrictions; 

• Methods to avoid individuals and allow them to leave the 

site on their own, along with exclusionary measures to 

prevent individuals from returning to the work area. If 

avoidance does not work, include a species removal and 

relocation plan in compliance with the federal Endangered 

Species Act and California Fish and Game Code for the 

handling and relocation of listed species; 

• Worker environmental training; 

• On-site biological monitoring; 

• Habitat protective measures, such as buffer area fencing, 

spill prevention, sedimentation and erosion control measures, 

and trash containment guidelines; 

• Minimization measures to avoid the introduction and 

establishment of non-native species; 

• Revegetation plans for temporary impacts to significant 

habitat areas using native species; and 

• A compensatory mitigation (on- or off-site habitat 

preservation, enhancement or creation) plan, if the County 

determines that significant habitat areas used by special 

status animal species will permanently be impacted. 

MM-BIO-5.3: Include new Action and Development Standard for 

protection of wildlife corridors. The plan shall be revised and the 

following added (additions underlined): 





Mitigation 

Action BIO-MC-10.1: If a wildlife corridor is identified in the plan 

area by a County approved biologist during the biological review 

process, it shall be indicated on all development plans. Planning 

and Development should develop and maintain a database of 

known wildlife corridors in the plan area. 

DevStd BIO-MC-10.2: Development shall not interrupt major 

wildlife travel corridors and linkages. Typical wildlife corridors 

include, but are not limited to, riparian habitats, streams and 

floodplains, and unfragmented areas of grassland and oak 

woodland. 

MM-BIO-5.4: Include a Policy to address Special Status Animal 

and Plant Species surveys and mitigation (additions underlined). 

Policy BIO-MC-10: Where sensitive plant species and sensitive 

animal species are found pursuant to the review of a 

discretionary project, efforts shall be made to preserve the 

habitat in which they are located to the maximum extent 

feasible. For the purpose of this policy, sensitive plant species 

are those species that are officially listed under the State or 

Federal Endangered Species Act, Native Plant Protection Act, and 

the California Fish and Game Code, or those that appear on List 

1B of the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of 

Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Additional species of 

local concern may be considered if the biological report indicates 

such is warranted. Sensitive animal species are those listed as 

endangered, threatened, or candidate species by the California 

Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 





Mitigation 

Service, and those considered to be Species of Special Concern 

(CSC) by the CDFG pursuant to the most recent statewide list 

IMPACT BIO-6: Cumulative impacts 

on biological resources. 

IMPACT CR-2: Plan buildout would 

potentially impact cultural and 

historical resources. 

maintained by that agency. 

No feasible additional mitigation measures are available to 

reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources below a level 

of significance. 

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 

MM-CR-1.1: Incorporate proposed history and archaeology and 

visual resource policies, development standards and actions (or 

functional equivalent) from the draft Community Plan into the 

final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

MM-CR-1.2: Revise development standards to improve 

treatment of historical resources (additions underlined, deletions 

struck through): 

The Community Plan’s 

cumulative impacts to 

biological resources in the 

Mission Canyon 

watershed would remain 

Class I, significant and 

unavoidable, and no 

mitigation measures are 

available to fully address 

this impact. 

The residual impact on 

archaeological resources 

from buildout would 

remain significant and 

unavoidable (Class I), as 

no procedurally feasible 

mitigation to address the 

potential impact on 

unknown, subsurface 

archaeological resources 

is available. 





Mitigation 

DevStd HA-MC-1.1: A Phase 1 archaeological survey shall be 

performed when identified as necessary by a cCounty 

archaeologist or contract archaeologist using the best available 

resources. or if a county archaeological sensitivity map identifies 

the need for a study. The survey shall include all areas of 

projects that would result in ground disturbances. If the 

archaeologist performing the Phase I report, after conducting a 

site visit, determines that the likelihood of an archaeology site 

presence is extremely low, a short-form Phase I report may be 

submitted. The content, format, and length of the Phase 1 

survey report shall be consistent with the size of the project and 

findings of the study. If archaeological remains are identified and 

cannot be avoided through project redesign, the proponent shall 

fund a Phase 2 study to determine the significance of the 

resource prior to issuance of any permit for development. 

DevStd HA-MC-1.2: All feasible proposed mitigation 

recommendations of an archaeological report resulting from the 

Phase 1 or Phase 2 study, including completion of additional 

archaeological analyses (Phase 2, Phase 3) and/or project 

redesign, shall be incorporated into any permit issued for 

development. 

DevStd HA-MC-2.1: No permits shall be issued for any 

development or activity that would adversely affect the historic 

value of the properties listed in Table 12 integrity of officially 

designated Historic Landmarks and Structures of Merit, historical 





Mitigation 

resources eligible for the California Register of Historic 

Resources, or identified historical districts unless a professional 

evaluation of the proposal has been performed pursuant to the 

County’s most current Regulations Governing Archaeological and 

Historical Projects., reviewed and approved by Planning and 

Development All such professional studies shall be reviewed and 

approved by Planning and Development and all feasible 

mitigation measures shall be have been incorporated into any 

permit issued for development. the proposal. 

MM-CR-1.3: Add policy and action to the final Mission Canyon 

Community Plan to protect Cultural Resources (additions 

underlined). 

IMPACT FIRE-2: Plan area buildout 

would potentially expose people or 

structures to a significant risk of 

wildland fires. 

Policy HA-MC-3: Traditional cultural, historical, and spiritual sites 

of concern to the Chumash Indians shall be protected and 

preserved to the maximum extent feasible. 

Action HA-MC-3.1: The County, Chumash representatives, and 

community should work together to ensure appropriate tribal 

access to traditional cultural, historical, and spiritual sites while 

still respecting the rights and privileges of private property 

owners. 

FIRE PROTECTION 

MM-FIRE-1.1: Incorporate proposed land use and fire protection 

goals, policies, actions and development standards (or functional 

equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into 

the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

Due to the existing 

extreme high fire hazard, 

impacts would remain 


unavoidable (Class I). 





Mitigation 

MM-FIRE-1.2: Revise draft Mission Canyon Community Plan 

Action FIRE-MC-1.1 to provide more direction on the process for 

this action (deletions struck through, additions underlined): 

Action FIRE-MC-1.1: The County shall prepare a plan and adopt a 

Resolution of Intention to fund work with Mission Canyon 

residents to prepare a feasibility study for developing a Wildland 

Fire Benefit Assessment District to provide additional fire 

prevention services to reduce the damage and severity of 

wildfires. Additional services may include: improvement of 

evacuation routes; defensible space inspection and assistance; 

development of on-street parking turnouts and fire hydrants 

where needed; and vegetation management programs. 

The plan shall specify the funding mechanism for the program by 

means of a Benefit Assessment District or Special Tax. If 

required, an Engineer’s Report shall be prepared that contains a 

description of the improvements to be financed, the proposed 

district boundaries, and a description of the special benefit that 

each parcel would receive as a result of the assessment. Fire 

prevention services may include: 

• Implementation of the goals outlined in the Mission Canyon 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (i.e., reducing hazardous 

fuels on public and private lands, increase education and 

awareness, and improve and protect critical evacuation 

routes); 

• Water infrastructure upgrades for firefighting purposes; and 

• Actions to improve emergency ingress and egress. 





Mitigation 

IMPACT FIRE-3: Buildout of the 

plan area would potentially impact 

emergency ingress and egress and 

limit emergency responder’s ability 

to provide optimal protection to 

the citizens of Mission Canyon 

MM-FIRE-1.3: Incorporate a new action in the draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan to consider red flag warning closures 

and parking prohibitions at the trailhead on Tunnel Road. 

Action FIRE-MC-2.7: The County shall coordinate with the City 

of Santa Barbara, the Front Country Trails Multi-Jurisdictional 

Task Force and the California Highway Patrol to consider a plan to 

invoke fire closure of the Tunnel Road trailhead and a prohibition 

of parking on Tunnel Road when a Red Flag Warning is in effect. 

The plan shall include an educational program to inform 

residents and visitors of any proposed closures and potential 

enforcement actions that could occur. 

MM-FIRE-2.1: Incorporate proposed fire protection policies and 

development standards (or functional equivalent) from the draft 

Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan 

and implement proposed Land Use and Development Code 

amendments for additional findings regarding roadway 

evacuation. 

MM-FIRE-2.2: Integrate Residential Parking Strategy policies, 

actions and development standard recommendations into the 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan (additions underlined, 

deletions struck through): 

Mitigation measures 

require funding and 

coordination with Caltrans 

and the City of Santa 

Barbara and therefore it is 

unknown if they are 

feasible or will be 

implemented. Therefore, 

impacts remain significant 

(Class I). 





Mitigation 

Policy CIRC-MC-7: Parking shall be prohibited on roads where 

it could encroach into the 10 foot vehicle travel lane or interfere 

with emergency ingress or egress, Fire Department access to fire 

fighting facilities, and safe pedestrian passage as determined by 

County Public Works or the Fire Department, in accordance with 

the California Vehicle Code. The outside perimeter of travel 

lanes shall be delineated by a white stripe (fog line). Parking shall 

be allowed to the right of the fog line provided it does not 

interfere with adequate sight distance and safe pedestrian 

passage. Parking areas in the public right-of-way shall not be 

reserved and/or posted for the sole use of the adjacent property 

owner and shall not be used for long term parking of boats, 

trailers or recreational vehicles. 

Action CIRC-MC-7.1: The County shall seek funding to paint and 

maintain fog line striping on public roads in Mission Canyon 

where appropriate to implement Policy CIRC-MC-7. Public 

outreach will be conducted prior to new fog line striping to seek 

public input on road striping placement. The County shall 

coordinate timing and implementation of new road striping with 

the California Highway Patrol to ensure public awareness of 

Vehicle Code enforcement. 

Policy CIRC-MC-8: Encroachments in the public right-of-way 

shall generally be discouraged. Encroachment of structures, 

fences, walls, landscaping, etc., into existing road rights-of-way 

shall be subject to an encroachment permit and may be 





Mitigation 

approved only when all of the following conditions are met: (a) 

the encroachment preserves an unobstructed minimum distance 

of 7 feet from edge of pavement; (b) the encroachment would 

widen the right-of-way area usable by the public (e.g., pedestrian 

and bicycle passage) or add public parking spaces; and (c) the 

encroachment would be consistent with the semi-rural character 

of Mission Canyon. BAR approval shall be required for any 

encroachment that requires a Land Use Permit under the LUDC. 

DevStd CIRC-MC-8.1: Board of Architectural Review (BAR) 

approval shall be required for any encroachment that requires a 

Land Use Permit under the LUDC. All new landscaping and 

hardscape within and immediately adjacent to public rights-ofway 

(ROW) shall be consistent with the continued use and 

availability of the ROW for its eventual intended use. No 

landscaping or hardscape shall be planted within the public road 

ROW without an encroachment permit. 

DevStd CIRC-MC-8.2: All new residential development on 

parcels located along State Route 192 that have or could include 

fixed objects within the State right-of-way shall be forwarded to 

Caltrans for comment prior to BAR review. 

Policy PDR-MC-2: During reconstruction of damaged and 

destroyed structures, the County shall regain require removal of 

encroachments in the public right- of-way (e.g., remove 

encroachments such as walls, fences, and landscaping) along key 

ingress and egress roads (Mission Canyon, Tunnel, Cheltenham, 





Mitigation 

and Tye Roads) within the Canyon, unless an encroachment 

permit is obtained. Regained rights-of-way shall be for the 

purpose of meeting minimum Public Works road width standards 

and to improve pedestrian and bicyclist circulation providing 

adequate sight distance, creating a clear zone to provide pull 

over spaces in emergencies, and to ensure access and safety for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 

MM-FIRE-2.3: Revise draft Mission Canyon Community Plan 

circulation actions to consider emergency turnout zones at 

critical locations to allow additional evacuation traffic capacity 

(deletions struck through, additions underlined): 

Action CIRC-MC-1.2: The County shall coordinate with Caltrans 

to ensure improvements along State Route 192/Foothill Road are 

developed in a manner consistent with bicycle and pedestrian 

safety and should be designed for improved bicycle access. 

Roadway shoulder improvements shall, whenever feasible, be 

designed to provide emergency turnout zones and improved 

pedestrian and bicycle access. 

Action CIRC-MC-7.2: The County shall coordinate with the City 

of Santa Barbara to evaluate the need for improvements to the 

southbound segment of Los Olivos Street between Mountain 

Drive and Alameda Padre Serra to allow for drivable shoulders or 

bicycle/pedestrian paths that could be used for cars in an 

emergency with the aid of traffic control. The feasibility of 

constructing any identified improvements would include funding, 

historic evaluation by the City’s Historic Landmarks Commission, 





Mitigation 

and engineering requirements. 

Action VIS-MC-3.2: Planning & Development Department shall 

work with Public Works, Parks Department, the City of Santa 

Barbara, and area residents to seek grants and other funding 

sources to design and implement the Phase II Streetscape Plan 

for the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor The streetscape plan 

should include, but is not limited to, the following programs: 

• Designation of on-street and off-street pedestrian trails; 

• Consideration of dual purpose pedestrian trails/emergency 

vehicle turnout zones in appropriate locations; 

• Investigation and removal of encroachments into pedestrian 

trails; 

• Safe pedestrian access between the Old Mission and the 

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History; 

• A signage plan; 

• Landscaping recommendations; and 

• A utility undergrounding program. 

MM-FIRE-2.4: Implement Optimized Traffic Control Plan during 

an evacuation. 

This Plan is intended to provide a “menu” for the Unified 

Command Team to choose from and combine when responding 

to fire evacuation scenarios, depending on the timing and 

location of a fire, the weather conditions, and the traffic control 

equipment and staff resources that could be provided jointly by 

the County, Caltrans and the City of Santa Barbara. 

Implementation of the traffic control plan would require 





Mitigation 

coordination of the State, County and City law enforcement 

team, Caltrans, and both County and City Public Works and 

Traffic Divisions. 

MM-FIRE-2.5: Develop new or alternate access routes. 

IMPACT FIRE-5: Cumulative risk of 

wildfire impacts and emergency 

ingress and egress. 

IMPACT TC-1: Buildout of the plan 

area would contribute additional 

Potential extension of private roadways to allow secondary 

alternative access could be considered for upper Mission Canyon 

if feasible. For example, extension of Holly Road to connect to 

San Roque Road may be beneficial for fire protection planning 

and may improve the evacuation travel time for upper Mission 

Canyon area and relieve the traffic congestion on Mission Canyon 

Road. Any such proposal would need to be coordinated with 

private landowners and the City of Santa Barbara. Note that per 

the Mission Canyon Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 

continuous vegetation clearance and maintenance is scheduled 

for this unofficial secondary evacuation corridor west of Holly 

road to the Laurel Reservoir. 

No feasible additional mitigation measures are available to 

reduce cumulative impacts to fire protection below a level of 

significance. 

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

MM-TC-1: Monitor and plan for traffic flow improvements on 

Mission Canyon Road south of Foothill Road. The following new 

The Plan’s cumulative 

impacts to fire protection 

in Mission Canyon would 

remain Class I, significant 

and unavoidable, and no 

mitigation measures are 

available to fully address 

this impact. 

It is unknown if the 

mitigation strategy would 





vehicle trips to roadway segments 

that could exceed circulation 

element capacities. 

action is proposed for the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan 

(additions underlined): 

Action CIRC-MC-6.1: The County shall regularly monitor traffic 

on Mission Canyon Road between Foothill Road and Mountain 

Drive. If average daily traffic volumes approach Level of Service 

D (defined as 90% of Design Capacity) for this segment, the 

County shall prepare a plan for design changes, spot widening, 

intersection improvements or other measures to improve traffic 

flow. Improvement plans for this roadway shall consider the 

historic and scenic value of this roadway and incorporate traffic 

patterns generated by special events at the Santa Barbara 

Museum of Natural History and the Woman’s Club. 

Mitigation 

be effective in reducing 

impacts to the identified 

segment given the 

potential policy conflicts 

between roadway 

improvements and 

preservation of historic 

and scenic resources. 

Therefore, the Plan’s 

contribution to the 

roadway impact would 

remain significant (Class 

I). 



CLASS II — POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGABLE 


Mitigation 

IMPACT AES-2: Buildout of the 

plan area could potentially obstruct 

scenic vistas or views or change the 

visual character of the area. 

IMPACT AQ-1: Incremental shortterm 

construction activity 

associated with buildout of the plan 

area would potentially generate 

significant air pollutant emissions. 

AESTHETICS 

MM-AES-1: Incorporate proposed land use and visual resource 

goals, policies, development standards, and actions (or the 



MM-AES-2: Amend proposed Scenic Corridor Development 

Standards in the LUDC to prevent impacts to visual character and 

public views. 

An amendment to the proposed LUDC development standards 

for the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor Overlay is proposed to 

ensure that secondary front setbacks on corner lots are treated 

the same as primary front setbacks (i.e., the primary and 

secondary front setback of any portion of a lot facing Mission 

Canyon Road would be 80 feet from road centerline and 55 feet 

from right-of-way) and 2) the fence and wall height standard 

applies to the secondary front setback area adjacent to Mission 

Canyon Road (i.e., shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height). 

AIR QUALITY 

MM-AQ-1: Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control. Fugitive dust control 

shall include measures designed to reduce particulate matter 

(PM10) emissions from project construction. Controls shall 

include, but not be limited to, the following measures: 

• During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to 

keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent 

dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include 

wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is 

completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should 

Impact would be less than 

significant with 

mitigation. 



mitigation. 





Mitigation 

be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. 

Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible, but 

should not be used in or around crops for human 

consumption. 

• Minimize amount of disturbed area and reduce on site vehicle 

speeds to 15 miles per hour or less. 

• Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent 

tracking of mud on to public roads. 

• If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material are 

involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be 

covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent 

dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from 

the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 

• After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is 

completed, treat the disturbed area by watering, or revegetating, 

or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved 

or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. 

• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons 

to monitor the dust control program and to order increased 

watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. 

Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when 

work may not be in progress. The name and telephone 

number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution 

Control District prior to land use clearance for map 

recordation and land use clearance for finish grading for the 

structure. 

• Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a 

note on a separate informational sheet to be recorded with 





Mitigation 

map, these dust control requirements. All requirements shall 

be shown on grading and building plans. 

IMPACT BIO-1: Replacement of the 

1984 Specific Plan with the 

proposed Community Plan. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

MM-BIO-1: Revise native tree protection policy to protect nonnative 

trees that have a biological or ecological function and for 

consistency with proposed environmentally sensitive habitat 

standards. 

(deletions strike through, additions underlined). 

Policy BIO-MC-6: Native trees shall be preserved where 

appropriate protected within environmentally sensitive habitat 

areas and retained outside of environmentally sensitive habitat 

areas to the maximum extent feasible. A “native protected tree” 

is at least six inches in diameter (largest diameter for non-round 

trunks) as measured 4.5 feet above level ground (or as measured 

on the uphill side where sloped). Native trees found in Mission 

Canyon area include, but are not limited to: coastal live oak 

(Quercus agrifolia), Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), 

California bay (Umbellularia californica), Bigleaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum), White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and California 

black walnut (Juglans californica). 

Non-native trees that provide nesting habitat or cover shall be 

preserved where appropriate. A “non-native protected tree” has 

a biological or ecological function (i.e., it provides nesting habitat 

or cover) and is at least six inches in diameter (largest diameter 

for non-round trunks) as measured 4.5 feet above level ground 

(or as measured on the uphill side where sloped). 



mitigation. 





Mitigation 


area could introduce invasive plant 

species into sensitive habitat areas. 


area could directly and indirectly 

impact Southern California 

steelhead trout and other aquatic 

species habitat. 

If it is determined by Planning & Development the County that 

native tree removal cannot feasibly be avoided, removed trees 

shall be relocated or replaced onsite to the extent feasible 

provided the relocated or replaced trees can be accommodated 

in a location and manner that does not conflict with defensible 

space clearance requirements. Replacement for native trees 

should be propagated from onsite or nearby specimens. 

MM-BIO-3: Revise Development Standards for landscaping. 

Development Standards in the draft plan shall be revised as 

follows (additions underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-5.1: Development requiring a landscape plan 

should use only non-invasive, fire resistant species (examples 

listed in Appendix E). Plants listed on the most recent California 

Invasive Plant Council (Cal IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory and 

Undesirable Plant Species listed in Appendix E shall not be 

included in any landscape plan for new development. 

MM-BIO-4.1: Incorporate proposed biological policy and 


Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

MM-BIO-4.2: Revise draft Mission Canyon Community Plan 

policy and development standards for activities permitted in 

stream corridors to provide enhanced protection of steelhead 

habitat (additions underlined, deletions struck through): 

Impact is less than 

significant with mitigation 



mitigation. 





Mitigation 

Policy BIO-MC-7: Natural stream channels corridors shall be 

maintained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent 

feasible in order to protect water quality and banks from erosion, 

enhance wildlife passageways, and provide natural greenbelts. 

“Hardbank” channelization (e.g., use of concrete, riprap, gabion 

baskets) of stream channels or corridors shall be prohibited, 

except where it has been demonstrated that no other method for 

protecting existing habitable structures or infrastructure in the 

floodplain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for 

public safety or to necessary to protect existing habitable 

structures (existing habitable structures and infrastructure shall 

be as of the Community Plan adoption date). Where hardbank 

channelization is required, the material and design used shall be 

the least environmentally damaging alternative and site 

restoration on or adjacent to the stream channel shall be 

required, subject to a Restoration Plan. 

DevStd BIO-MC-8.2: When activities permitted in stream 

corridors would require removal of native riparian plants and 

non-native invasive species, no herbicide use shall occur within a 

15-foot wide exclusion zone at the top of creek bank, on the 

creek bank, or in the creek bed. Herbicide use in the creek 

channel shall be approved by CDFG, and shall be of materials 

approved for aquatic use and conducted in accordance with a 

site specific revegetation/restoration plan prepared in 

consultation with a County approved biologist. 

Revegetation/restoration with local native plants, obtained from 

seed and rootstock within as close proximity to the site as 





Mitigation 

feasible shall be required. Native seed and rootstock shall come 

from as close as possible to the site within the Mission Creek 

watershed, or, if not available, from within the South Coast 

(Gaviota to Rincon Creek) in order to protect local native plant 

genetics. 

DevStd BIO-MC-8.3: No structures shall be located within a 

stream corridor except: public trails that would not adversely 

affect existing habitat, flood control projects where no other 

method for protecting existing habitable structures in the 

floodplain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for 

public safety or to protect existing habitable structures 

development (existing habitable structures shall be as of the 

Community Plan adoption date), and other development where 

the primary function is for the improvement of fish and wildlife 

habitat. All Development within a stream corridor shall require a 

biological assessment prepared by a County approved biologist 

with steelhead experience according to current County and/or 

CDFG guidelines and shall otherwise incorporate the best 

mitigation measures feasible to minimize the any negative 

impacts to the greatest extent. 

DevStd BIO-MC-9.1: Development activity involving road 

construction, bridge construction, bridge replacement, 

streambank restoration, and/or culvert removal or installation 

that requires ground disturbance in or within 250 feet of 

ephemeral (dry except during and immediately after rainfall), or 

intermittent (seasonal) or perennial streams and creeks, and 





Mitigation 

associated riparian vegetation shall require a biological 

assessment prepared by a County approved biologist with 

steelhead experience according to current County and/or CDFG 

guidelines and shall be subject to all applicable permit 

requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

MM-BIO-4.3: Add fish passage measures to the final Mission 

Canyon Community Plan (additions underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-9.3: Any modification (i.e., reconstruction of 

existing bridges or in-stream aprons) to existing (as of 

Community Plan adoption date) manmade barriers to fish 

passage (as identified in the Mission Canyon Community Plan 

Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment) shall include 

improvements to allow enhanced fish passage in accordance with 

all applicable permit requirements of the California Department 

of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Action BIO-MC-9.4: As fish passage restoration projects are 

completed downstream of the plan area, the County should 

coordinate with the City of Santa Barbara and other appropriate 

entities and seek funding to create and implement plans to 

restore fish passage within the upstream reaches of Mission and 

Rattlesnake Creek where feasible. 

Action BIO-MC-9.5: Development proposals that include 





Mitigation 

rezones, major conditional use permits, subdivisions, or 

development plans and that could have significant impacts on 

steelhead habitat shall, in addition to required mitigation, 

contribute funding to study of off-site fish passage barrier 

removal in Mission Canyon. 

IMPACT CUL-4: Cumulative impacts 

on historic buildings. 

IMPACT FIRE-4: Buildout could 

impact existing fire flow and pump 

station capacity deficiencies. 

IMPACT GEO-2: Buildout of 

the plan area could 

potentially expose 

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Mitigation measures CR-1.2 and CR 1.3 would help ensure that 

new facilities and improvements are sited and developed in ways 

that reduce the potential for significant impacts. 

FIRE PROTECTION 

MM-FIRE-3: Ensure that fire flow infrastructure meets minimum 

standards for new development. 

A new development standard is proposed to clarify that new 

projects must be served by fire hydrants that meet minimum 

flow and pressure requirements (additions underlined): 

DevStd FIRE-MC-2.3: New development shall ensure that fire 

suppression hydrant infrastructure is adequate to meet the 

project’s fire fighting needs. 

Action FIRE-MC-1.1: As stated earlier in MM-FIRE-1.2. 

GEOLOGIC PROCESSES 

MM-GEO-1: Incorporate proposed geologic hazard policies and 



Impacts are less than 


mitigation. 





mitigation. 



Impact 


Mitigation Measure Significance After 

Mitigation 

structures to unstable earth Community Plan. 

conditions. 

IMPACT GEO-3: Buildout of the 

plan area may result in the 

potential for geological and soil 

instability and hazards, including 

excessive grading, expansive soils 

and erosion. 

IMPACT PF-2: Buildout of the plan 

area would cumulatively increase 

short- and long-term operational 

waste to Tajiguas Landfill. 

IMPACT TC-2: Buildout of the plan 

area would contribute additional 

vehicle trips that would increase 

V/C ratios at one intersection 

adjacent to the plan area. 

MM-GEO-2: Incorporate proposed hillside and watershed 

protection policies (or functional equivalent) from the draft 



PUBLIC FACILITIES 

MM-PF-1: Incorporate proposed waste reduction goal, policy, 

development standard and action (or functional equivalent) from 

the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission 

Canyon Community Plan. 

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 

MM-TC-2: Consider signal control at Intersection #6 Mission 

Canyon Road (south)/E Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive 


Action CIRC-MC-2.1: The County shall coordinate with the City 

to actively monitor the intersection on the southern border of 

the plan area at Mission Canyon Road (south)/E. Los Olivos Street 

and Mountain Drive. If a determination is made that a traffic 

signal is warranted and required, the County shall enter into an 

agreement with the City to fund its fair share cost of the 

intersection signal design and installation. Due to the proximity 

of this location to the proposed Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor 

and the City’s El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, a proposed 

traffic signal should be reviewed by the County Historic 



mitigation. 



mitigation. 



mitigation. 





Mitigation 

Landmarks Advisory Commission and City Historic Landmarks 

IMPACT TC-3: Buildout of the MCCP 

would result in an increased parking 

demand that would impact the 

capacity of the street system. 

IMPACT TC-4: Cumulative impacts 

on traffic and circulation. 

IMPACT WR-2. Buildout of the plan 

area could potentially expose some 

properties to flood hazards. 

Commission. 

MM-TC-3: Incorporate proposed residential parking action (or 

functional equivalent) from the draft Community Plan into the 


The plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts on traffic and 

circulation are potentially significant for intersections. Impacts of 

cumulative growth are incorporated into the analysis and MM- 

TC-2 above is the mitigation measure for the impacted 

intersection. 

WATER RESOURCES DRAINAGE AND FLOODING 

MM-WR-1.1: Incorporate proposed flood hazard policy (or 



MM-WR-1.2: Add additional Development Standard for flood 

hazards (additions underlined): 

DevStd FLD-MC-1.1: Development shall not be allowed within 

floodways except in conformance with Chapters 15A and 15B of 

the County Code, any other applicable statutes or ordinances, 

and all applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including 

but not limited to policies regarding biological resources and 

safety. 





mitigation. 



mitigation. 





IMPACT WR-3: Buildout of the plan 

area could potentially cause 

temporary water quality impacts 

due to erosion and sedimentation 

from construction activities. 

MM-WR-2.1: Incorporate proposed erosion control policy and 




MM-WR-2.2: Revise flooding and drainage Policy and 

Development Standards. Proposed MCCP Policy FLD-MC-2 and 

Development Standards FLD-MC-2.1 and FLD-MC-2.2 in the draft 

plan shall be combined and revised as follows (additions 


Policy FLD-MC-2: Erosion associated with construction and 

the resulting development shall be minimized. Erosion of soils 

and movement of sediment into natural and man-made 

drainages shall be minimized during construction activities until 

the site is stabilized. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.1: Development shall incorporate 

sedimentation traps or other effective measures to minimize the 

erosion of soils into natural and man-made drainages, where 

feasible. Development adjacent to stream channels shall be 

required to install check dams or other erosion control measures 

deemed appropriate by Flood Control and Planning and 

Development to minimize channel down-cutting and erosion. To 

the maximum extent feasible, all such structures shall be 

designed to avoid impacts to riparian vegetation. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.2: Grading and drainage plans shall be 

Mitigation 



mitigation. 





Mitigation 

submitted with any application for development that would 

potentially increase total runoff from the site and/or 

substantially alter drainage patterns on the site or in its vicinity. 

The purpose of such plan(s) shall be to avoid or minimize hazards 

including but not limited to flooding, erosion, landslides, and soil 

creep. Appropriate temporary and permanent measures such as 

energy dissipaters, silt fencing, straw bales, sand bags, and 

sediment basins shall be used in conjunction with other basic 

design methods to prevent erosion on slopes and siltation of 

creek channels. Such plan(s) shall be reviewed and approved by 

both County Flood Control and Planning & Development. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.1: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 

(ESCP) shall be submitted with any application for development 

that increases runoff rates and volumes on the site or 

substantially alters drainage patterns in the vicinity. The ESCP 

shall show best management practices designed to avoid or 

minimize hazards including but not limited to erosion, landslides, 

and soil creep. 

Appropriate erosion control measures include: 

• Offsite diversion of storm water around disturbed areas; 

• Velocity dissipation devices to protect erosion at the 

outlet of pipe or channel; 

• Mulching and hydroseeding, geotextile and mats; and 

• On steeper slopes, temporary pipe drains to direct surface 

runoff or groundwater into a stabilized watercourse or stabilized 

area away from slope areas to protect cut or fill slopes. and 





Mitigation 

streambank stabilization. 


area could potentially cause longterm 

water quality and storm water 

runoff impacts to the Mission Creek 

watershed. 

Appropriate sediment control measures include: 

• Silt fencing (installed per spec); 

• Sediment basin or trap; 

• Check dams, fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, or sandbag barriers. 

Straw bales shall only be used as a linear sediment control 

structure to pond sheet flow runoff from slopes less than 10%, to 

allow sediment to settle out, and shall not be used for an 

extended time. 

Other non-structural measures such as scheduling of operations, 

protected staging, preservation of existing vegetation, daily 

street sweeping/vacuuming, will also be shown in the plans. 

Additional non-storm water and material management best 

management practices will be identified to prevent impacts 

associated with dewatering, paving, cutting and grinding, 

concrete, plaster, paint, etc. Such plan(s) shall be reviewed and 

approved by Planning and Development. 

MM-WR-3.1: Incorporate proposed wastewater policy and 




MM-WR-3.2: Add a new policy and development standard to 

establish Low Impact Development measures for all new 



mitigation. 







development in Mission Canyon and a new action to apply 

quantitative runoff controls as the County adopts 

hydromodification criteria (additions underlined). 

Policy FLD-MC-3: Impacts to the Mission Creek watershed 

from development shall be minimized through site design and 

onsite management of storm water to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

DevStd FLD-MC-3.1: New development shall ensure that postdevelopment 

runoff rates, volumes, and flow duration do not 

exceed pre-development runoff rates, volumes, and flow 

duration through the application of Low Impact Development 

(LID) measures. Development shall be conditioned to require 

implementation of a minimum of one measure from each LID 

group listed below, identified on site plans or otherwise 

described in the application. If a geotechnical or civil engineering 

hydraulic report determines significant site specific risks that 

could render individual LID measures technically infeasible, then 

the report shall develop feasible alternatives to reduce, capture 

and/or treat storm water runoff. 

• Group 1: Site Layout / Setting. Reduce overall disturbance 

by conserving and protecting natural areas, drainages, topsoils, 

and vegetation and minimizing overall impervious area. 

Measures include: roadway / sidewalk / driveway design, lot 

layout, parking, clustering units, onsite storm water reuse, 

vegetated roof, permeable paving, etc. Development within the 

Mitigation 

mitigation. 





Mitigation 

established development envelope is also an acceptable measure 

for Group 1. 

• Group 2: Disconnect Impervious. Safely distribute runoff 

from impervious surfaces (e.g. roof downspouts, driveways, 

roads, etc.) to a variety of onsite pervious areas (e.g. open space, 

landscape, permeable pavement with base, etc.) Measures 

include: Roof downspout to swale or landscaping, filter strips, 

curb-cuts, planter box / foundation planting, driveways / 

roadways with runoff directed to landscape, etc. 

• Group 3: Rate/Volume/Duration. Slow and reduce runoff 

using infiltration, evapotranspiration, detention, and/or 

rainwater reuse. Measures include: infiltration trench, infiltration 

basin, drywell, vegetated swales, bioretention (rain garden), 

buffer strips, landscape planter box, amended soils, deep-rooted 

large trees, permeable paving with storage, cisterns, rain barrels, 

dry wells, detention basins, etc. 

Action FLD-MC-3.2: The County shall continue to participate 

with the Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (Water 

Board) in the regional joint effort to develop hydromodification 

control criteria for storm water flow rate, duration and volume to 

meet the Water Board’s storm water regulations for new 

development and redevelopment. Local landscape conditions 

shall be considered in the development of resulting criteria for 

the South Coast, including Mission Canyon. Mission Canyon 

development standards and ordinances shall be revised as 





Mitigation 

necessary to implement the County’s hydromodification criteria 

when adopted. 

CLASS III —ADVERSE BUT LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 


Mitigation 

IMPACT AES-3: Cumulative impacts 

to visual resources. 

IMPACT AQ-2: Plan buildout would 

potentially increase operational air 

pollutant emissions to significant 

levels. 

IMPACT AQ-3: Plan buildout would 

potentially contribute cumulatively 

significant greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

IMPACT GEO-4: Cumulative 

geologic hazard impacts. 

AESTHETICS 

Due to the moderate scale of potential new development 

facilitated by the proposed project together with adherence to 

required policies and development standards that address visual 

resources and conservation principles for defensible space, the 

cumulative impact is less than significant and no mitigation 

measures are required. 

AIR QUALITY 

Estimated operational air pollutant emissions would not exceed 

APCD thresholds. Therefore, the operational emissions effect on 

long-term air quality is less than significant, and no mitigation 

measures are required. 

Project GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable 

significance guidelines of 6.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr. The project 

therefore does not contribute cumulatively considerable GHG 

emissions and the impact is adverse but less than significant. 

GEOLOGIC PROCESSES 

Projects within the plan area would be required to adhere to 

policies and development standards contained in the Community 

Plan, as well as seismic standards contained in the Uniform 

Building Code, the California Building Code, and Santa Barbara 

Adverse, but less than 

significant. 


significant. 


significant. 


significant. 





Mitigation 

County Building Codes and Ordinances. Hence, the Community 

Plan’s contribution to cumulative geologic hazards would be less 

than significant. 

I M P A C T N O I S E-1 : B u i l d o u t of t h e 

p l a n a r e a could result in exposure of 

n o i s e-s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s to noise 

l e ve l s e x c e e d i n g C o u n t y t h r e s h ol d s . 

IMPACT PF-1: Plan area buildout 

could increase demand for Police 

Services, Schools and Parks. 

IMPACT PF-3: Plan area buildout 

would increase wastewater 

collection to the El Estero 

Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

NOISE 

Increased traffic that would result from the potential Adverse, but less than 

construction of up to 157 new residential units may increase 

noise incrementally on roads throughout the plan area. 

Temporary noise impacts may result from construction of 

individual units. However, due to the dispersed nature of the 

potential development, noise impacts would not be expected to 

exceed the County noise threshold. Standard conditions and 

noise attenuation requirements should reduce impacts to less 

than significant. In addition, proposed Policy LU-MC-3 and 

DevStd LU-MC-3.1 would further reduce potential noise impacts 

to less than significant levels (see RM-NOISE-1 below). 

PUBLIC FACILITIES 

significant. 

The new units projected at buildout would incrementally increase Adverse, but less than 

demand for police services, schools and parks. However, the 

projected population growth is consistent with forecasted 

regional population increases and is not anticipated to have a 

significant impact. 

significant. 

None required Adverse, but less than 

significant. 





Mitigation 


area would increase demand from 

existing water sources. 

IMPACT WR-6: Cumulative water 

resources impacts. 

WATER RESOURCES, DRAINAGE AND FLOODING 

Deliveries from the available surface water sources is already 

accounted for and limited by existing regulations and 

agreements. The increase in water demand associated with 

buildout would not significantly impact the supply of surface 

water to serve the area. See recommended measures RM-WR-1, 2.1 

and 2.2 below. 

The plan’s contribution to cumulative water resources impacts 

are adverse but not significant for long-term hydrological impacts 

and water supply. 


significant. 


significant 



CLASS IV —BENEFICIAL 

Impact Beneficial Measures 

Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

AESTHETICS Proposed Community Plan has more policies to protect visual resources than the Specific Plan, 

including adoption of Residential Design Guidelines, an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance and a 

Scenic Corridor Overlay. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Proposed Community Plan includes identification and mapping of Environmentally Sensitive 

Habitat and numerous policies, development standards and actions to protect sensitive plant 

and animal species. 

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC 

Proposed Community Plan includes new policies, standards and actions to protect cultural 

RESOURCES 

and historic resources, including the Mission Santa Barbara aqueduct. 

ENERGY Proposed Community Plan includes new green building, recycling and water conservation 

measures, all of which serve to reduce energy use. 

FIRE Proposed Community Plan includes many fire protection measures including fuel 

modification, fire hydrants, road shoulder improvements, utility undergrounding and 

prohibition of most Residential Second Units. 

GEOLOGIC PROCESSES Proposed Community Plan includes grading standards, erosion control measures, and 

provisions for geotechnical investigations that are more protective than the Specific Plan. 

WATER RESOURCES Proposed Community Plan includes more policies to protect water resources than the Specific 

Plan. 

RECOMMENDED MEASURES 

Recommended measures are presented when they would further benefit the resource area where potential adverse impacts were 

identified as not significant or mitigated to less than significant levels, and further mitigation is not required. 

AIR QUALITY 

RM-AQ-2: Incorporate proposed policies, development standards, and actions (or functional equivalents) from the draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan that serve to reduce GHG emissions into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

NOISE 

RM-NOISE-1: Incorporate proposed land use policy and development standard (or the functional equivalent) from the draft Mission 



RECOMMENDED MEASURES 

Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

WATER RESOURCES 

RM-WR-1: Incorporate proposed water efficiency policy, actions and development standard (or functional equivalent) from the 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

RM-WR-2.1: Revise action and proposed Mission Canyon Overlay Ordinance for Landscape Plan Water Conservation Development 

Standards from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan to Comply with the State Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. 

DevStd PS-MC-2.2: Landscape plans shall include appropriate water-conserving features in compliance with the State model 

water efficient landscape ordinance and County adoption of local ordinance amendments tailored to local 

conditions. 

Action PS-MC-2.3: Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code Section 35.28.210 shall be amended to require 

water conservation development standards for development requiring a landscape plan in the Mission 

Canyon Community Plan area. 

RM-WR-2.2: Include a new development standard in the Mission Canyon Community Plan to require applications for Land Use 

Permits to include conditions for interior water conservation. 

DevStd PS-MC-2.3: Development shall be required to include standard interior water conservation conditions set by the City of 

Santa Barbara in the intent to serve letter. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This document is the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Mission Canyon 

Community Plan (Community Plan), which would provide specific planning guidance, replace 

the existing Mission Canyon Specific Plan and supplement the existing Santa Barbara County 

Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Community Plan is described in detail in Section 2.0, 

Project Description. This section describes: 1) the general background of the Community Plan; 

2) the purpose and legal authority for the EIR; 3) the scope of content of the EIR; and 4) lead, 

responsible, and trustee agencies. 

1.1 Project Background 

The Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1984. Since that time, the 

Mission Canyon plan area has not been comprehensively reviewed and policies and 

development standards have not been updated. The 1984 Specific Plan was an outgrowth of a 

Wastewater Facilities Plan that divided the planning area into two distinct areas: a County 

service area proposed for connection to the City of Santa Barbara’s El Estero Wastewater 

Treatment Plant; and a maintenance area within which current and future septic tank systems 

would be permitted. Following certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 

Wastewater Facilities Plan in 1983, the City of Santa Barbara expressed concern that if the City 

agreed to provide contract sewer services, it would have no control over future building 

density, which had previously been limited by septic system capacity, and future development 

could in turn impact wastewater treatment plant capacity. Thus, a Supplemental EIR was 

prepared which identified a joint agency Specific Plan as feasible mitigation for environmental 

effects related to potential growth inducement. The Mission Canyon Specific Plan was then 

subsequently prepared and adopted by both the County and City of Santa Barbara. 

In recognition of the need to develop updated planning guidelines and standards to address 

new and ongoing planning issues in Mission Canyon, the County Board of Supervisors initiated 

an update to the 1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan in 2006. The update was to focus on traffic 

and circulation, natural hazards and other issues as well as to address architectural design with 

the preparation of Residential Design Guidelines. Although the project was initiated as an 

update to the Specific Plan, the County determined early in the process to convert the Specific 

Plan into a Community Plan to follow the County’s established Community Plan policy 

framework with area goals, policies, development standards and action items. When the 

Mission Canyon Community Plan is adopted by the County, it will replace the 1984 Mission 

Canyon Area Specific Plan. 

Citizen involvement in the preparation of a community plan is required by State law, and is one 

of the cornerstones of the community plan process. In 2006, the Board of Supervisors 

appointed a nine (9) member Mission Canyon Planning Advisory Committee (MCPAC) to work 

with County staff to draft Residential Design Guidelines and the Community Plan. Through a 

series of extensively noticed public meetings, the MCPAC, County staff, and interested 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 1-1 MARCH 2011 DRAFT


community members discussed land use and planning issues in the region and prepared goals 

and recommendations. City of Santa Barbara staff participated by attending meetings and 

presenting information on City resources for the MCPAC. 

On October 7, 2008, the Board of Supervisors initiated the draft Mission Canyon Community 

Plan for environmental review. 

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority 

This EIR is an informational document for use in the County of Santa Barbara’s review and 

consideration of the proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan. Santa Barbara County 

Planning and Development Department is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) for preparation and approval of the proposed Community Plan EIR. 

This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA 

Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of 

an EIR is to: 

• Inform decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed project; 

• Identify measures that can mitigate or avoid potential impacts; and 

• Identify reasonable alternatives to the project that can reduce potentially significant 

environmental impacts. 

While CEQA requires that major consideration be given to avoiding environmental impacts, the 

lead agency and other responsible agencies (agencies that have discretionary approval or 

permitting authority over the proposed project) must balance adverse environmental effects 

against other public directives, including economic and social goals, in determining whether and 

in what manner a project should be approved. 

This EIR evaluating the Mission Canyon Community Plan is a Program EIR as defined in CEQA 

Section 15168, because it addresses a series of actions that can be characterized as one large 

project. Use of a Program EIR provides the County (as Lead Agency) the opportunity to 

consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures. It also provides the 

lead agency with greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts 

on a comprehensive basis. 

This Program EIR evaluates the overall environmental impacts of potential development 

throughout the Mission Canyon plan area relative to the existing level of development. “Plan 

Buildout” refers to the total expected amount of development, measured in number of 

residential units, if every parcel in the Mission Canyon plan area were completely developed. 

Sufficient detail of buildout is presented to provide members of the general public and County 

decision-makers with a clear idea of the plan’s overall impacts. Secondary and cumulative 

effects are analyzed at a less intensive level of detail as mandated by CEQA Section 15146. 



1.3 Scope and Content 

Section 15125 of CEQA mandates that the EIR evaluate potential impacts on the physical 

environment as it exists at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The 

environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency 

determines whether an impact is significant. As a result, this EIR evaluates the effects that 

residential development contemplated under the Community Plan could have on the 

environment. This EIR addresses the issues areas determined to create the potential for 

significant impacts to the environment by County staff, the NOP and responses to the NOP, and 

input at the EIR scoping meeting. 

Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County of Santa Barbara 

prepared and circulated a NOP to public agencies and members of the public requesting input 

on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. During 

the NOP review period, between June and July 2009, the County held an EIR public scoping 

meeting to gather additional public and agency input on the scope and content of the EIR. 

Appendix A contains responses to the NOP and input provided at the scoping meeting which 

were considered in preparing this EIR. 

Issues addressed in this EIR include: 

• Aesthetics/Visual Resources 

• Air Quality (including greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change) 


• Cultural and Historic Resources 

• Energy 

• Fire Protection (including potential impacts to emergency evacuation) 

• Geologic Processes 

• Noise 

• Public Facilities 

• Transportation/Circulation 

• Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding 

A discussion of each resource is provided in Chapter 4, organized into the following sections: 

• Existing Setting — describes the existing physical conditions for each environmental 

resource evaluated in the EIR. This provides the context for assessing potential 

environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Community 


• Regulative Setting — lists federal, state and local regulations pertinent to the subject 

area. 



• Thresholds of Significance — criteria used to evaluate the intensity or degree of 

significance of each impact. These criteria include adopted thresholds from the 

County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (revised September 2008). 

• Project and Cumulative Impacts — describes potential consequences to each resource 

that may result from implementation of the project, both individually and cumulatively. 

• Mitigation Measures — measure designed to reduce the environmental impact to a less 

than significant level. 

• Significance After Mitigation — identifies the significance level of impacts which remain 

after all available mitigation measures have been applied. 

The EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies potentially significant 

environmental impacts, including both project-specific and cumulative impacts, in accordance 

with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis of cumulative impacts will 

include direct impacts of the implementation of the Community Plan along with impacts 

associated with other nearby and regional development, such as development within the City 

of Santa Barbara. 

The following categories for impact significance are used in this analysis: 

• Class I – Significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with 

implementation of mitigation measures. 

• Class II – Significant impacts that can be reduced to a less than significant level with 

implementation of mitigation measures. 

• Class III – Less than significant impacts. Mitigation measures are not required but may 

be recommended. 

• Class IV – Beneficial impacts. 

In addition, the EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate 

adverse environmental effects. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR are compiled in a 

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 

Two alternatives were analyzed in Section 7 of the EIR. These include: 

1. No Project Alternative, which corresponds to buildout under the policies and development 

standards in the existing 1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan. 

2. Reduced Density Alternative, which would evaluate a density reduction by downzoning 

and/or increasing minimum lot area. 

These alternatives will be evaluated for their potential impacts in comparison with the 

proposed Community Plan, but at a lower level of detail. As required by CEQA, Section 7 also 

identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the options selected. 



1.4 Lead, Responsible and Trustee Agencies 

The CEQA Guidelines require identification of “lead,” “responsible,” and “trustee” agencies. 

The County of Santa Barbara, Office of Long Range Planning is the lead agency for the project. 

“Responsible Agencies” are other agencies that are responsible for carrying out or approving 

components of the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan. “Trustee Agencies” are any state 

agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in 

trust for the people of the State of California. 

The City of Santa Barbara is a responsible agency in accordance with the 1984 Joint Powers 

Agreement for Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal in the Mission Canyon Area 

between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Barbara. The City also provides 

water to canyon residents and the Implementation Plan in the Mission Canyon Area Specific 

Plan specifies that all Land Use Permits applications are forwarded to the City for information 

purposes. Other responsible agencies include the Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB) for review of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit 

requests and review of septic systems subject to RWQCB permitting, the County Flood Control 

District for flood control projects and development within the Flood Hazard Area, and the 

County Fire Department for development within the High Fire Hazard Area. 

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction over 

biological resources, including waters of the State and rare and endangered species, and may 

have approval authority over components of individual projects that could be accommodated 

under the Community Plan. Federal Agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over certain projects and activities that may 

affect federally-protected species or waters of the United States 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 2-PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

This section describes the proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan (MCCP), including the 

project location, objectives and overview, buildout assumptions and decision-maker actions 

required. 

2.1 Project Location 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan area is located in the South Coast of Santa Barbara County 

within the First Supervisorial District, north of and adjacent to the City of Santa Barbara. 

Mission Canyon’s 1,120 acres support low to high density residential development, some 

recreational areas and undeveloped open space. The plan area includes 1,140 parcels and the 

following land uses: 1,014 residential units, one institution/government facility (Fire Station 

15), Rocky Nook County Park, and the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. Figure 2-1 shows the 

Community Plan boundary and plan area’s regional location within Santa Barbara County and 

Figure 2-2 provides a larger scale map of the Planning Area. 

2.2 Project Objectives and Overview 

State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR project description include a statement of objectives 

sought by the proposed project. The purpose of the MCCP is to replace the 1984 Mission 

Canyon Area Specific Plan and provide new policy direction and development standards for 

issues and development trends in the plan area. The update is necessary to manage current 

conditions, facilitate proper and informed planning, and accurately reflect the prevailing vision 

and goals of the area’s residents. 















The primary intent of the Mission Canyon Community Plan is to articulate and implement the 

community’s expressed desire to preserve neighborhood character and charm and protect and 

enhance the quality of life enjoyed by residents and visitors. The Community Plan’s Goals, 

Policies, Development Standards and Actions are designed to accomplish this intent by 

enhancing fire safe practices, improving parking, pedestrian and bicyclist circulation, and 

assuring the compatibility of new, remodeled, or rebuilt structures with existing development. 

The Mission Canyon Planning Advisory Committee articulated key goals for the plan as follows: 

• Maintain and enhance existing community qualities, including Mission 

Canyon’s natural scenic beauty and charm; 

• Improve fire safe practices including vegetation management, defensible 

space, hydrants and water supply, road safety, and emergency ingress and 

egress; 


• Provide for the reasonable use of property and limited additional 

development that is compatible with the natural terrain and with the scale 

and character of existing structures in the area; 

• Assure that development does not exceed availability of adequate services 

and infrastructure to provide for public health and safety; 

• Develop plans for possible post-disaster recovery and reconstruction that 

balances the likely conflict between the desire for rapid recovery and the 

competing desire to rebuild a community more resistant to future disaster; 


• Protect watershed function, groundwater and surface water quality, and 

prevent flooding and erosion; 

• Provide safe and efficient circulation systems and improve pedestrian and 

bicyclist access and safety; 

• Promote water conservation, resource recovery, green building practices, 

and energy conservation and generation; 






Figure 2- 1 Vicinity Map 



Figure 2- 2 Existing Setting 



2.3 Project Characteristics 

The proposed project is the Mission Canyon Community Plan, Residential Design Guidelines and 

Land Use & Development Code amendments for the Mission Canyon plan area. The Mission 

Canyon Community Plan EIR evaluates the physical consequences of the total expected amount 

of urban residential development in number of residential units (buildout) that could be 

constructed under the proposed Community Plan. The existing land use and primary zoning 

designations in Mission Canyon will be retained in the plan area. Below is a brief description of 

the project components, more detailed information is presented in the draft Community Plan, 

Residential Design Guidelines and proposed Land Use and Development Code amendments. 

Mission Canyon Community Plan 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan is intended to direct all aspects of preservation and 

development, including both policy and regulatory elements used in evaluating future 

development projects. The Community Plan contains goals, policies, development standards 

and actions intended to regulate and guide future development and improvements. A 

summary of major new policies, development standards and actions is included below. 

The Community Plan proposes no land use or primary zone designation changes in the plan 

area. The plan however does propose two new overlay zones: 1) Environmentally Sensitive 

Habitat – Mission Canyon (ESH-MC) Overlay and 2) Mission Canyon Community Plan area 

overlay which includes the designation of a Scenic Corridor as well as Scenic Corridor 

Development Standards, Agricultural Grading permit requirements, and Landscape Plan Water 

Conservation Development Standards. 

Residential Design Guidelines 

The Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines are intended to provide reasonable, practical 

and objective guidance to assist homeowners, developers and designers in identifying the 

components that define the character of a neighborhood and use when designing new or 

remodeled homes. The Residential Design Guidelines will provide the tools needed for staff 

and the County’s South Board of Architectural Review to evaluate development proposals 

effectively. 

Land Use & Development Code Amendments 

The proposed amendments to the Land Use & Development Code would implement applicable 

policies, development standards and action items from the Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

2.4 Major Policy Summary 

The subsections below summarize the major policies, development standards and actions 

proposed in the draft Community Plan which are designed to mitigate the potential 

environmental impacts of future development in the plan area. 



Land Use 

Mission Canyon Community Plan Land Use policy recognizes that Mission Canyon is a 

constrained community with respect to fire hazards, parking and circulation, flooding and 

drainage, wastewater and geology, and hillsides and topography. While the community did not 

recommend any land use or primary zoning designation changes in the plan area, it voiced a 

concern about the potential for increased residential density due to the approval of residential 

second units (RSUs) in the canyon. Thus, a policy and action were proposed to amend the Land 

Use and Development Code to limit RSUs in Mission Canyon unless special conditions can be 

met, summarized as: 

• The project application involves two contiguous legal lots under one 

ownership and at least one lot is vacant; 

• The owner has submitted an offer to dedicate a Covenant of Easement over 

the vacant lot (preventing construction of a primary residence) as long as the 

RSU is maintained on the developed lot; and 

• The vacant lot is deemed residentially developable. 

Based on a review of the Assessor’s Office database ownership records (2007), prior to the 

proposed amendment to the LUDC a theoretical 836 residential second units could be built in 

Mission Canyon based on lot size and zoning. Realistically, based on past permit history, it was 

estimated that 36 RSUs could be permitted by 2030. With implementation of the proposed 

amendment, the development potential is significantly lower and approximately fifteen parcels 

could meet the conditions summarized above to potentially allow a RSU. However, the fifteen 

potential RSUs are not included in the total buildout table because vacant parcels that could 

meet the conditions for a RSU as described above were already assumed to be developed with 

a primary unit in the buildout calculation. 

Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction 

This community recognized a need to adopt policies and take action to plan for post-disaster 

recovery and reconstruction to balance the need for rapid recovery while maintaining and 

enhancing the community’s aesthetic qualities and creating a safer community better able to 

resist future disasters. Towards the goal of rebuilding to survive a future natural disaster while 

maintaining community character and charm, the plan includes an action to direct the County 

to work with the community to develop a Post-Disaster Reconstruction Plan to provide a vision 

for decision makers and some framework by which decisions are made and facilitate recovery 

in the event of a disaster. Policy is proposed to recover public right-of-way (require removal of 

unpermitted encroachments) during reconstruction of damaged or destroyed structures along 

key ingress and egress routes to improve emergency access as well as pedestrian and bicyclist 

circulation. 

Fire Protection/Hazards 

One of the significant challenges within Mission Canyon is how to mitigate fire hazards 

associated with excess vegetation and limited emergency access within an established 

community that developed prior to current building safety and Fire Department development 



standards. As noted above, the plan proposes to amend the LUDC to limit residential second 

units due to the high fire hazard. While this action serves to limit residential density for 

ministerial permits, new policy is proposed to mitigate the impacts of new construction and 

increases in intensity of use of discretionary development. The policy directs that new 

discretionary development shall not significantly contribute, individually or cumulatively, to the 

existing deficiency in roadway evacuation capacity from the plan area. A companion 

Development Standard FIRE-MC-4.1 requires two routes of ingress and egress for discretionary 

development unless waived by the Fire Department. 

To address much needed physical improvements for improved fire safety, the draft Community 

Plan includes an action to direct the County to consider a feasibility study for a Wildland Fire 

Benefit Assessment District to fund additional fire prevention services such as improvement of 

evacuation routes, defensible space inspection and assistance, on-street parking turn-outs, 

additional fire hydrants where needed and comprehensive vegetation management. The plan 

also includes a development standard to require reasonable half width road frontage 

improvements in accordance with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department standards, 1 or to 

the maximum extent allowable by easement, on private roads in order to provide emergency 

turn out areas and improve pedestrian access. 

Circulation and Parking 

Goals for circulation and parking include: achieving safe roadways and improving pedestrian 

and bicyclist passage; providing adequate access for emergency vehicles and safe emergency 

egress for residents and visitors; and providing adequate on-site parking for occupants and 

guests. The current setting includes many roadways and driveways built prior to current 

roadway width and access standards. Especially problematic are the narrow, winding and often 

steep roadways in the upper canyon north of Foothill Road, where access is further constrained 

by on-street parking. 

The draft Community Plan proposes an amendment and update to the Circulation Element by 

applying definitions, roadway designations, and capacity standards used in all other Community 

Plans; however, the proposed level of service (LOS) is consistent with the area’s semi-rural 

character. Draft Community Plan policy establishes LOS B as the minimally acceptable level 

with the exception of Mission Canyon Road south of Foothill where LOS C is acceptable. 

Other policy, development standard and action directives are proposed towards the goal of 

achieving safe roadways better able to handle emergency ingress and egress. To address the 

issue of narrow public roads, the plan proposes half width road frontage improvements in the 

public right-of-way to provide space for emergency turn outs and pedestrian access. Action 

CIRC-MC-3.5 proposes to amend the LUDC to increase the required number of onsite parking 

spaces per dwelling unit in the R-1\E-1 zone districts (89% of the parcels in the plan area) from 

2 to 3 spaces. 

1 Santa Barbara County Fire Department Development Standard #1 states that Fire Department access roads shall be provided 

and maintained in accordance with the California Fire Code. 



Public Services: Water, Resource Recovery, and Green Building & Design 

Mission Canyon residents have expressed a desire that new development incorporate sound 

environmental principles, including solar access and protection of watersheds. Towards this 

goal, the Community Plan promotes use of green building technique and water efficient design 

and technology in all development. 

Wastewater 

Prior to the creation of a County Service Area by which the County now provides wastewater 

collection services to lower Mission Canyon, the area had a long history of problems related to 

the use of septic systems. The problems result from a combination of unfavorable soils and 

subsoil characteristics, steep slopes, relatively dense residential development in some areas, 

and lack of routine septic system maintenance by individual homeowners. The Board of 

Supervisors designated Mission Canyon as a Special Problem Area in 1978 due in part to 

problems related to the use of septic systems. To meet the stated goal of protecting the quality 

of surface and ground water from degradation, the draft Community Plan requires two 

disposals fields to be built for each new septic system with an additional third expansion area 

set aside where no development can occur. The plan also proposes future action items to 

require septic system inspections every four years and development of a Wastewater 

Management Plan to define areas where septic systems continue to be feasible and where 

extending public sewer service and infrastructure may be appropriate and feasible. 

Biological Resources 

The goal for biological resources is to protect, preserve and enhance the native and created 

biological diversity of the canyon. Because Mission Canyon is a State-designated Very High Fire 

hazard area containing both created landscapes, such as in the residential neighborhoods and 

the Botanic Garden, and areas of significant native habitat, one of the key policy issues is how 

to balance the protection of sensitive habitat with the need to carry out State-mandated fuel 

modification for defensible space. As such, this section contains a wide variety of policies and 

development standards to protect these resources while complying with fire safety mandates. 

One of the more important developments in the draft Community Plan is the mapping of 

vegetation and habitats and identification of special status species in the plan area. Based on 

the mapping and policy which sets forth general criteria to determine which resources and 

habitats are identified as environmentally sensitive, the following biological resources and 

habitats shall be identified and the LUDC amended to include a Mission Canyon Community 

Plan Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) Overlay Map (to the extent that their general or 

specific locations are known): 

• Habitats containing Nuttall’s scrub oak or other special status animal or 

special status plant species or rare natural communities; 

• Central and Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland; 






• Wetland Habitats; and 

• Native grasslands or other habitats with understory dominated by native 

grass species. 

The plan proposes to amend the LUDC to provide an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area – 

(ESH-MC) Overlay Zone to the sensitive resources and habitats identified above. The purpose 

of the overlay zone is to protect and preserve specified areas in which plant or animal life or 

their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their role in the ecosystem, and 

which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development. The intent 

of the overlay district is to ensure that any and all development permitted in such areas is 

designed and carried out in a manner that will provide maximum protection to sensitive habitat 

areas. 

Additional biological resource policies and development standards are proposed with a focus 

on methods to avoid disturbing the habitat and buffer areas where new construction is 

proposed. Policies and development standards are proposed to address fuel modification 

measures for defensible space in ESH and ESH buffer areas. As more residents comply with the 

minimum 100 feet of defensible space fuel modification requirements, the end result 

throughout the canyon will be a more park-like appearance, with thinning of dense vegetation, 

trees limbed, well-spaced trees and shrubs, and dead materials removed. 

Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

Mission Canyon is a highly scenic area of the County and residents have a strong interest in 

protecting its character and natural features including public views and the quality of the 

nighttime sky. This section of the Community Plan contains several proposed new directives to 

preserve and enhance visual resources. 

The gateway entrance into the canyon on Mission Canyon Road from Rocky Nook Park to 

Foothill Road, designated in the Community Plan as the Mission Canyon Road Scenic Corridor, 

was recognized by the community as an important viewshed that should be preserved and 

protected. The Community Plan proposes an amendment to the LUDC to apply a Mission 

Canyon Community Plan Overlay with specific development standards to protect the Mission 

Canyon Road Scenic Corridor. Action VIS-MC-3.2 is the second phase in the scenic corridor 

program to be completed when funding becomes available. Phase II includes design and 

implementation of a streetscape plan, coordination with the City of Santa Barbara and Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History to improve pedestrian access, a signage and landscaping 

plan, and pursuit of a utility undergrounding program. 

2.5 Project Buildout Assumptions 

The plan area currently contains 1,014 primary residential units. Although 67 primary 

residential units were destroyed in the Jesusita Fire of May 2009, it is presumed that they will 

be rebuilt and the number will remain approximately the same. Under the proposed plan, 



buildout would result in a potential additional 157 residential units if every parcel in the 

Mission Canyon plan area were completely developed based on existing land use and zoning 

designations. 

The methodology for determining buildout was based on the County Assessor’s Office database 

dated August 2007. The number of existing dwelling units is recorded in the database and 

potential additional residential units were calculated by assuming that the majority of vacant 

residential or agricultural zoned parcels have the potential for at least one residential unit, as 

long as the parcel meets the County’s minimum lot area and width for its zone district. If an 

already developed or vacant parcel could be subdivided under the minimum lot size regulations 

of the land use designation, then the number of potential additional units that the parcel could 

support was recorded in the database. Finally, all of the potential additional units for each 

parcel were summed. 

Some notable exceptions, listed below, were made to the buildout calculation based on current 

land use and reasonably foreseeable development in the future. 

1. The County of Santa Barbara owns four parcels bisected by Mission Creek in upper 

Mission Canyon. The land use designation and zoning is residential but the parcels are 

used by the Flood Control District as a debris dam on upper Mission Creek. Due to this 

use, it is not reasonably foreseeable that they would be developed with a residential 

unit in the future and they were eliminated for residential development in the buildout 

calculation. 

2. Recreation zoning allows for one caretaker dwelling per parcel. The buildout potential 

for parcels zoned for recreation in the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and Rocky Nook 

Park was determined based on considering the reasonably foreseeable development of 

one caretaker dwelling per use. Thus, for Rocky Nook Park, which consists of three 

recreation zoned parcels and currently does not contain a caretaker dwelling, one unit 

was presumed for buildout. The Botanic Garden owns 20 parcels, 16 of which are zoned 

for recreation and three of which currently have units on them. Taken as an ownership 

group, the buildout calculation included the potential for one additional caretaker unit 

on the recreation zoned parcels in the Botanic Garden. The other Botanic Garden 

owned parcels zoned residential and agricultural were presumed to have future 

buildout potential based on zoning and lot size. 

3. The Los Padres National Forest boundary (shown on Figure 2-3), bisects a number of 

properties in the Upper Mission Canyon area. A total of eight bisected parcels are under 

the same ownership as the adjacent developed parcel. Although there are separate 

assessor parcel numbers assigned to these parcels within the forest boundary for tax 

assessment purposes, they are not considered to have buildout potential and were 

eliminated for residential development in the buildout calculation. 



The base method for calculating potential buildout did not account for limiting factors such as 

lot configuration, access, environmentally sensitive habitat or other physical constraints. 

Because slope was determined to be the most severe constraining factor, the potential for 

additional units (other than a primary unit) on parcels with mostly 30% or greater slopes was 

eliminated. Slope was estimated based on a review of the Mission Canyon Community Plan 

slope map produced by Planning & Development. The slope map is for illustrative purposes 

and site-specific mapping would be required to assess slope on an individual parcel accurately. 

Table 2-1 summarizes the buildout information for the plan area, Table 2-2 provides a buildout 

summary by neighborhood and Table 2-3 shows the buildout units by lot size. Figure 2-3 is a 

neighborhood map to show how the neighborhoods are determined (Upper Mission Canyon 

and Upper Tunnel Road are both depicted as “Upper Mission Canyon” in the figure) and Figure 

2-4 is a buildout map that shows where the additional units would be located. Appendix B 

includes a detailed buildout analysis by zoning and land use designation. 

Table 2- 1: Mission Canyon Community Plan Buildout Summary 

No. of Existing Potential Additional Total Units at 

Units 

Units 

Buildout 

1,140 1,014 157 1,171 

Parcels 2 

Table 2- 2: Buildout Summary by Neighborhood 

Neighborhood Existing Units Potential 

Additional 

Units 

Total Houses at 

Buildout 

Upper Mission Canyon 105 36 141 

Upper Tunnel Road 149 36 185 

Mission Canyon Heights 527 48 575 

South Foothill 233 37 270 

TOTAL 1,014 157 1,171 

2 “Parcels” are based on Assessor Parcels, not legal lots for which a Certificate of Compliance or Conditional Certificate of 

Compliance has been recorded. 



Figure 2- 3 Neighborhoods 



Figure 2- 4 Buildout Map 



Table 2- 3: Buildout Units by Lot Size 

Neighborhood Additional 

Units Less 

than 1 acre 

Additional 

Units 1 - 10 

acres 

Additional Units 

Greater than 10 

Acres 

Total 

Buildout 

Units 

Upper Mission 

Canyon 

22 44 6 73 

Mission Canyon 

Heights 

41 7 0 48 

South Foothill 21 16 0 37 

TOTAL 84 67 6 157 

Upper Mission Canyon 

Upper Mission Canyon has the highest number of vacant parcels and the most undeveloped 

acreage. Many of the large vacant parcels in Upper Mission Canyon are currently undeveloped 

because they have significant constraints in terms of slope, access and septic system suitability. 

Nonetheless, the buildout calculation does anticipate the potential for at least one unit on each 

parcel based on current land use and zoning. 

In May 2009 the Jesusita Fire severely impacted the Upper Mission Canyon plan area. 

Approximately 700 acres of the plan area are included within the Jesusita Fire burn perimeter, 

not taking into account spot fires or islands of unburned areas inside the perimeter. In this 

area, 61 primary residential units were destroyed in the fire. 

Mission Canyon Heights 

The Mission Canyon Heights neighborhood is nearly built out with only 14 vacant parcels 

(totaling 4 acres) remaining. All the vacant and underdeveloped parcels are accessible by 

existing roads and driveways. In this neighborhood, 6 primary residential units were destroyed 

in the fire. 

South of Foothill 

South of Foothill is mostly fully developed but it does have a number of vacant or 

underdeveloped parcels scattered throughout. All of the vacant and underdeveloped parcels 

are accessible by existing roads and driveways. This area was not directly affected by the 

Jesusita Fire. 



2.6 Decision-maker Actions Required 

Approval of the proposed project (or any of the alternatives except the “No Project” 

Alternative) would entail the following legislative actions by the Santa Barbara County Board of 

Supervisors, following recommendation by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. 

• Replacement of the 1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan; 

• Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; 

• Adoption of the Mission Canyon Community Plan and Residential Design Guidelines; and 

• Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the County Land Use & Development 

Code. 

In addition, approval of the proposed project may entail the following actions by the City of 

Santa Barbara in the manner set forth in the Joint Powers Agreement: 

• A City resolution approving the Mission Canyon Community Plan because the plan’s 

wastewater provisions are in compliance with the City’s agreement to provide 

wastewater collection, treatment and disposal in the Mission Canyon area. 

• City findings that the environmental document is adequate, including responsible 

agency review of proposed EIR and mitigations in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 

Section 15096. 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 3-ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

This section describes the general environmental conditions of Mission Canyon and surrounding 

area. It also discusses cumulative development in the vicinity of the Mission Canyon plan area. 

More detailed descriptions of the setting for individual issue areas are found in the discussions 

in Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis. 

3.1 Local Geography 

The Mission Canyon plan area is located in the Santa Barbara foothill areas of the Santa Ynez 

Mountains. The topography ranges from gently rolling to steep with elevations from 250 to 

1,075 feet above mean sea level. The area south of Foothill has generally 0-20% slopes; north 

of Foothill the upper canyon has many slopes over 40%. Several creeks drain the mountainous 

area and eventually pass through the City of Santa Barbara to the Pacific Ocean. 

3.2 Regional Climate 

Mission Canyon is within the South Central Air Basin which includes Santa Barbara, Ventura and 

San Luis Obispo counties. The climate is characterized by the semi-permanent high-pressure 

center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and 

infrequent rainfall. Winds in the area display several characteristic regimes. During the day, 

especially in summer, winds are from the south in the morning and from the west in the 

afternoon. At night, especially in winter, the land is cooler than the ocean and an offshore wind 

of 3-5 miles per hour develops. The occasional high pressure system over the western United 

States can bring hot, dry and gusty Santa Ana winds. Annual rainfall is about 18 inches, with 

nearly all precipitation occurring between October and April. 

3.3 Demographics 

The plan area is 1,120 gross acres (including public roads and rights-of-way) and contains 1,140 

parcels. 3 The total population is 2,610 based on the 2000 Census for the Mission Canyon 

Census Designated Place, which is slightly larger than the plan area boundary. The average 

household size is 2.44 persons and approximately 78% of residents are homeowners and 22% 

are renters. 

3.4 General Development Patterns 

Mission Canyon is designated urban but is generally semi-rural in character. There is an eclectic 

mix of residential styles, dark nighttime skies, and narrow winding roads without curbs, 

sidewalks or traffic lights. Existing structures include 1,014 housing units, County Fire Station 

3 Parcels are based on Assessor Parcel Numbers and do not necessarily represent all legal lots. 



15, 30 structures on the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden property including employee residences, 

library, herbarium, storage sheds and visitor services kiosk, the Santa Barbara Woman’s Club 

used for meetings and special events, and Rocky Nook County Park which includes the County 

Parks Department administration building. 

The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Santa Barbara County (2010 – 2015) includes two 

projects in the Mission Canyon plan area: 1) replacement of Fire Station 15 with a 6,800 square 

foot station at the current site on Mission Canyon Road because it is inadequate to support 

current staffing and operations and does not meet building requirements for fire facilities and 

2) Rocky Nook Park Administration Building seismic upgrade and remodel. Both projects are 

currently unfunded. The City of Santa Barbara’s Capital Program (2010 – 2015) includes a 

project to design and construct a pedestrian connection from the Santa Barbara Mission to the 

Museum of Natural History, adjacent to the Mission Canyon plan area. This project is also 

unfunded at this time. 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan separates Mission Canyon into three distinct 

neighborhoods based on lot size, density and topographic features: Upper Mission Canyon, 

Mission Canyon Heights and South of Foothill (refer to Figure 2-3). 

Upper Mission Canyon, with 332 parcels, has the highest number of vacant parcels (79) and the 

most undeveloped acreage. Many of the large vacant parcels in Upper Mission Canyon are 

currently undeveloped because they have significant constraints in terms of slope, access and 

septic system suitability. With the exception of about 22 parcels on lower Mission Canyon and 

Tunnel Roads, the majority of this area is on septic systems. In May 2009 the Jesusita Fire 

severely impacted the Upper Mission Canyon plan area and approximately 60 homes were 

destroyed. 

Mission Canyon Heights, with 550 parcels, has the smallest lot sizes and is the most densely 

developed neighborhood; it is nearly built out with only 23 vacant parcels (totaling 5 acres) 

remaining. This area is steeply sloped and most parcels have municipal wastewater connection. 

Approximately 6 homes in this neighborhood were destroyed in the Jesusita Fire. 

South of Foothill has 258 parcels and is mostly fully developed but it does have 25 vacant 

parcels scattered throughout. The terrain is relatively flat and most parcels have municipal 

wastewater connections. 

According to recent permit history (2000 – 2007), most development in the Mission Canyon 

area is occurring as remodels and additions. A total of 19 permit applications were submitted 

for new single family homes between 2000 and 2007. The only major discretionary project at 

this time is a proposal to revise the Botanic Garden’s existing Conditional Use Permit and 

approve a Development Plan. This plan (the Vital Mission Plan), approved by the Board of 

Supervisors in June 2010, proposes 13 new structures with a combined floor area of 26,576 

square feet, and operational changes including closures during Red Flag Warning days and use 

restrictions between May 1 and November 30 and caps on annual visitation and special events. 



3.5 Regional and Local Access 

U.S. Highway 101 is the primary regional artery connecting the cities of Santa Barbara County to 

one another and connecting the County to points north and south. There are no direct 

connections to Highway 101 in the plan area. The primary roadways serving the plan area 

include Foothill Road (State Route 192), Mission Canyon Road, Tunnel Road, Las Canoas Road 

and Cheltenham Road. Transit service is provided by the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit 

District (MTD). The only fixed transit line is Route 22 which provides weekday service (until 

5:30 pm) to the Museum of Natural History and weekend service on request to the Botanic 

Garden. No roads in Mission Canyon are designated or signed/striped for Class II bike lanes or 

Class III bike routes. There are a few informal pedestrian paths on road shoulders and a trail 

through Rocky Nook Park to Foothill Road but in all other areas, bicycles and pedestrians must 

share the road with vehicles. 

3.6 Public Service and Utilities Provided for the plan area 

The City of Santa Barbara is the public water purveyor in the plan area under a 1912 water 

services agreement. 

County Service Area No. 12 (same boundary as the plan area) provides collection of sewage 

effluent and inspection of septic tanks. The City of Santa Barbara accepts and treats flow from 

the County’s collection system by contract. As of 2010, 766 parcels are on sewer comprising 

809 sewer connections and 235 parcels are on septic systems. Public sewer lines currently 

serve the lower canyon south of Foothill Road, the Tornoe Road and Mission Canyon Lane area 

extending northeast to Tunnel Road, and the area immediately north of Foothill Road known as 

Mission Canyon Heights. 

The County’s Public Works Department maintains public street inlets and road gutters to 

prevent unnecessary flooding and drainage related problems. A Mission Canyon Debris Basin is 

maintained on Mission Creek approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the Botanic Garden. The 

basin was built in 1964 after the Coyote Fire burned a large percentage of the watershed. The 

basin is designed to trap 15,000 cubic yards of flood debris and is maintained by the Santa 

Barbara Flood Control District. 

The County Public Works Department Resource Recovery & Waste Management (RRWM) 

Division is responsible for planning and implementing waste collection and recycling programs. 

The Division contracts with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services. Solid 

waste, green waste and recyclable materials in Mission Canyon are collected by MarBorg 

Industries. 

There are no schools located within the plan area. Mission Canyon is within the Roosevelt 

Elementary School, Santa Barbara Junior High and Santa Barbara High School district 

boundaries, located within the City of Santa Barbara. 



Mission Canyon Lighting District is located south of Foothill Road and north to Mission Canyon 

Heights just above Kenmore Place, Dorking Place and the Tunnel/Mission Canyon Road “Y”. 

The District provides street lighting to the lower portion of Mission Canyon. The upper canyon 

has no street lights. 

Police protection in the unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County is provided by the 

Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. The City of Santa Barbara provides police services 

if needed under a mutual aid agreement. The California Highway Patrol is responsible for 

roadway safety issues including vehicle code enforcement, accidents, and illegal parking. Fire 

protection service is provided by County Fire Station 15, located at the intersection of Foothill 

Road and Mission Canyon Road north. 

Recreation opportunities include Rocky Nook County Park and the privately owned Santa 

Barbara Botanic Garden as well as hiking opportunities in the Los Padres National Forest at the 

end of Tunnel Road. Several city parks are nearby including the parks and historical elements 

around Mission Santa Barbara just south of the plan area and Skofield Park is within 0.5 miles to 

the east off Las Canoas Road. The privately owned Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History is 

just outside the plan area southern boundary in the City of Santa Barbara. 

3.7 Cumulative Development 

Cumulative impacts are defined in CEQA as two or more individual effects which, when 

considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental 

impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the 

incremental impact of the development of a proposed project and other nearby projects. For 

example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be inconsequential when analyzed 

separately, but could have a substantial impact when analyzed together. 

As a Community Plan, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the 

case for a project-specific development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 provides appropriate 

direction for the discussion of cumulative impacts in a Community Plan: 

Impacts should be based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted 

general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document 

which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or 

area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. 

By its nature, the Community Plan considers cumulative development within the plan area. 

However, the EIR cumulative impact analysis also considers a number of community and 

regional plans that govern development in various surrounding areas, including the General 

Plans for the City of Santa Barbara and Goleta and the Long Range Development Plan for the 

University of California Santa Barbara. Depending on the environmental issue area, the analysis 

of cumulative impacts may involve consideration of other projects or actions resulting from the 

implementation of these other plans. Certain issues, such as traffic and air quality, are more 



regional in nature, and cumulative impacts may consider data outside the plan area’s 

boundaries. 

For example, the discussion of cumulative air quality impacts considers County-wide 

development as contained in the Santa Barbara County Clean Air Plan (CAP). The cumulative 

impacts analysis also considers any regional transportation improvements planned or 

programmed in the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP). Cumulative water quality impacts are considered on a watershed 

basis for Mission Creek watershed. 

The proposed Community Plan must also be analyzed for its consistency with other broader 

plans that pertain to the plan area. Related plans and their relevance are described below and 

discussed in greater detail in Section 6.0, Policy Consistency. 

• Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a longrange 

plan to serve as a guide for the physical development of Santa Barbara 

County. It includes goals, policies, and implementation measures that provide a 

general framework for countywide development. Within the Comprehensive Plan 

are a number of Community Plans, including the Goleta Community Plan and the 

Montecito Community Plan. 

• Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP, adopted by the Santa Barbara 

County Association of Governments (SBCAG) in 2003, is a 20-year plan of regional 

transportation needs and goals. The plan provides countywide guidance 

regarding public policy decisions relating to transportation expenditures and 

financing. 

• Santa Barbara County Clean Air Plan (CAP). The CAP, adopted by the Santa 

Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) in 2007, sets forth a 

series of policies and measures to manage air quality with the goal of meeting 

state and federal air quality standards. 

The impacts of the Plan, including buildout, would be combined with cumulative impacts 

resulting from development contemplated in the Santa Barbara General Plan and the UCSB 

Long Range Development Plan. The City of Santa Barbara is currently in the process of updating 

their General Plan called Plan Santa Barbara. The project, a set of draft policy amendments 

that would provide the basis for updating the City General Plan, was initiated for environmental 

review in late 2008. As provided in the Draft EIR Project Description, General Plan buildout in 

the City of Santa Barbara would result in approximately 2,800 additional residential units 

comprised mostly of multiple-family units and 2 million square feet (sf) of new commercial 

development (AMEC 2010). Excluding existing development, buildout under the City of 

Goleta’s General Plan will result in 3,880 new residential units and 2,081 new sf of commercial 

and industrial development (City of Goleta 2006). The University of California Santa Barbara 

(UCSB) is updating their Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) to the year 2025. The plan 



anticipates a net increase of 5,000 in student enrollment and 1,700 faculty/staff positions; 4.3 

million new sf of academic space; 5,443 net additional bed spaces; 239 additional student 

family housing units; and 1,874 additional faculty/staff housing units (UCSB 2008). 

In addition to growth from buildout projections of the Plan and similar buildout projections 

from other jurisdictions near Mission Canyon, a few projects, programs, or initiatives would 

have the potential for additional growth in or near Mission Canyon: for example, the Santa 

Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan within the plan area, Cottage Hospital Workforce 

Housing, and other approved residential projects in the City of Santa Barbara. 

Other programs, initiatives, and projects of regional significance were considered and either 

included or excluded in the cumulative impacts analysis. County policy initiatives and programs 

considered along with the proposed program are listed in Appendix C Table C.1 as “Tier 1” 

projects. Discretionary and ministerial projects are classified as “Tier 2” projects in Table C.2. 

Specific major pending and potential projects, including proposed annexations and large urban 

developments are listed as “Tier 3” projects in Table C.3. A brief discussion of each project’s 

potential to contribute to cumulative effects is provided in each of the tables. 

Not all known projects are included in the tables. The main determinant for purposes of 

inclusion and evaluation in this analysis is whether an individual project, program, policy 

initiative, or conceptual future project is considered a closely related project with respect to the 

proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan. Criteria used to decide whether to include or 

exclude a particular policy, program, project, annexation, or other listed item (public or private) 

follow. 

Tier 1 programs included in the Community Plan cumulative impact analysis include: 

• County policy initiatives and ordinance amendments which are funded and 

included in a Board of Supervisors adopted work program; 

• County policy initiatives and ordinance amendments which are “geographically” 

related to the Mission Canyon Community Plan EIR ; 

• County policy initiatives and ordinance amendments which cause related 

impacts to resources evaluated in the Mission Canyon Community Plan EIR; 

• County policy initiatives and ordinance amendments which are not procedural in 

nature; and 

• A County policy initiative or ordinance amendment project description which is 

specified, certain and defined. This criterion would apply to programs which 

have undergone or are undergoing environmental review or have been formally 

initiated by the Board of Supervisors. 

Tier 2 – Discretionary and Ministerial projects (e.g., pending and approved development) of 3 or 

more units/lots and/or building size of 10,000 sf and above or public projects included in the 

Cumulative Projects list because they are geographically related to the project area. 



Tier 3 – Pending and Potential Future Annexations and Large Projects or Programs included in 

the Mission Canyon Community Plan cumulative impact analysis with a project description 

which is specified, certain and defined. This criterion would apply to: 1) projects which have 

submitted a formal application to the respective jurisdiction, and\or 2) projects which have 

been formally initiated or discussed by the respective jurisdiction\decision-maker at a publicly 

noticed meeting. 

Projects that are excluded from the cumulative analysis are listed in Tables C.4 to C.6 



. 



MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4-IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IM P A AN C A T L Y S I 

This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for the 

specific issues areas that were identified through the Initial Study process as having the 

potential to experience significant impacts. 

“Significant effect” is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines §15382 as “a substantial, or 

potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area 

affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and 

objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be 

considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining 

whether the physical change is significant.” 

Following each environmental effect discussion is a listing of programmatic mitigation 

measures, which are goals, policies, development standards and actions from the draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan that serve to reduce impacts, followed by recommended mitigation 

measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after the 

implementation of the measures. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of 

cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed Community Plan 

in conjunction with other future development in the area. 

Please refer to the Executive Summary of this EIR, which clearly summarizes all impacts and 

mitigation measures that apply to the proposed Community Plan. 

The following issue areas were determined to have less than significant or no impact during the 

Initial Study process and are not addressed separately. 

Agricultural Resources. There is no prime agricultural land in Mission Canyon nor does the 

project propose to impair agricultural land productivity or convert agricultural land to nonagricultural 

use. In addition, no changes are proposed to the small portions of the plan area 

that are designated by the Department of Conservation as Unique Farmland, defined by the 

nature of the crops (avocado and olive orchards). 

Land Use. Existing land use includes mostly residential neighborhoods, areas of agriculture, 

several institutional facilities, and recreation. There are no commercial or industrial land uses. 

The project does not propose any land use or primary zone changes. The buildout of single 

family homes would be compatible with existing land use and would not result in land use 

conflicts. 

Hazardous Materials. The Mission Canyon plan area is comprised of mainly residential uses 

and does not contain industrial or a significant amount of agricultural uses that involve the 

handing and storage of potentially hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are not 

transported on the transportation routes through Mission Canyon and there are no chemical or 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4-IMPACT ANALYSIS 

industrial land use activities. There are no identified superfund, state response, voluntary 

cleanup or hazardous waste sites in Mission Canyon. Therefore, it is not anticipated that future 

single family developments would be exposed to hazards associated with any major 

contaminated sites and there is no chemical or industrial activity or oil and gas pipelines or oil 

well facilities in the project area. The impact of the project on emergency evacuation is 

discussed separately in the Fire Protection section of the DEIR. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

4.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources 

This section discusses impacts to aesthetic and visual resources that could result from buildout 

of the plan area. This section also identifies policies and development standards that would 

serve to reduce potential aesthetic and visual resource impacts. 

Existing Setting 

The project is located in the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains adjacent to the City of Santa 

Barbara. Views of Mission Canyon are prominent from adjacent locations in the City of Santa 

Barbara such as Mission Park, the Mesa, the north slopes of the Riviera, Foothill Road and the 

San Roque neighborhood. Major view corridors within Mission Canyon include Mission Canyon, 

Tunnel, Las Canoas and Foothill Roads. Public and private roads and private residences in 

Mission Canyon Heights and Upper Mission Canyon neighborhoods have spectacular views of 

the City of Santa Barbara out to the Channel Islands. Street lighting is minimal for an urban 

area and views of the nighttime sky are well preserved. In view of the canyon’s mature 

landscaping, varied topography, native habitats, creek corridors, historic resources and 

architectural styles, this is a highly scenic area. 

Mission Canyon Road is heavily traveled and represents a “gateway entrance” into the canyon 

that physically and visually differentiates Mission Canyon from the City of Santa Barbara. The 

road is frequented by residents and visitors alike and is designated a scenic corridor in the draft 

Community Plan. Development in the scenic corridor deserves special consideration to ensure 

it does not detract from the historic character, natural surroundings, and aesthetics of the 

neighborhood. Protection of visual resources in this area merits a heightened level of design 

review. 

The visual character is also influenced by the design of the built environment. Eclectic 

architectural styles and design elements provide a unique community identity. Outside of 

riparian corridors, the lush landscaping is largely a result of deliberate plantings as revealed by 

photographs of Mission Canyon Heights from the 1950s that show largely grassy hills. Some of 

the roads are lined with cut sandstone walls and bridges that provide visual character and a 

historic context. 

Beginning on May 5, 2009, the visual character of Upper Mission Canyon, as well as much of the 

Santa Ynez Mountains front county range north of the City of Santa Barbara, was significantly 

altered by the Jesusita Fire. The mountainous backdrop has changed from verdant green to 

charred hillsides showing prominent rock outcroppings once hidden by chaparral. Homes that 

survived the fire and were once hidden by vegetation are now visible on ridgelines. As 

damaged and destroyed homes are rebuilt, they may be more visible from some locations until 

new landscaping can grow to provide visual relief. However, the lush ornamental landscaping 

that previously characterized this area may never be fully replaced as residents will be more 

aware of the dangers of overplanting ornamental vegetation and the Fire Department 

continues to enforce defensible space regulations. 



Night Lighting and Glare. The prevailing residential development pattern and presence of 

mature vegetation throughout the plan area generates very little night lighting. There is only 

minimal street lighting in lower Mission Canyon along major roadways. 

Vegetation. The project area contains complex landforms with extensive tree and shrub cover. 

As noted above, prior to the Jesusita Fire, the visual quality of the area included the presence of 

large trees and dense vegetation along the riparian corridors and approximately 170 acres of 

chaparral and scrub in Upper Mission Canyon interspersed with small areas of olive and 

avocado orchards. Upper Mission Canyon includes the highest number of large vacant parcels 

with native vegetation, Mission Canyon Heights is largely comprised of denser residential 

development and ornamental vegetation, and South Foothill is a mix of live oak riparian forest 

and developed parcels including ornamental vegetation within the California sycamore riparian 

forest canopy. Most of Mission Canyon Heights and areas South of Foothill were not affected 

by the Jesusita Fire. 

Within this context, the current visual setting also includes required minimum 100 feet of 

defensible space from buildings and structures. Fuel modification on a private parcel and along 

public and private roads is a commonly observed and required condition in Mission Canyon. 

Regulatory Setting 

1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan 

The 1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan included application of the D-Design Control Overlay, 

implemented on the zoning maps, to require Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approval for 

all new structures and alterations which require a building permit. The Plan also notes that the 

Mission Canyon Architectural and Design Review Committee may be allowed courtesy 

architectural review prior to BAR consideration. In the case of grading not involving the 

issuance of structural permits, grading standards and design guidelines were imposed to 

mitigate the visual impacts of grading. 

Thresholds of Significance 

The Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual Published October 2008 (hereinafter 

referred to as Environmental Thresholds Manual), identifies four types of areas that are 

especially important in terms of visibility: coastal and mountainous areas, the urban fringe, and 

travel corridors. All views addressed in the guidelines are public, not private views. Significant 

visual resources as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Open Space Element include: 

• Scenic highway corridors; 

• Parks and recreational areas; 

• Views of coastal bluffs, streams, lakes, estuaries, rivers, watersheds, mountains and 

cultural resource sites; and 

• Scenic areas. 



The Environmental Thresholds Manual provides that a project may have the potential to create 

a significant adverse aesthetic impact if (among other potential effects) it would impact 

important visual resources of mountainous areas, public parks, urban fringe or scenic travel 

corridors, if it would obstruct public views, remove significant amounts of vegetation, would 

cause extensive grading visible from public areas, cause incompatibility with surrounding uses, 

structures, or intensity of development, or substantially alter natural character. 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

IMPACT AES-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon Community 


With the adoption of the proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan, the ‘D’ Design Control 

Overlay in the Land Use and Development Code will continue to apply to the plan area. In 

addition, Residential Design Guidelines would be adopted to promote area-wide and 

neighborhood compatibility. The 1984 Specific Plan general design guidelines for grading are 

carried forward in the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan DevStd GEO-MC-2.1 Mission 

Canyon Architectural and Design Review Committee project review is discussed as an option in 

the proposed Residential Design Guidelines and in the County’s Permit Process Procedures 

Manual. The proposed Community Plan includes more policies to protect visual resources than 

the Specific Plan; thus impacts are beneficial (Class IV). 

IMPACT AES-2: Buildout of the plan area could potentially obstruct scenic vistas, public 

views or change the visual character of the area. 

Buildout of the project area could potentially obstruct public views if the new residential units 

were built on ridgelines or hillsides. The additional residential units also have to potential to 

change the visual character of the area due to the introduction of incompatible structures or 

from grading and vegetation removal. 

New units on ridgelines and hillsides have the highest potential for obstructing scenic vistas or 

public views. However, all projects must be found consistent with the following existing County 

policies in order to be approved: 

County Land Use Element Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies: Policy 1 requires 

minimization of cut and fill operations and Policy 2 requires all developments to fit the site 

topography, be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute 

minimum and natural features, landforms and native vegetation shall be preserved to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

County Land Use Element Visual Resources Policy 3 requires new structures to be in 

conformance with the scale and character of the existing community. 



County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines 

allows a maximum height of 25 feet wherever there is a 16 foot drop in elevation within 100 

feet of the proposed structure’s location and discourages development on ridgelines if other 

suitable alternative locations are available on the lot. 4 

Design Review: The D-Design Control Overlay Zone is applied to all parcels in Mission Canyon 

except those zoned for Recreation. Plans for new and altered structures in this zone require 

Design Review. The intent is to ensure well designed development and to protect scenic 

qualities, property values, and neighborhood character. 5 

While existing County policies and development standards policies would minimize impacts to 

public views and the visual character of the area, further buildout of the project area could 

incrementally obstruct public views and change the visual character, a potentially significant 

but mitigable impact (Class II). 

Mitigation Measures 

Programmatic Mitigation 

MM-AES-1: Incorporate proposed land use and visual resource goals, policies, development 

standards, and actions (or the functional equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon 


The following goals, policies and development standards are included in the proposed 

Community Plan and would decrease the potential aesthetic impacts from buildout: 

GOAL LU-MC-2: Protect the semi-rural quality of life by encouraging excellence in 

architectural and landscape design. Promote area-wide and 

neighborhood compatibility and protect residential privacy and public 

views. 

DevStd LU-MC-2.1: The Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines shall be used to 

guide development subject to review and approval by the Board of 

Architectural Review. 

GOAL VIS-MC-1: Protect the character and natural features of Mission Canyon, 

including public views of the mountains and ocean and the quality of 

the nighttime sky. 

4 Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code Section 35.62.040. 

5 Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code, Section 35.28.080. 



Policy VIS-MC-1: Development shall be sited and designed to protect public views. 

DevStd VIS-MC-1.1: Development shall be sited and designed to minimize the obstruction 

or degradation of public views. 

DevStd VIS-MC-1.2: Development and grading shall be sited and designed to avoid or 

minimize hillside and mountain scarring and minimize the bulk of 

structures visible from public viewing areas. Measures may be 

required to achieve this goal, including but not limited to increased 

setbacks, reduced structure size and height, reductions in grading, 

extensive landscaping, low intensity lighting, and the use of narrow or 

limited length roads/driveways. 

DevStd VIS-MC-1.3: Development shall not occur on ridgelines if suitable alternative 

locations are available on the property. When there is no other 

suitable alternative location, structures shall not intrude into the 

skyline or be conspicuously visible from public viewing places. 

Additional measures such as an appropriate landscape plan and 

limiting the height of the building may be required in these cases. 

Policy VIS-MC-2: The night sky of Mission Canyon shall be protected from excessive and 

unnecessary light associated with new development and 

redevelopment. 

DevStd VIS-MC-2.1: All new development and redevelopment in the plan area shall be 

subject to the requirements of the Mission Canyon Outdoor Lighting 

Ordinance. 

GOAL VIS-MC-2: Protect the visual and aesthetic value of gateway roads, stone walls, 

and other scenic portions of the plan area roadways. 

Policy VIS-MC-3: In recognition of the special character, history, and appeal of Mission 

Canyon, in particular Mission Canyon Road and adjacent properties 

from Rocky Nook Park to the intersection with Foothill, this area shall 

be designated as the “Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor” and all plans 

for new or altered buildings and structures shall be subject to the 

Mission Canyon Community Plan Overlay development standards. 

Action VIS-MC-3.1: The County shall amend the Land Use and Development Code to apply 

a Mission Canyon Community Plan Overlay with specific development 

standards to protect the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor. 

Action VIS–MC-3.2: Planning & Development Department shall work with Public Works, 

Parks Department, the City of Santa Barbara, and area residents to 



seek grants and other funding sources to design and implement the 

Phase II Streetscape Plan for the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor The 

streetscape plan should include, but is not limited to, the following 

programs: 


• Investigation and removal of encroachments into pedestrian trails; 

• Safe pedestrian access between the Old Mission and the Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History; 




Action VIS-MC-3.3: The County shall investigate the feasibility of establishing a utility 

undergrounding program along other scenic roads in Mission Canyon 

based on the most current California Public Utilities Commission’s Rule 

20 criteria for eligibility. 

GOAL VIS-MC-3: Maintain and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the community in all 

aspects of residential development and landscaping. 

Policy VIS-MC-4: Development shall be sited, designed, and scaled to be compatible 

with neighborhood character, to protect resources such as sensitive 

habitat and visual resources, and to respect site constraints such as 

steep slopes. 

DevStd VIS-MC-4.1: Development, including houses, roads and driveways, and accessory 

buildings shall be sited, designed, and scaled to be compatible with 

and subordinate to significant natural features such as major rock 

outcroppings, mature trees and woodlands, drainage courses, visually 

prominent slopes, and hilltops and ridgelines. 

DevStd VIS-MC-4.2: Grading for development, including primary and accessory structures, 

access roads (public and private) and driveways, and vegetation 

clearance for fire safety purposes shall be kept to a minimum and shall 

be performed in a way that: 

• Minimizes scarring; and 

• Maintains to the maximum extent feasible the natural appearance 

of ridgelines and hillsides. 

DevStd VIS-MC-4.3: All plans for new or altered buildings and other structures should be 

reviewed by the Mission Canyon Architectural and Development 

Review Committee (ADRC) prior to plan submittal to the County. 



MM-AES-2: Amend proposed Scenic Corridor Development Standards in the LUDC to prevent 

impacts to visual character and public views 

As noted above, the MCCP proposes a scenic corridor designation for Mission Canyon Road 

from Rocky Nook Park to Foothill Road. Scenic Corridor development standards are 

implemented with a proposed Scenic Corridor overlay in the Land Use and Development Code 

(LUDC). The proposed development standard increases the required front setback for all 

development on lots adjacent to the Scenic Corridor from 50 feet from road centerline and 20 

feet from right-of-way to 80 feet from road centerline and 55 feet from right-of-way. The 

standards also specify height and materials for fences, gates, gateposts and walls in the front 

setback area. The purpose is to prevent the introduction of incompatible structures that could 

significantly impact visual character and public views. In addressing only primary front 

setbacks, the proposed standards however neglected to consider that structures on several 

corner lots face side roads rather than Mission Canyon Road and structures in the secondary 

front setback may be incompatible with the visual character of the rest of the corridor. 

Therefore, an amendment to the draft Land Use and Development Code development standard 

is proposed to 1) ensure that secondary front setbacks on corner lots are treated the same as 

primary front setbacks (i.e., the primary and secondary front setback of any portion of a lot 

facing Mission Canyon Road would be 80 feet from road centerline and 55 feet from right-ofway) 

and 2) the fence and wall height standard applies to the secondary front setback area 

adjacent to Mission Canyon Road (i.e., shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height). 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed ordinance amendment would be included in the 

final ordinance amendments in the Land Use and Development Code for the Mission Canyon 

Overlay. 

Significance After Mitigation 

Implementation of the proposed goals, policies, development standards and actions, as 

required by the proposed Community Plan, and the proposed Mission Canyon Overlay 

ordinance amendment would ensure that any impacts to aesthetic and visual resources are 

less than significant with mitigation (Class II). 



IMPACT AES-3: Cumulative impacts to visual resources. 

Development within the plan area and adjacent foothill areas in the City of Santa Barbara is 

anticipated to occur at a low intensity with incremental conversion of vacant urban land to 

residential housing. The infill development of homes would not likely substantially contribute 

to changing the region’s visual character. Most development would be subject to design 

review, which would help to ensure compatibility with the visual character of the area. 

Similarly, most residences lost in the Jesusita Fire will be rebuilt like-for-like, or if not, would 

trigger design review. 

The most notable incremental visual change would likely be due to increased fuel modification 

associated with buildout, as both state law and County Fire Department regulations require a 

minimum of 100 feet of defensible space clearance around homes and structures in Mission 

Canyon. 6 This includes select removal of flammable trees and shrubs, limbing of oak trees and 

removal of dense understory plants. While the recent Jesusita Fire (May 2009) burned much of 

the vegetation in Upper Mission Canyon, much of this vegetation is expected to recover, and 

defensible space clearance activities will continue and/or resume in this area. 

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15304, Minor Alterations to 

Land, fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure are determined not to have a 

significant effect on the environment, and are therefore exempt from CEQA, provided that the 

activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare or threatened plant or animal species 

or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. When the State adopted the 

Defensible Space regulations in 2005 authorized under Senate Bill (SB) 1369, impacts to the 

aesthetic setting were considered but determined to be less than significant due to the 

development of fuel hazard reduction prescriptions, including guidelines to incorporate 

screening elements via leaving well spaced vegetation and continuous overstory canopies, 

while meeting the hazard reduction objective (California State Board of Forestry and Fire 

Protection 2005). 

These modifications to the landscaping at any specific location are not expected to significantly 

affect public views of Mission Canyon’s aesthetic landscape. In fact, it should be noted that 

vegetation thinning can be perceived as visually pleasing and in some cases it will improve the 

public viewshed of attractive homes and scenic travel corridors. 

Development and defensible space clearance on hillsides in Upper Mission Canyon that may be 

visible from public roads and distant viewing points from the City of Santa Barbara would have 

6 Public Resources Code 4291 requires all structures on State Responsibility Area lands to maintain 100 feet of defensible space. 

Within the County of Santa Barbara, 100 feet of defensible space is also enforced on unincorporated Local Responsibility Area 

lands such as those south of Foothill Road. 



the potential for the greatest change in the visual setting. However, cumulative vegetation 

removal is not considered a significant visual impact for of the following reasons: 

1. Most of the vacant and underdeveloped hillside parcels are large (and 

thus able to retain existing vegetation outside of fuel modification for 

defensible space) and are not highly visible from public views due to the 

complex topography of this area. 

2. As noted in the City of Santa Barbara Wildland Fire Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Report (City of Santa Barbara 2004), distant views 

of parcels in the Extreme Foothill Zone (which is comparable to Upper 

Mission Canyon) from the coastal plain (e.g., from the center of the City 

of Santa Barbara) are generally hazy or “washed out” and thus 

incremental fuel modification in this area is not highly visible from distant 

viewing points. 

3. Where public fuel modification projects take place, they are guided by 

the Mission Canyon Community Wildfire Protection Plan (December 

2008), which, in accordance with State guidelines for fuel modification, 

includes vegetation management prescriptions and conservation 

principles that allow for an aesthetically pleasing landscape that is firesafe. 

4. The gradual change in the landscape would be consistent with the 

current visual setting (baseline) because fuel modification for defensible 

space on private parcels is a required and commonly observed condition 

in this area. 

In summary, due to the moderate scale of potential new development facilitated by the 

proposed project together with adherence to required policies and development standards that 

address visual resources and conservation principles for defensible space, the cumulative 

impact is less than significant (Class III). 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 

4.2 Air Quality 

This section discusses impacts to local and regional air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Both temporary impacts relating to construction of individual projects and long-term impacts 

associated with development facilitated by the proposed Community Plan are discussed. 

4.2.1 Ambient Air Quality 


The 2007 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for Santa Barbara County describes the air quality setting for the 

County in detail, including the local climate and meteorology, current and projected air quality, 

and the regulatory framework for the management of air quality. The 2007 CAP is incorporated 

by reference and is available for review at the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD) web site, www.sbcapcd.org. The air quality setting for the region is summarized 

below. 

Local Climate and Meteorology 

Mission Canyon is within the South Central Coast Air Basin which includes Santa Barbara, 

Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties. The climate is characterized by the semi-permanent 

high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, 

and infrequent rainfall. Winds in the area display several characteristic regimes. During the 

day, especially in summer, winds are from the south in the morning and from the west in the 

afternoon. At night, especially in winter, the land is cooler than the ocean and an offshore wind 

of 3-5 miles per hour develops. The occasional high pressure system over the western United 

States can bring hot, dry and gusty Santa Ana winds. The net effect of the wind pattern on air 

quality is that locally generated emissions are carried offshore at night and toward inland Santa 

Barbara County during the day. Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is 

generally very good. 


Baseline Ambient Air Quality 

Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality 

considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. 

They are designed to protect the segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, 

such as children under 14 and elderly over 65; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise; 

and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Sensitive receptors include 

residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds or medical facilities. 

Depending on whether or not air quality standards are met or exceeded, an air basin is 

classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment”. In most cases, California’s air quality 

standards are more protective of health than the federal standards (see Table 4.2-1). Santa 

Barbara County is in attainment for the federal 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard and the State 



1-hour ozone standard. The State recently adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard that went 

into effect in 2006. The County does not meet the State 8-hour standard. In addition, portions 

of the County violate the particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) 24-hour 

and annual standards. Currently, not enough data exists to determine the County’s attainment 

standard for either federal or State particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 

standard. 

Table 4.2- 1: Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Federal Standards California Standards 

Ozone (O3) 

0.09 ppm (1-hr) 

0.075 ppm (8-hr) 0.07 ppm (8-hr) 

Respirable Particulate 150 µg/m 

Matter (PM10) 

3 (24-hr avg) 50 µg/m 3 (24-hr avg) 

20 µg/m 3 (annual avg) 

Fine Particulate Matter 35 µg/m 

(PM2.5) 

3 (24-hr avg) 

15 µg/m 3 No separate state 24-hr standard 

(annual avg) 35 µg/m 3 (annual avg) 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 9 ppm (8-hr avg) 9 ppm (8-hr avg) 

35 ppm (1-hr avg) 20 ppm (1-hr avg) 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.053 ppm (annual avg) 0.030 ppm (annual avg) 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.14 ppm (24-hr avg) 0.04 ppm (24-hr avg) 

Lead 1.5 µg/m 3 (calendar qtr) 1.5 µg/m 3 (30 day avg) 

Source: California Air Resources Board (11/17/08) 

Current Ambient Air Quality 

The APCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure that the air quality standards are 

met, and if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. A network of 17 

monitoring stations measures air pollutant levels throughout the County. Some pollutants, 

such as ozone, are measured continuously, other pollutants are sampled periodically. The 

stations fall into two main categories: (1) State and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and 

(2) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) stations. The seven SLAMS, five of which are 

operated by the APCD and two of which are operated by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), measure urban and regional air quality. The 13 PSD stations are used to determine the 

impacts of specific operations, such as large oil and gas facilities. 

As indicated in Table 4.2-2 below, several violations of the State standards for ozone and PM10 

occurred from 2006 to 2008. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a 

source, but rather it is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive 

organic gases (ROG) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are 

dependent on reducing the amount of these precursors. The major sources of ozone precursor 

emissions in Santa Barbara County are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent 

usage (paint, consumer products, and certain industrial processes). The major sources of PM10 

in the County are mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and 

vehicle exhaust. 



Table 4.2- 2: Ambient Air Quality at Santa Barbara – East Canon Perdido Monitoring Station 

Pollutant 

Ozone 1-hour 

2006 2007 2008 

Highest 1-hour observation 0.075 0.079 0.076 

Number of days exceeding 0 0 0 

State 1-hour standard 

Ozone 8-hour 

Highest 8-hour observation 0.062 0.071 0.064 

Number of days exceeding 0 1 0 


Number of days exceeding 

National 8-hour average 

PM2.5 


National 24-hour standard 

0 0 0 

0 0 6.1 

High National 24-hour standard 27.9 23.5 44.2 

High State 24-hour average 27.9 23.5 44.2 

PM10 



12.7 26.7 No data 

High State 24-hour average 107.7 399.7 109 

Source: California Air Resources Board Data Statistics (2009) 

Effects of Air Pollution 

Air pollution is potentially hazardous to human health, and can diminish the production and 

quality of many agricultural crops, reduce visibility, degrade soils and materials, and damage 

vegetation. Human health effects are the key determinant in the establishment of the above 

listed primary air quality standards. The following provides a summary of the pollutants for 

which the South Central Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment. 

Ozone is a gas created when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react 

chemically in the presence of sunlight and heat. Santa Barbara County’s ozone season is 

typically from April to October. Ozone is pungent and colorless with potential health effects on 

humans, including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung function. 

Scientists have been studying the effects of ozone on human health for some time. They have 

found that ozone mainly affects the respiratory system and one out of three people in the 

United States are at risk for experiencing ozone-related health effects. When people breathe 

ozone air pollution, the lining of the lungs becomes inflamed and irritated. Problem symptoms 

include coughing, wheezing, pain when taking a deep breath and breathing difficulties during 

exercise or outdoor activities. Ozone can reduce lung function, make it more difficult to 

breathe deeply and vigorously, and make asthma symptoms worse. 



Four groups of people are particularly sensitive to ozone when they are active outdoors, 

because physical activity causes people to breathe faster and more deeply. Sensitive groups 

include: 

• Children: active children are the group at highest risk from ozone exposure. Children 

are also more likely to have asthma or other respiratory illness and children’s lungs, 

which are still developing, can be harmed by ozone in the development process. 

• Adults who are active outdoors: healthy adults of all ages who exercise or work 

vigorously outdoors are considered a sensitive group because they have a higher level 

of exposure to ozone. Healthy adults can experience a 15 – 20% reduction in lung 

function from prolonged exposure to low levels of ozone and damage to lung tissue 

may be caused by repeated exposure to ozone. 

• People with respiratory diseases, such as asthma. Asthma or other chronic 

respiratory disease makes the lungs more vulnerable to ozone’s effects. 

• People with unusual susceptibility to ozone. Some healthy people are more sensitive 

to ozone than others. These people may experience more health effects from ozone 

than the average person. 

Particulate matter refers to small, airborne particles that can be inhaled by humans and other 

animals. The two categories of particulate matter of greatest concern are PM10 and PM2.5. 

PM10 is small particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is 

fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended 

particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates, and are a by-product of fuel 

combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads. Suspended particulates are also 

created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and 

potential health effects associated with PM10 and PM2.5 can be very different. PM10 generally 

comes from windblown dust, dust kicked up from mobile sources, and dust created by crushing, 

grinding, or abrading surfaces during grading operations or other means by which large 

particles are broken into smaller ones. PM2.5 is generally associated with combustion processes 

and motor vehicle exhaust, especially from diesel engines. It can also be formed in the 

atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. 

According to recent community epidemiological studies, adverse health effects associated with 

both short-term and long-term exposure to fine particles include increased premature deaths, 

primarily in the elderly and those with heart or lung disease; aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular illness, leading to increased hospital visits; lung function problems and 

symptoms similar to chronic bronchitis especially in children and asthmatics; increased work 

and school absences, and alteration in lung tissue structure and respiratory tract defense 

mechanisms. 

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are air pollutants, identified in regulation by the CARB, which may 

cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or which may pose a present 

or potential hazard to human health. TACs are considered under a different regulatory process 



(California Health and Safety Code Section 39650 et seq.) than pollutants subject to California 

Air Quality Standards. Health effects due to TACs may occur at extremely low levels, and it is 

typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects, such 

as cancer or reproductive harm. 

Some classifications of projects are more likely than others to emit toxic pollutants. Such 

projects involve commercial or industrial activities such as oil and gas processing, gasoline 

dispensing, dry cleaning, electronic and parts manufacturing, medical equipment sterilization, 

freeways, rail yards, etc. The impacts on air quality from these pollutants are often localized 

near the source of emissions. 

The California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health 

Perspective (CARB 2005) addresses the importance of considering health risk issues when siting 

sensitive land uses including residential development within the vicinity of intensive air quality 

emission sources including: freeways on high traffic roads; distribution centers; ports; 

petroleum refineries; chrome plating operations; dry cleaners; and gasoline dispensing 

facilities. The Handbook provides abundant evidence that truck traffic generating diesel 

particulates poses a health risk to sensitive receptors, particularly children. The numerous 

studies cited in the Handbook identify a health risk within 500 feet of a freeway. Mission 

Canyon, located at least one mile from US 101, should not be at risk of health effects from 

freeways. 

Neighborhood commercial land use operations including dry cleaners and very large gas 

stations can potentially include stationary sources that emit one or more of the 244 substances 

that have either been recognized by the CARB as TACs in California or are known or suspected 

to be emitted in California and have potential adverse health effects, as identified by the CARB 

TAC Identification Program (CARB “List,” 1999 [and continually updated]). Mission Canyon does 

not have existing or proposed commercial land use operations and therefore TACs would not 

be expected to pose a health risk for residents. 

Air Quality Regulation and Planning 

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan (CAP) provides an 

overview of air quality and sources of pollution, and identifies the pollution-control measures 

needed to meet clean air standards. The 2001 CAP meets the requirements of the Federal 

Clean Air Act in addition to State requirements and is in effect for federal standards. The 2004 

CAP (three-year update for California Clean Air Act) shows how the County will make progress 

towards meeting the State one-hour ozone standard. The 2007 CAP was prepared to address 

both federal and State requirements. The federal requirements pertain to provisions in the 

Federal Clean Air Act that apply to the County’s designation as an attainment area for the 

federal 8-hour ozone standard. The 2007 CAP also provides a three-year update to the 2004 

CAP. The APCD is currently working on the 2010 CAP to show how the County plans to meet 

the State eight-hour ozone standard. 




The analysis of air quality impacts follows the guidance provided by the Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental 

Documents (updated June 2008) and the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines 

Manual (published October 2008). The Environmental Thresholds Manual states that a 

significant adverse air quality impact may occur when air pollutant emissions associated with a 

project, individually or cumulatively: 

• Interfere with progress toward the attainment of the ozone standard by 

releasing emissions which equal or exceed the established long-term 

quantitative thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic 

compounds (ROC). 

• Equal or exceed the State or federal ambient air quality standards for any criteria 

pollutant (as determined by modeling). 

Cumulative air quality impacts and consistency with the policies and measures in the Air Quality 

Supplement of the Comprehensive Plan, other general plans, and the Clean Air Plan (CAP) 

should be determined for all projects (i.e., whether the project exceeds the CAP emission 

projections or growth assumptions). 

The following issues should be discussed only if they are applicable to the project: 

• Emissions which may affect sensitive receptors (e.g., children, elderly or acutely 

ill); 

• Toxic or hazardous air pollutants in amounts which may increase cancer risk for 

the affected population; or 

• Odor or another air quality nuisance problem impacting a considerable number 

of people. 

Quantitative Emission Thresholds 

CEQA requires that the significance of a project's direct and indirect emissions be determined 

for both short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) impacts. If a project's air quality 

impacts are found to be significant, then mitigation measures will be required. Numeric 

emission thresholds of significance have been established for the ozone precursors NOx and 

ROC. In order to determine if a project exceeds these quantitative thresholds, the expected 

emissions of these pollutants from the project must be calculated. The APCD has developed 

screening tools to identify projects not likely to exceed the thresholds. These sizes of projects 

are based on simple calculations that show the relationship between the size of a project and 

potential emissions. 

Short-term/Construction Emissions: No quantitative threshold has been established for shortterm, 

construction-related PM10 (which is 50 percent of total dust). As a result of the County’s 

status of non-attainment for PM10 and to minimize emissions of diesel particulate matter and 



ozone precursors, construction mitigation measures are required for all projects involving 

earth-moving activities, regardless of size or duration. 

Long-term/Operational Emission Thresholds: Long-term air quality impacts occur during 

project operation and include emissions from any equipment or process used in the project 

(e.g., residential water heaters, engines, boilers, and operations using paints or solvents) and 

motor vehicle emissions associated with the project. These emissions must be summed in order 

to determine the significance of the project's long-term impact on air quality. 

Ozone Precursors (NOx and ROC). A proposed project will not have a significant air quality 

effect on the environment, if operation of the project will: 

• Emit (from all project sources, mobile and stationary), less than the daily trigger 

for offsets set in the APCD New Source Review Rule, for any pollutant (i.e., 55 

pounds/day for ROC or NOx; and 80 lbs/day for PM10. There is no daily 

operational threshold for CO; it is an attainment pollutant 7 ); 

• Emit less than 25 pounds per day of NOx or ROC from motor vehicle trips only; 

• Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (except ozone); 

• Not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the 

APCD Board; and 

• Be consistent with the latest adopted federal and State air quality plans for Santa 

Barbara County. 

Clean Air Plan Consistency 

The 2007 Clean Air Plan (CAP) goal is to reduce ozone precursor emissions from a wide variety 

of stationary and mobile sources. The 2007 CAP focuses on the State 1-hour ozone standard 

and the associated planning requirements mandated by the 1988 California Clean Air Act. Per 

Santa Barbara County thresholds, a project would have a significant impact if it were 

inconsistent with the adopted federal and State air quality plans of Santa Barbara County. The 

APCD further describes consistency with the CAP as meaning that a project’s direct and indirect 

emissions are accounted for in the growth assumptions of the CAP and that a project is 

consistent with the policies in the CAP (Santa Barbara County APCD 2007). The 2007 CAP is 

based on growth projections contained in the 2002 Santa Barbara County Association of 

Governments’ (SBCAG) Regional Growth Forecast, which utilized a number of assumptions 

regarding land development patterns to obtain future forecasts. These population projections 

are shown in Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-4. 

7 Due to the relatively low background ambient CO levels in Santa Barbara County, localized CO impacts associated with 

congested intersections are not expected to exceed the CO health-related air quality standards. Therefore, CO “hotspot” 

analyses are not required (Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 2008). 



Table 4.2- 3: Clean Air Plan Population Forecast 

Year Population 

2010 462,000 

2015 488,000 

2020 505,000 

Source: Clean Air Plan 2007, based on SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast 2002. 

Table 4.2- 4: SBCAG Countywide Population Forecast 

Year Population 

2005 417,500 

2010 430,200 

2015 444,990 

2020 459,600 

2025 473,400 

2030 481,400 

2035 487,000 

2040 492,800 

Source: SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast 2007. 

As shown above, SBCAG’s most recent Regional Growth Forecast (2007) forecasts a smaller 

population growth rate than the previous 2002 Forecast, upon which the 2007 Clean Air Plan 

was based. It can be assumed that the next revision to the CAP will reflect the more updated 

population forecast figures, as shown in Table 4.2-4. 

Plan Buildout 

As discussed above, the 2007 CAP calculations are based on the SBCAG’s 2002 Regional Growth 

Forecast. Neither of these plans provides population statistics for growth within the plan area 

specifically, as they are County-wide documents. However, the population projections for the 

unincorporated South Coast Subregion in SBCAG’s 2000-2030 regional growth forecast could be 

compared to the estimated population increase that would result from the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan. In the year 2030, the unincorporated South Coast Subregion was forecast to 

have a population of 115,700. Since the CAP and SBCAG population forecasts are based on 

buildout assumptions under current land use and zoning designations found in the County’s 

existing Comprehensive Plan, the Mission Canyon Community Plan’s consistency with CAP 

population projections can be assessed by whether or not the population anticipated under the 

proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan exceeds the population anticipated under the 1984 

Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan. 

Development under the proposed Community Plan is estimated to generate a buildout total of 

157 additional primary residential units in the plan area. Based on the 2000 Census date 

average Mission Canyon household size of 2.44 persons per dwelling unit, buildout under the 



proposed Plan would result in 383 new residents in total. Under the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan, no land use or primary zoning changes are proposed, thus the population is 

not expected to exceed the population that was incorporated into the CAP’s buildout 

assumptions. 

Vehicle use and emissions are directly related to population (more people means more vehicle 

use). Populations that remain within CAP and SBCAG forecasts are accounted for with regards 

to APCD emissions inventories. When population growth exceeds these forecasts, emission 

inventories could be surpassed, affecting attainment status. The plan area population increase 

under the proposed Plan would be the same as under the existing Comprehensive Plan, and 

hence is consistent with the current CAP. 


The impact analysis evaluates programmatic impacts associated with buildout of the plan area. 

Project-specific analysis would still be needed for applicable individual future projects proposed 

under the Community Plan. 

IMPACT AQ-1: Incremental short-term construction activity associated with buildout of the 

plan area would potentially generate significant air pollutant emissions. 

Construction activities would generate emissions of ozone precursors ROC and NOx as well as 

fugitive dust, which contain both PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions would be generated by a variety of 

specific activities, including site grading, use of heavy construction equipment, construction 

worker trips, application of architectural coatings, and paving of roads and other areas. Santa 

Barbara County has not established construction emission thresholds. However, as the County 

violates the State standard for PM10, dust control measures are required for projects involving 

grading. In addition, dust can adversely affect sensitive receptors (such as residences, 

hospitals, nursing homes and schools) in close proximity. 

Buildout of the plan area would result in the development potential of 157 new residential 

units. Construction activity would cause temporary, short-term emissions of various air 

pollutants. Particulate matter, designated by CARB as a toxic air contaminant, is a component 

of diesel exhaust emitted by on- and off-road diesel vehicles and equipment during 

construction. In addition, NOx would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment, 

while fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as 

grading and excavation, road construction and building construction. 

Information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors 

would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. 

Taken individually, construction activities are not generally considered to have significant air 

quality impacts because of their short-term and temporary nature along with the application of 

standard dust control measures. However, given the amount of development that the Mission 

Canyon Community Plan would accommodate at buildout, it is reasonable to conclude that 



some significant construction activity could be occurring at any given time throughout the 

community. Although the impact cannot be quantified, the dust and ozone precursors 

generated from construction activities is considered to be potentially significant, because Santa 

Barbara County violates the state standards for ozone and PM10 and these emissions would 

contribute to a violation of California air quality standards. Therefore, overall at a program 

level, construction related air quality impacts are considered Class II, potentially significant but 

mitigable. 


Measures included in the Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental 

Documents (Santa Barbara County APCD 2008) to reduce construction-related emissions would 

apply to construction activity associated with Mission Canyon Community Plan buildout. These 

include measures to limit fugitive dust (PM10) as identified below. Subsequent analysis of 

future individual projects implemented under the Mission Canyon Community Plan should 

include all of the relevant mitigation measures identified below to reduce construction-related 

emissions to less than significant levels. 

MM-AQ-1: Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control. Fugitive dust control shall include measures designed 

to reduce particulate matter (PM10) emissions from project construction. Controls shall include, 

but not be limited to, the following measures: 

• During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep 

all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from 

leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include wetting down 

such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the 

day. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever 

the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used 

whenever possible, but should not be used in or around crops for 

human consumption. 

• Minimize amount of disturbed area and reduce on site vehicle 

speeds to 15 miles per hour or less. 

• Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent 

tracking of mud on to public roads. 

• If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material are 

involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, 

kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. 

Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be 

tarped from the point of origin. 

• After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed, 

treat the disturbed area by watering, or re-vegetating, or by 

spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise 

developed so that dust generation will not occur. 



• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to 

monitor the dust control program and to order increased 

watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their 

duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may 

not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such 

persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District prior 

to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance 

for finish grading for the structure. 

• Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note 

on a separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these 

dust control requirements. All requirements shall be shown on 

grading and building plans. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: P&D shall review grading and building plans for all project 

components prior to grading and construction. 


With implementation of the above measure, impacts would be less than significant (Class II). 

IMPACT AQ-2: Plan buildout would potentially increase operational air pollutant emissions 

to significant levels. 

Buildout of the plan area would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions within the Santa 

Barbara County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin. Long term/operational emissions 

associated with Plan buildout are those associated with motor vehicle trips and stationary 

sources that may require permits from the APCD. Examples of stationary emission sources 

include gas stations, auto body shops, dry cleaners, and water treatment facilities. Other 

stationary sources such as residential heating and cooling equipment, wood burning stoves and 

fireplaces, or other individual appliances are known as “area sources”. 

The APCD does not require quantified analysis of construction or operational air contaminant 

emission impacts for program-level evaluations, such as for the Mission Canyon Community 

Plan. As operational emissions are taken into account in the County’s Clean Air Plan, the CAP 

consistency analysis above is the method for determining whether the program’s impact to 

regional air quality would be significant. In addition, the end of this section discusses the Plan’s 

contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. 

Though not required, this analysis provides quantitative estimates of air pollutant emissions 

associated with the full Plan buildout. The modeling was based on a buildout estimate of 158 



residential units. 8 Air quality emissions associated with long-term buildout were analyzed 

based on land use. In addition to the 1,512 daily trips generated by the project, increased 

electricity and natural gas would be consumed by additional development. As such, project 

operation would increase emissions of air pollutants that contribute to the degradation of 

regional air quality. 

The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to calculate emissions associated with the 

Mission Canyon Community Plan based on land use and the number of trips generated by the 

new development. Estimates of project emissions are identified below in Table 4.2-5. The net 

increase in long-term emissions associated with the plan area includes those emissions 

associated with vehicle trips (mobile emissions) and the use of natural gas and landscaping 

maintenance equipment (area emissions) upon buildout of the project. 

Table 4.2- 5: Estimated Operational Emissions Associated with the Mission Canyon Community 

Plan Buildout (lbs/day) 

Emission Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 

AREA 16.05 2.41 25.37 0.05 3.34 3.23 

MOBILE 12.99 17.21 147.95 0.11 18.90 3.62 

TOTAL lbs/yr 29.04 19.62 173.32 0.16 22.25 6.85 

Threshold (mobile) 25 25 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Threshold exceeded? No No n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Threshold 

mobile) 

(area + 55 55 n/a n/a 80 n/a 

Threshold exceeded? No No n/a n/a No n/a 

As indicated in Table 4.2-5, the estimated emissions would not exceed APCD thresholds. 

Therefore, the operational emissions effect on long-term air quality is a Class III impact, less 

than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 

8 One extra unit was erroneously counted in the buildout numbers. This would not make a significant difference in 

the data calculation as no thresholds are triggered. 



4.2.2 Global Climate Change 

Environmental Setting 

Climate change is an alteration in the average weather that a given region experiences 

measured in variations of temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global Climate 

Change (GCC) means change in the earth’s climate as a whole. The baseline by which these 

changes are measured originates in historical and prehistoric records identifying temperatures 

that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate 

continuously changes, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling 

documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with 

warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 

years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated 

across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during 

the past 150 years. 

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHG), analogous to 

the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. Naturally occurring climate change pollutants, 

primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), absorb 

heat radiated from the Earth’s surface. As the atmosphere warms, it in turn radiates heat back 

to the surface to create the greenhouse effect. Without the natural heat trapping effect of 

GHG, the earth’s surface would be about 34° C (61° F) cooler than it is now. However, it is 

believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for 

electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the 

atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. 

GCC is a documented effect, with the degree to which the change is caused by anthropogenic 

(man-made) sources under study. The increase in warming has coincided with the Industrial 

Revolution, which has seen the widespread reduction of forests to accommodate urban centers 

and agriculture and the use of fossil fuels, primarily burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for 

energy. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007), there 

is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of 

warming. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th 

century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations (IPCC 

2007). 

While there is some disagreement by individual scientists with some of the findings of the IPCC, 

the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the main 

conclusions, as do the vast majority of major scientific societies and national academies of 

science. The current state of knowledge is substantially in favor of GCC warming, with eleven of 

the last twelve years (1995-2006) ranking among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental 

record of global surface temperature since 1850 (IPCC 2007). In addition, the majority of 

scientists agree that anthropogenic sources are a main, if not primary, contributor to the GCC 

warming. 



Greenhouse Gas Inventory - State of California. California is a substantial contributor of global 

GHGs as it produces 1.4% of the worlds and 6.2% of the total United States greenhouse gases. 

Based upon the 2006 GHG inventory data (the latest year available), California produced 479 

million metric tons total net emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE). 9 The major source 

of GHG in California is transportation, contributing 39% of the state’s total GHG emissions. 

Electricity generation is the second largest source, contributing 22% of the state’s GHG 

emissions (California Air Resources Board 2009). 

Po te n ti a l E f f e c ts o f Glo b a l C lim a t e C ha ng e 

GCC has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts 

related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that 

continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate 

changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. A warming of 

about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade is projected, and there are identifiable signs that global 

warming could be taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic (IPCC 2007). 

According to the ARB, potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss in 

snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large 

forest fires, and more drought years. Below is a summary of some of the potential effects 

reported by an array of studies that could be experienced in California as a result of global 

warming and climate change. These studies incorporate the latest and most definitive science 

regarding global climate change and help form the basis of and rationale for measures 

identified to reduce GHG emissions and the associated impact on climate change. 

Air Quality. Higher temperatures, conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality 

in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the 

magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher 

temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could 

increase, which, in turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are 

accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear 

the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thus ameliorating the 

pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions 

and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma 

attacks throughout the State (California Energy Commission 2006). 

Hydrology and Water Supply. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global 

climate change on future water supplies in California. According to the California Department 

9 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE) is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of GHGs, the amount of CO2 

(usually in metric tons; million metric tons = MMTCO2E) that would have the same global warming potential (GWP) when 

measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). 



of Water Resources, historic hydrologic patterns cannot be solely relied upon to predict the 

future and precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water 

supply. The average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains has decreased by 

about 10 percent during the last century. During the same time, sea level rose seven inches 

along the California coast. Flood patterns have changed as well, with peak natural flows 

increasing on many of the State’s rivers during the last 50 years. At the other extreme, many 

cities in Southern California have experienced their lowest recorded annual precipitation rate 

twice within the past decade (California Department of Water Resources 2008). 

Potential effects of climate change from impacts on water resources include the potential loss 

of 5 million acre-feet or more of average annual water storage in the State’s snowpack; 

increased storm intensity, flooding and droughts; changes in watershed vegetation and 

increased incidence of wildfires; increased salinity intrusion into the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

River Delta and increased potential for Delta levee failure due to sea level rise; possible critical 

effects on endangered species due to increased water temperatures; and changes in water 

demand (California Department of Water Resources 2006). 

Agriculture. California has a $30 billion agricultural industry that produces half of the country’s 

fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant 

water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand 

could increase; crop yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater 

ozone pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. Climate 

change may shift the ranges of invasive plants and weeds and new or different weed species 

may occur. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, 

such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thus affect their quality (California Climate Change 

Center 2006). 

Ecosystems and Wildlife. Increases in global temperatures and the potential resulting changes 

in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. If temperatures 

rise into a medium warming range (temperature rise of 5.5 – 8° F), the risk of large wildfires 

could increase by as much as 55 percent. Warmer temperatures in northern California are 

expected to shift dominant forest species from fir to madrone and oaks. As noted in 

Agriculture, invasive plants and weeds could alter competition patterns with native plants that 

wildlife depends on. Overall, recent projections suggest that continued global warming could 

adversely affect the health and productivity of California’s forests (California Climate Change 

Center 2006). 


Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). In the fall of 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger 

signed AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” into law. AB 32 requires the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) to have adopted regulations by January 1, 2008 to 

require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. While this did not occur by 

January 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The plan 



indicates how emission reductions will be achieved from significant GHG sources via 

regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. In addition, this law requires CARB to 

adopt regulations by January 1, 2010 to implement the early action GHG emission reduction 

measures. The bill requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit 

equivalent to 1990 emissions (essentially a 25% reduction below 2005 emission levels), and the 

adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective 

GHG emissions reductions. 

Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program; Executive Order S-01-07, issued in January 2007, mandates 

that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s 

transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. In addition, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for 

transportation fuels is to be established for California. 

CEQA and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges 

that climate change is an important environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. 

This bill directs the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and 

transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the 

effects of GHG emissions. In April 2009, OPR submitted its proposed amendments to the State 

CEQA Guidelines to the Resources Agency. The Resources Agency is required to certify or adopt 

those guidelines by January 1, 2010. The CEQA Guidelines amendments were adopted on 

March 18, 2010 and, among other things, require lead agencies to evaluate and determine the 

significance of GHG emissions from CEQA projects. 

Sustainable Communities Strategies: Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, requires 

metropolitan planning organizations to prepare Sustainable Communities Strategies linking 

regional transportation plans to regional housing needs allocations. . The bill requires the Air 

Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to be achieved 

from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The law requires final regional 

targets to be set by September 2010. 

Global Climate Change Methodology 

The County’s methodology to address Global Climate Change in CEQA documents is evolving. 

The County is currently working to develop an inventory of GHG emissions and a Climate Action 

Strategy and Climate Action Plan based on this data. Until County-specific data becomes 

available and significance thresholds applicable to GHG emissions are developed and formally 

adopted, the County will follow an interim approach to evaluation of GHG emissions. This 

approach will look to significance criteria adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District (BAAQMD), and interim measures summarized in Table 4.2-6 below, for guidance on 

determining significance of GHG emissions. Appendix D contains the supporting evidence for 

use of BAAQMD standards. 



Table 4.2- 6: Interim Significance Guidelines 

GHG Emission Source Category Operational Emissions 

Non-stationary Source 1,100 Metric Tons (MT) of CO2e/yr 

OR 

4.6 MT CO2e/Service Population (SP)/yr (residents 

+ employees) 

Stationary Sources 10,000 MT/yr 

Plans 6.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees) 

The BAAQMD does not suggest any standards for construction-related emissions. If emissions 

fall below the stated significance criteria, the project does not create the potential for 

significant impacts as a result of GHG emissions. If a project would generate emissions in 

excess of the BAAQMD levels, it should be considered to have a cumulatively considerable and 

therefore significant impact. Where a cumulative impact as a result of GHG emissions is 

significant, the CEQA Guidelines require consideration of feasible mitigation. Feasible 

mitigation measures should be applied that would, where possible, reduce GHG emissions 

below the level of significance. 


URBEMIS Model 

Direct GHG emissions were quantified using the California Air Resource Board’s URBEMIS 2007 

(version 9.2.4) computer model. The URBEMIS model does not contain emission factors for 

GHGs other than CO2. URBEMIS does not calculate other GHG emissions associated with offsite 

waste disposal, wastewater treatment, or emissions associated with goods and services 

consumed by the residents and workers supported by a project. Nor does URBEMIS calculate 

indirect GHG emissions associated with consumption of energy produced off-site. Indirect 

emissions from this source are calculated based on average household electrical usage. For 

most projects, the main contribution of GHG emissions is from motor vehicles and the total 

vehicles miles traveled (VMT). The VMT and direct emissions generated by URBEMIS are used 

as a reasonable and conservative estimate. 

IMPACT AQ-3: Plan buildout would potentially contribute cumulatively significant 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Table 4.2-7 below quantifies estimated project emissions per year in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

(CO2e). 



Table 4.2- 7: Estimated Operational GHG Emissions from Buildout Per Year 

Source CO2e (metric tons) Per Year 

Operational Emissions 

Vehicles 1,631 

Natural Gas 509 

Electricity 267 

Total Estimated GHG Operational 

Emissions 

2,407 

Because the project is a Community Plan that includes estimates of future buildout, within the 

Community Plan area, the applicable significance criterion for plans from Table 4.2-6 of 6.6 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population per year (CO2e/SP/yr) applies. 

Table 4.2-8 below shows the calculation from total metric tons CO2e per year at buildout to 

CO2e emissions per person. Appendix D provides detailed calculations. 

Table 4.2- 8: CO2e Buildout Emissions per Service Population/Year 

Total GHG at Buildout in 

MT/yr 

Service Population CO2e/SP/yr 

2,407 386 6.2 

Project GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable significance guidelines of 6.6 MT 

CO2e/SP/yr. The project therefore does not contribute cumulatively considerable GHG 

emissions and the impact is adverse but less than significant (Class III). 

Recommended Measure 

The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan enumerates an extensive list of programmatic 

mitigation measures in response to the underlying intent of CEQA to mitigate potentially 

significant impacts to the greatest degree feasible. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors directed 

County staff to initiate work on a climate action strategy program as a County-wide policy 

initiative in response to the provisions of AB 32 and SB 375. The Climate Action Strategy (CAS) 

will provide a summary of policies, programs and projects that the County can implement to 

reduce GHG emissions. The policy options outlined in the CAS will then be developed into a 

Climate Action Plan (CAP) which will implement GHG reduction strategies in the County. 

Although mitigation is not required, adoption of the following policies, development standards 

and actions from the draft Community Plan would be beneficial to reduce GHG emissions. 



RM-AQ-2: Incorporate proposed policies, development standards, and actions (or functional 

equivalents) from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan that serve to reduce GHG 

emissions into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

The draft MCCP incorporates several policies, actions and development standards that would 

reduce GHG emissions generated by plan buildout. As described in the Existing Setting, the 

issue of global climate change involves multiple aspects of the environment, not solely air 

quality. Accordingly, policies and standards established for other issue areas would also 

contribute to the Plan reduction of GHG emissions. 


The following development standards and actions and included in the proposed Community 

Plan and would improve pedestrian access, thus reducing vehicle trips and GHG emissions 

generated by plan buildout: 

DevStd CIRC-MC-1.3: Safe pedestrian pathways are encouraged within the County road 

right-of-ways. A clear zone for providing and protecting safe 

pedestrian passage shall be provided when the County grants 

encroachment permits. 

Action CIRC-MC-1.4: The County shall actively pursue siting a pedestrian on-road trail 

adjacent to Mission Canyon Road from the intersection with Mountain 

Drive to the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. Trail design and siting 

shall be consistent with the semi-rural neighborhood character along 

Mission Canyon Road. 

Action CIRC-MC-1.5: The County shall work with the City of Santa Barbara to provide a 

network of pedestrian pathways for residents and visitors to safely 

access Mission Santa Barbara, Rocky Nook Park, Santa Barbara 

Museum of Natural History, and local neighborhoods within and 

adjacent to the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor. 

Action PRT-MC-1.6: The County shall actively pursue acquisition of interconnecting usable 

public trails within designated trail corridors through negotiation with 

property owners for purchase, through exchange for surplus County 

property as available, or through acceptance of gifts and other 

voluntary dedications of easements. 

Action PRT-MC-1.8: The County shall coordinate with adjoining property owners regarding 

the feasibility of siting an off road trail which would extend north from 

the Tunnel Road/Mission Canyon Road “Y” area to Tunnel Trail. 

The following policy, actions and development standard address green building techniques. 



Policy PS-MC-1: The County shall encourage developers and homeowners to 

incorporate green building techniques into new, remodeled, and 

rebuilt structures, to the greatest extent feasible. This can be 

achieved, in part, through continued promotion of the incentives and 

design expertise available to property owners through such programs 

as the Innovative Building Review Program. 

DevStd PS-MC-1.1: Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines - Green Design 

Guidelines should be incorporated as part of development proposals, 

to the maximum extent feasible. Energy conserving designs and/or 

techniques shall be encouraged, including but not limited to: 

• Energy efficient and low-emission residential water and space 

heaters; 

• Heat transfer modules in furnaces; 

• Solar panels; 

• Passive solar cooling/heating; 

• Natural lighting; and 

• Energy efficient appliances and lighting. 

For solid waste, the following development standard and action facilitates the enhancement of 

recycling programs in Mission Canyon. 

Policy PS-MC-3: Resource conservation and recovery shall be implemented in Mission 

Canyon to reduce solid waste generation and to divert the waste 

stream from area landfills to the maximum extent feasible. Diversion 

shall be maximized through source reduction, recycling and 

composting. 

DevStd PS-MC-3.1: Recycling bins shall be provided at all construction sites to facilitate the 

recovery of all currently accepted recyclable construction materials. 

Adequate and accessible enclosures and/or areas shall be provided for 

the temporary storage of recyclable materials in appropriate 

containers. 

Action PS-MC-3.2: The County shall work with the local waste hauler to continue 

education programs which provide residents information on 

conservation, recycling, and composting techniques. 

For water conservation and efficiency measures, the new state model water efficient landscape 

ordinance is effective in Santa Barbara County. The County is also preparing to adopt a County 

ordinance to tailor the model ordinance to local rules and development processes, including 



applicability to all Community plans. See Section 4.11 Water Resources Drainage and Flooding 

for draft Mission Canyon Community Plan water conservation development standards and 

recommended mitigation to amend the language to comply with the Water Conservation in 

Landscaping Act. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The policies, development standards and actions would be 

included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

4.3 Biological Resources 

This section assesses the effects of the Mission Canyon Community Plan on biological 

resources. The analysis is based on fieldwork and a literature search conducted by Santa 

Barbara County Planning and Development for the Mission Canyon Community Plan as well as a 

Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants in July 2009 

(included in Appendix E-1). Additional resources used for site characterization include aerial 

photography, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and field surveys. Rincon completed 

fourteen Rapid Assessments using California Native Plant Society protocol to characterize the 

vegetation in the area. In addition, site specific bird surveys were conducted at five locations: 

(1) Palomino Road; (2) Mission Canyon Road North; (3) Rocky Nook Park; (4) Santa Barbara 

Botanic Garden; and (5) Las Canoas Road. 


Mission Canyon extends from the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains to the border of the 

City of Santa Barbara at the middle range of Mission Creek. The plan area is approximately 

1,120 acres. Prior to the Jesusita Fire in May 2009, Mission Canyon contained roughly 435 acres 

of relatively undisturbed habitat. Upper Mission Canyon had the largest areas of natural 

habitat, including chaparral, riparian forest, and oak woodland. This area also includes the 

“landscaped” coast live oak woodland of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. 

The South of Foothill area contains significant habitat resources in Rocky Nook Park with its 

relatively dense oak woodland canopy and the Mission Creek stream corridor. Outside of the 

stream corridor, South of Foothill has a considerable area of “developed” riparian and 

woodland forest canopy, where homes are interspersed with oaks and sycamores. Mission 

Canyon Heights is largely developed and does not contain stream corridors or significant areas 

of undisturbed natural habitat. 

Creeks and Watersheds 

The Mission Canyon plan area includes two main watersheds: Mission Creek for the majority of 

the plan area and Arroyo Burro for a small portion of the upper northwest of the canyon. 

Mission Creek, originating at the crest of the Santa Ynez Mountains, drains the Mission Creek 

watershed via two main tributaries: the main stem that begins 3,975 feet above the Botanic 

Garden and Las Canoas and Rattlesnake Creeks, which converge near Foothill Road. Within the 

plan area, the creek banks are mainly in a natural condition (i.e., boulders and riparian habitat) 

with just a few small areas of concrete aprons where creeks pass under roads. 

Mission Creek Watershed 

Mission Creek extends approximately 7.5 miles from the Santa Ynez Mountains to the ocean 

and drains a 7,589-acre watershed. About 47% of the watershed is in the Los Padres National 

Forest and 15% is under County jurisdiction. Mission Creek is characterized by large cobble, 

boulder, and exposed bedrock substrates. Canopy cover is extensive with 85% native 



vegetation. Relatively undisturbed stretches of contiguous oak woodland, scrub, and grassland 

habitats support a high diversity of plants and wildlife, including special-status species within 

the upper watershed. Rattlesnake Canyon provides boulder pool habitat for a wide variety of 

birds and mammals. The relatively dense oak woodland along Mission Creek through Rocky 

Nook Park supports a diversity of reptiles, amphibians, and birds. 

The Mission Creek Rocky Nook Park USGS gage station (USGS 2005) notes no flows at times in 

most years over its 14 year record of operation. Given the high gradient of the watershed and 

the periodic nature of rainfall, flows vary considerably in response to rainfall events. Peak 

instantaneous discharge at Rocky Nook Park on Mission Creek from the available USGS records 

was 1,080 cubic feet per sec (December 31, 2004). 

Arroyo Burro Watershed 

The Arroyo Burro watershed encompasses only about 10% of the northwest portion of the plan 

area. The entire Arroyo Burro watershed is approximately 5,630 acres with about 10% under 

County jurisdiction. A small portion of San Roque Creek, which is a tributary to Arroyo Burro 

Creek and constitutes about 48% of the overall watershed, also flows in the plan area. 

Vegetative cover is high in the upper portions of this watershed, and native tree cover 

comprises about 65% of the total in upper San Roque Creek. The watershed does not currently 

support a salmonid population, but habitat conditions in upper San Roque Creek could support 

a self-sustaining population of rainbow trout and anadromous steelhead if migratory access 

were provided at downstream barriers (City of Santa Barbara 2005). 

Effects of Jesusita Fire 

On May 5, 2009, the Jesusita Fire began in the Cathedral Peak area of Santa Barbara. A total of 

8,733 acres burned as a result of the fire. 10 The fire burned almost two-thirds of the plan area 

(704.5 acres not taking into account spot fires or islands of unburned areas inside the fire 

perimeter) and almost the entire Upper Mission Canyon neighborhood except for the 

confluence area of Mission, Rattlesnake, and Las Canoas Creeks. Moving west to east, the 

southern burn boundary extends from Vista Elevada on the west side of the plan area to 

Edgemound Drive and the intersection of Mission Canyon and Las Canoas Roads in the middle 

of the plan area, south along the lowest reach of Rattlesnake Creek, and then exits the eastern 

plan area boundary near Las Canoas Lane. At the time surveys were completed for this EIR, 

most of the vegetation previously mapped by Planning & Development in the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan (MCCP) for the Upper Mission Canyon neighborhood (predominantly within 

Los Padres National Forest) had burned and was unidentifiable, except for what remains of the 

woodlands and riparian forests. 

10 

County of Santa Barbara Jesusita Fire Statistics available at: http://www.countyofsb.org/recovery. 



Fire Succession after the Jesusita Fire 

Fire succession is a gradual ascendance of long-lived species present in the pre-fire stand 

(Hanes 1971). Succession of the plant communities within the MCCP area will vary depending 

upon the severity of the burn, the environmental conditions of the landscape on which the 

plant communities are regenerating, and the pre-fire stand structure. It is anticipated that the 

annual grassland within the plan area will succeed back to its full extent within two years after 

the May 2009 Jesusita Fire. Many grassland propagules are fire resistant or are protected from 

heat underground or below an organic layer on the soil surface. In addition, neighboring shrubs 

and overstory trees are now burned, diminishing much of the competition for sun, water, and 

nutrients, and thereby allowing for quicker and robust growth of grassland species. Often the 

soil becomes fertilized by the ash layer resulting from a burn and this can stimulate growth as 

well. Coastal sage scrub is likely to be in a succession state for approximately five years before 

demonstrating pre-fire structural diversity and species richness. Chaparral stands will take up 

to 20 years to naturally succeed back to pre-fire conditions, assuming no other fires preclude 

such growth. Oak woodland and sycamore riparian forest canopies are burned or scorched; 

however, these tree species and the typical understory tree species are adapted to fire and can 

recover from such burns by repair or re-sprouting within about four years. 

Plant and Animal Communities/Conditions 

Vegetation and Habitats 

After the Initiation Draft MCCP was prepared, the County contracted with Rincon Consultants 

to prepare a supplemental biological resource assessment to verify, update and provide 

additional data for the analysis of impacts in this EIR. Rincon received from the County GIS 

mapping files that were prepared as Figure 17 for the MCCP (Vegetation and Habitats Map) and 

overlaid the files on a 2008 one-foot resolution aerial photograph provided by the County. 

After completion of the field verification, the existing GIS map prepared for Figure 17 of the 

MCCP was modified based on the rapid assessment data collected in the field and aerial 

photographic interpretation. Unmapped vegetation was generally classified into one of the 

existing natural community types, and all developed areas within the MCCP area were mapped. 

The updated Vegetation and Habitats described below are presented on Figure 4.3-1. The 

following account of plant communities is from the Supplemental Biological Resources 

Assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants in July 2009. 



Riparian Woodland/Forest 

California Sycamore Riparian Forest (48 acres, 4% of the plan area) is dominated by California 

sycamore (Platanus racemosa), which is a winter-deciduous tree with smooth pale bark and 

large, palmate leaves. California sycamore is a common tree occurring along stream banks and 

in canyons at elevations below 6,560 feet (Hickman 1993). Associate species observed 

contributing to this habitat include: arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), California bay laurel 

(Umbellularia californica), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), poison oak (Toxicodendron 

diversilobum), and white alder (Alnus rhombifolia). This plant community is proposed to be 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the Mission Canyon Community Plan (MCCP). 

Central/Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest (52 acres, 5% of the plan area) is dominated 

by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), which is a broad-leaved, evergreen, wide-topped tree with 

furrowed, dark gray bark and spine-toothed, dark green leaves. Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 

occurs predominantly on steep slopes and on raised stream banks and terraces at elevations 

below 3,935 feet (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). In the study area, it forms a continuous 98foot-tall 

canopy, growing over an understory of occasional shrubs and an herbaceous ground 

layer. This plant community typically requires sandstone or shale-derived soils. Associate 

species observed in this plant community include: California sycamore, toyon (Heteromeles 

arbutifolia), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus). 

This plant community is proposed to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the MCCP. 

Coast Live Oak/Olive Riparian Woodland (3 acres, 0.3% of the plan area) is co-dominated by 

coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and European olive (Olea europaea), which is native to the 

warm temperatures of west Asia. It occurs in disturbed sites at elevations below 655 feet. This 

plant community is very similar to Central/Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest; however, 

this type includes escaped ornamental olive in the understory of the coast live oaks. It is 

mapped in the headwaters of Mission Canyon. This woodland plant community consists of an 

intermittent canopy of approximately 70 percent cover. Associate species observed include 

those similar to those observed for Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest. 

Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland (0.5 acres, 0.04% of the plan area) is dominated by arroyo 

willow (Salix lasiolepis), which is a winter-deciduous tree with shiny, dark green leaves. This is 

an abundant species on shores, marshes, meadows, springs, and bluffs (Hickman 1993). The 

Salix lasiolepis alliance occurs in seasonally flooded or saturated, fresh water, wetland habitats, 

such as floodplains and low-gradient depositions along rivers and streams, at elevations below 

5,905 feet (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Associate species contributing to this plant 

community include: mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana). This 

plant community is proposed to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the MCCP. 



Figure 4.3- 1 Vegetation and Habitats 





Upland Woodland/Forest 

Coast Live Oak Woodland (94 acres, 8% of the plan area) is dominated by coast live oak 

(Quercus agrifolia), but unlike the riparian type described above, this type is mapped in the 

upland areas of the MCCP area. Stands of upland coast live oak are classified as Coast Live Oak 

Woodland if they form an intermittent canopy between 30 and 80 percent cover over various 

upland shrubs and herbs. Associate native plant species observed contributing to this plant 

community include: California bay laurel, toyon, coffeeberry, blue elderberry, and poison oak. 

This plant community is proposed to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the MCCP. 

Coast Live Oak Forest (28 acres, 2% of the plan area) is also an upland oak plant community, 

but is classified as Coast Live Oak Forest because these stands form a closed canopy with at 

least 90 percent cover over understory trees, shrubs, and vines associated with upland habitats. 

Associate species observed contributing to this plant community include those similar to Coast 

Live Oak Woodland. This plant community is proposed to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 

in the Plan. 

Eucalyptus Woodland (24 acres, 2% of the plan area) is dominated by species of Eucalyptus, 

such as Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus). This introduced, aromatic tree 

has a smooth straight trunk and is native to southeastern Australia. Eucalyptus Woodland 

forms a continuous canopy, of less than 165 feet tall, with few other species present except 

infrequent shrubs growing over a sparse ground layer (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). This 

series occurs on all slopes, typically on disturbed areas, at elevations below 985 feet. Associate 

species observed contributing to this plant community include annual grasses and weedy 

species. 

Non-Native Woodland (3 acres, 0.2% of the plan area) includes tree stands of various 

unidentified ornamental species associated with residential areas that were not accessible in 

the field for identification and verification. 

Unknown Woodland (2 acres, 0.2% of the plan area) includes tree stands of unidentified 

species that were not accessible in the field for verification. Their status as either native or 

ornamental is also unknown. 

Chaparral/Scrub 

Scrub Oak Chaparral (0.2 acres, 0.02% of the plan area) is dominated by Nuttall’s scrub oak 

(Quercus dumosa) and/or scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia). Only small stands of this type are 

mapped within the plan area, and its distribution in the region is poorly documented. Associate 

native species observed contributing to this plant community include coast live oak, redberry 

(Rhamnus crocea), poison oak, and toyon. Quercus dumosa is a CNPS List 1B species and is very 

difficult to distinguish from Quercus berberidifolia, particularly since hybrids between the two 

are known in this area. The community type is mapped in general based on the presence of 



either species. Careful review and definitive species identification is required in this plant 

community. 

Big Pod Ceanothus Chaparral (136 acres, 12% of the plan area) forms tall dense stands that are 

dominated by big pod ceanothus (Ceanothus megacarpus). Big pod ceanothus is an evergreen 

shrub (to 13 feet tall) with gray twigs, white flowers, and reddish-green fruits. Big pod 

ceanothus occurs on sunny dry slopes and in canyons near the coast (Hickman 1993). Big pod 

Ceanothus Chaparral typically forms a continuous tall shrub canopy, consisting of few associate 

species, growing over a sparsely vegetated ground layer. This plant community occurs on xeric 

upland slopes, usually fairly near the coast, growing in shallow, rocky, poorly differentiated soils 

(Holland 1986), and it occurs at elevations between 330 and 2,460 feet above mean sea level. 

Most stands of this plant community were burned in the fire and no associate species were 

identifiable at the time of the supplemental surveys. 

Unknown Chaparral (23 acres, 2% of the plan area) includes chaparral stands of unidentified 

shrub species that were not accessible in the field for verification or that burned and could not 

be field verified by the supplemental study. These stands undoubtedly have a substantial 

component of big pod ceanothus; however, due to different slope aspects, the exact extent of 

big pod ceanothus is unknown. Specifically, these areas were not expected to consist of the 60 

percent big pod ceanothus needed to be classified as Big Pod Ceanothus Chaparral. 

California Sagebrush Scrub (20 acres, 2% of the plan area) is dominated by coastal sagebrush 

(Artemisia californica), which is a native, aromatic, slender-stemmed shrub with thread-like, 

soft, greenish-gray leaves, and is a typical shrub of Coastal Sage Scrub in xeric foothills, 

especially near the coast (Hickman 1993). This plant community occurs in shallow alluvial- or 

colluvial-derived soils, on steep south-facing slopes of infrequently flooded, low-gradient, 

alluvial floodplain deposits, at elevations below 3,935 feet (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). 

Associate species contributing to this plant community likely include black sage (Salvia 

mellifera), poison oak, giant wildrye (Leymus condensatus), and coyote brush (Baccharis 

pilularis). 

Herbaceous 

Freshwater Marsh (0.7 acres, 0.06% of the plan area) is typically predominated by water loving 

plant species, including narrowleaf cattail (Typha domingensis) and/or sedges (Scirpus, 

Schoenoplectus spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.). Freshwater Marsh is mapped at the mouth of 

the Lauro Reservoir on the west side of the MCCP area. This plant community forms variable 

herbaceous scrubby covers (continuous to open) less than 13 feet tall, and occurs in peaty soils 

of variably-flooded freshwater habitats, at elevations below 6,990 feet. As a potential wetland, 

this plant community is proposed to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the Plan. 

Ruderal Grassland (9 acres, 1% of the plan area, formerly mapped by the MCCP as Non-Native 

Annual Grassland) is a plant community that is typically in early successional stages as a result 

of a severe and/or recurrent disturbance by natural or human causes. Ruderal Grassland is 



predominated by introduced annual grasses (brome species) and annual and perennial, nonnative 

(often invasive) pioneering plants (e.g., black mustard, tocalote, Italian thistle) that 

readily colonize disturbed ground. This anthropogenic plant community thrives in disturbed 

areas commonly associated with waste areas, roadsides, agriculture, farming or similarly 

disturbed by human activity. Ruderal Grassland typically does not provide functional habitat for 

wildlife species of the area. 

Non-Native Annual Grassland was not used as a mapping unit in this study as the three mapped 

polygons mapped in the MCCP area appeared to be associated with direct and adjacent human 

influences/activities and are significantly and/or frequently disturbed. Instead, Ruderal 

Grassland was used. 

Developed 

Developed California Sycamore Riparian Forest (3 acres, 0.3% of the plan area) is similar to 

California Sycamore Riparian Forest described above; however, these mapped stands occur 

within and amongst residential and commercial development. 

Developed Central/Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest (17 acres, 1% of the plan area) is 

similar to Central/Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest described above; however, these 

mapped stands occur within and amongst residential and commercial development. 

Developed Coast Live Oak Woodland (151 acres, 13% of the plan area) is similar to Coast Live 

Oak Woodland described above; however, these mapped stands occur within and amongst 

residential and commercial development. 

Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland (30 acres, 3% of the plan area) is similar to Coast Live 

Oak Woodland described above; however, these mapped stands occur within and amongst 

landscaped areas predominantly associated with the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, its parking 

lot, and adjacent landscapes. 

Agriculture (89 acres, 8% of the plan area) includes all cultivated areas, such as land that has 

been plowed, manipulated, and planted for farming purposes, or to produce yields from its 

crops. Agricultural Crops typically includes irrigated crops, dryland crops, and orchards. 

Areas mapped as Developed (386 acres, 34% of the plan area) include all areas that have largely 

been cleared of natural vegetation and have structures. These mapped units typically include 

associate plant species including blue gum eucalyptus, European olive, coast redwood (Sequoia 

sempervirens), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), pines (Pinus spp.), toyon, and 

coffeeberry. 

Proposed Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 



As discussed above, the Plan proposes to designate certain of the above communities as 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH), and applies standards for protection of and/or 

development within or near such habitats. 

Several different criteria can be used to define “Environmentally Sensitive Habitat“. In general, 

and following the criteria discussed in Dixon (2003), such areas can be designated because: 

• An animal or plant that is known or likely to be present in the habitat is rare, 

threatened, or endangered; or the habitat itself is rare; 

• The habitat is particularly valuable as it serves a critical ecological function (wetlands, 

for example); and 

• The habitat or its functions can be easily disrupted or disturbed by human intrusion. 

Additional criteria that can be considered include unique, pristine examples of common 

habitats; habitats that, while more common elsewhere, are limited in distribution within the 

County; habitats that contain concentrated breeding, feeding, resting, or migratory space (such 

as migration corridors); and particular biological resources that are of superior scientific value 

because they represent an extreme or unusual variation in a population or community. 

Another important criterion is existing policies and goals as elucidated through the County 

General Plan. 

The existing GIS map prepared for Figure 18 of the MCCP (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats 

Map) was modified based on the above considerations with respect to ESH definitions, field 

investigations, the County definitions and inclusions of ESH (provided below), steelhead habitat 

suitability, locally sensitive habitats, and buffers needed to protect such resources. 

ESH Definitions and Inclusions 

Policy BIO-MC-2 of the MCCP uses the following general criteria to determine which plant 

communities in the plan area are identified as environmentally sensitive habitats (ESH): 

• Unique, rare, or fragile communities which should be preserved to ensure their survival 

in the future; 

• Habitats of rare and endangered species as protected by State and/or federal law; 

• Outstanding representative natural communities that have values ranging from 

particularly rich flora and fauna to an unusual diversity of species; 

• Specialized wildlife habitats which are vital to species survival; 

• Areas structurally important in protecting natural landforms that physically support 

species (e.g., riparian vegetation protecting stream banks from erosion, shading effects 

of tree canopies); 

• Critical connection between separate habitat areas and/or migratory species routes; 

and 



• Areas with outstanding educational values that should be protected for scientific 

research and educational uses now and in the future, the continued existence of which 

is demonstrated to be unlikely unless designated and protected. 

Policy BIO-MC-3 of the MCCP states that the following biological resources and habitats shall be 

presumed to be “environmentally sensitive” (provided that the biological resource(s) actually 

present on a project site satisfy one or more of the criteria listed in Policy BIO-MC-2): 

• Habitats containing Nuttall’s scrub oak or other special-status animals, plants, or rare 

natural communities; 

• Central and Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland; 




• Wetland habitats; and 

• Native grasslands or other habitats with understory dominated by native grass species. 

ESH Verification and Identification 

The Initiation Draft MCCP mapped ESH to include approximately 217 acres and included all 

mapping units of the following habitats: 

• California Sycamore Riparian Forest 

• Central/Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 

• Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland 

• Freshwater Marsh 

• Coast Live Oak Woodland 

• Coast Live Oak Forest 

The supplemental biological study verified most of the previously mapped ESH by the County; 

however, the mapping was somewhat refined to exclude some areas where development was 

prominent and to include some areas that had not been previously mapped. The amount of 

ESH mapped for this supplemental study totals approximately 224 acres, and includes all 

habitats previously considered except for one small area of Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland. 

Rincon recommended that ESH also include Coast Live Oak-Olive Riparian Woodland. The 

revised ESH mapping based on the supplemental study is shown in Figure 4.3-2. In general, ESH 

was narrowed at the southern and northern end of Mission Creek due to the development 

within these portions of Central/Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest. ESH area was added 

in the northwestern portion of the plan area where Coast Live Oak Woodland was not 

previously mapped. 



Figure 4.3- 2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Overlay 



Special Status Species 

Special-Status Species Definitions 

Special status species are those animal or plant species (or subspecies) that are offered varying 

levels of regulatory protection. Listed species are those taxa that are formally listed as 

endangered or threatened by the federal government (i.e., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS]), pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), or as endangered, 

threatened, or rare (for plants only) by the State of California (i.e., California Fish and Game 

Commission), pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or the California Native 

Plant Protection Act. 

In general, special status plant species are those that may not be formally listed but they meet 

the CEQA guidelines (Section 15380) definition of “Rare.” In general, this includes all the species 

on the California Native Plant Society’s “List 1B.” Additional plant species may be considered 

rare (but not formally listed) or species to be “watched” (a watch list) by local or Statewide 

organizations and the scientific community (e.g., Santa Barbara Botanic Garden List of Species 

of Local Concern; CNPS Lists 3 and 4; U.S. Forest Service sensitive species lists). 

In general, special status animals are those that may not be formally listed as Endangered or 

Threatened, but they are considered “species of special concern” by the California Dept. of Fish 

and Game, or they may be candidates for formal listing by either CDFG or USFWS. Other 

organizations with biological interests and expertise (e.g., Audubon Society, The Wildlife 

Society) maintain additional lists. 

The following provides the specific definitions from the federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA) 

of 1973 and the California Endangered Species Act and the California Fish and Game Code. 

Federal ESA Definitions (USFWS or NMFS): 

Endangered (E): Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Threatened (T): Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Proposed: Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is proposed in the Federal Register to be 

listed under Section 4 of the Act. 

California ESA Definitions 

Endangered: “Endangered species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, 

fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, 

or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change 



in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. Any species determined by the 

commission as “endangered” on or before January 1, 1985, is an “endangered species.” 

Threatened: “Threatened species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, 

fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is 

likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special 

protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the 

commission as “rare” on or before January 1, 1985, is a “threatened species.” 

Candidate: “Candidate species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, 

amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by 

the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened 

species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to 

add the species to either list. 

Other Regulatory Categories 

CDFG Species of Special Concern, as mentioned above, are animals not listed under the federal 

or State ESAs, but nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or historically 

occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. 

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Green List contains all the highest priority birds for 

conservation in the continental United States and Canada. It builds on the species assessments 

conducted for many years by Partners in Flight (PIF) for land birds and expands it to include 

shorebirds, waterbirds and waterfowl. 

The California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California (CNPS 2001, 2008, and online) 11 categorizes rare California plants into one of five lists 

(1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4) representing five levels of species status, one of which is assigned to a 

sensitive species to indicate its status of rarity or endangerment and distribution. Most taxa 

also receive a threat code extension following the List (e.g., 1B.1, 2.3), which replaces the R-E-D 

Code previously used by CNPS. The CNPS Inventory is used as a tool by CDFG to help identify 

those plants that may qualify for listing under the CESA. The State’s formal list of special plants 

is maintained by CDFG (Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes and Lichens List, updated annually). 

As stated above, under CEQA Section 15380, a species that is not formally listed can be 

considered to be rare for purposes of CEQA, if it can be shown that it meets the definition of 

“rare.” All plant species on CNPS List 1B meet this definition and thus are to be considered in 

CEQA analysis. 

11 Changes to Inventory as published on CNPS website: 

http://www.cnps.org/programs/Rare_Plant/inventory/changes/changes_accepted.htm. 



Mission Canyon Special-Status Species 

The MCCP includes a list of special status plant and animal species that could potentially occur 

in the plan area based upon a review of the above lists, CNDDB records, previous studies in the 

vicinity, and knowledge of the area. For this EIR and during development of the MCCP, the 

CNDDB was queried for special status records within the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) quadrangles for Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, and White Ledge Peak. The results 

of this query and field investigation are shown Appendix E-2 and E-3. Table 4.3-1 below shows 

documented occurrences of special status plants. 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Table 4.3-1 shows the documented occurrences of Special Status (CNPS 1B) plant species from 

the MCCP Initiation Draft (shown as numbers in the Table and on Figure 4.3-2) and the 

Biological Resources Supplemental Study (shown as letters in the Table and on Figure 4.3-2). 

These species were observed within the study area, and are discussed below. 

Table 4.3- 1: Documented Occurrences of Special Status Plant Species Within or Near Plan area 

Figure 

4.3-2 

Reference 

ID 

1 -/-/1B 

SBBG 

2 -/-/1B 

3 -/-/1B 

4 -/-/1B 

5 -/-/1B 

6 -/-/1B 

7 -/-/1B 

Status 

Fed/State/CNPS 

Species Documented Locality 

Santa Barbara 

honeysuckle (Lonicera 

subspicata 

subspicata). 

var. 

Nuttall’s Scrub Oak 

(Quercus dumosa) 











Observed on vacant parcel on Palomino Road south of 

1116 Palomino Road. Coastal sage scrub habitat. M. 

Mooney February 2008 field visits for Mission Canyon 


Rattlesnake Canyon (mouth), n. of City of Santa 

Barbara (SBBG #100141; UCSB) Pollard 1957. 

Elevation 1100 ft 

(Just E. of study area): Mountain Drive between 

Mission Canyon and Sheffield Reservoir (SBBG 

#58971, 58978) Holt 1940. Elevation 700 ft. 

Mission Canyon: Tunnel Road, Santa Barbara; 

Hoffman 1927 (SBBG # 59009, 1314). (Most likely 

corresponds to CNDDB Occ #33, “Mission Canyon”). 

Elevation 850 ft. 

Mission Canyon: Botanic Garden along Pritchett Trail, 

Mission Canyon; Smith 1943, 1944 (SBBG #88286, 

1316). Elevation 850 ft. (Most likely corresponds to 

CNDDB Occ #33, “Mission Canyon”). 

Mission Canyon: 1265 Tunnel Road east of SBBG. M. 

Mooney, September 12, 2000. Specimen confirmed by 

Steve Junak. Site visit for development project; 

located at sharp bend in the road, south of Holly 

Road. Co-occurs with Cercocarpus betuloides, 

Heteromeles arbutifolia. Elevation 850 ft. 

Mission Canyon: Observed on upper Palomino Road 

near 1159 Palomino. M. Mooney. February 2008 field 

visits for Mission Canyon Community Plan. Elevation 



Figure 

4.3-2 

Reference 

ID 

8 -/-/1B 

A -/-/4 

B -/-/1B 

C -/-/1B 

Not 

mapped 

Status 

Fed/State/CNPS 

-/-/1B 

Species Documented Locality 



Southern California 

Black Walnut (Juglans 

californica) 

Santa Barbara 


subspicata var. 

subspicata). 

Santa Barbara 


subspicata var. 

subspicata). 



750 ft. Ridge between Lauro Canyon and Alamar 

Canyon. 

Upper Mission Canyon: Observed on Spyglass Ridge 

between San Roque Creek and Lauro Canyon. M. 

Mooney. February 2008 field visits for Mission Canyon 

Community Plan. Elevation 1050 ft. (May be same as 

Tucker, 1941, UCD #45826). 

Observed by C. Batchelor, Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

Jun 3 2009 during supplemental site visits for MCCP. 

Observed in Mission Canyon on west side of Palomino 

Road at the road’s end on a north facing slope in oak 

woodland. 



Observed on west side of Palomino Road at the road’s 

end below Nuttall’s scrub oak. 



Observed on east side of Mission Canyon Road Bridge 

on east bank of Mission Canyon creek in California 

sycamore riparian forest. 

• Rattlesnake Canyon (Outside study area): Las 

Canoas Road [uphill from] on e/ side of 

Rancheros Tract (SBBG # 36685) Pollard 

1959. 

• Rattlesnake Canyon: Skofield Property, Las 

Canoas Road (SBBG #58980) Holt 1940. 

Elevation 800 ft. Most likely within Skofield 

Park, owned by City of Santa Barbara. 

• West of Mission Canyon: Calle Palo Colorado, 

0.4 mi. N. of Lauro Canyon Road (UCSB). John 

Tucker #220, May 20, 1941. Elevation 900 ft. 

UCSB specimen. (Possibly extirpated?) 

A total of 30 special-status plant species are reported or known to occur within the 

Mission/Rattlesnake area by local herbaria, on record in the Consortium, tracked by CDFG’s 

CNDDB, and/or were observed by field investigations. 12 All 30 special-status plant species and 

their respective occurrences within the plan area are presented in Appendix E-2. The three 

observed species are briefly discussed below. 

12 The special-status plant species tracked by CNDDB within the four quadrangles encompassing the MCCP area that were 

excluded from this analysis (due to a lack of suitable habitat within the Plan area and/or because they are known outside of 

the Plan area boundaries) include: Ventura marsh milk-vetch, salt marsh bird’s beak, Contra Costa goldfields, estuary 

seablite, southern tarplant, pale-yellow layia, and black-flowered figwort. 



Santa Barbara Honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata). Santa Barbara honeysuckle is 

an evergreen shrub that is native and endemic to California found in chaparral, woodland and 

coastal scrub at elevations ranging from 115 – 3,280 feet. 

Nuttall’s Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa). Nuttall’s scrub oak is a native evergreen shrub from 3 to 

9 feet in height found in coastal chaparral with relatively open canopy. It is native to California 

and Baja California and generally occurs on sandy soils near the coast at elevations less than 

660 feet. It provides important food and cover for numerous species in its range, including deer 

and small rodents. The acorns are eaten by many birds and mammals. Because of its dense, 

extensive root system, it can aid in preventing soil erosion on some sites. The acorns were once 

a staple in the diet of Native Americans (U.S. Forest Service 2009). 

Southern California Black Walnut (Juglans californica). Southern Californian black walnut is a 

native, deciduous tree that grows from 20 to 49 feet and is endemic to California. It generally 

occurs in sites with deep alluvial soils with high water-holding capacity on north slopes, 

creekbeds, and canyon bottoms, usually from 500 to 2,500 feet in elevation. Walnut forests 

and woodlands provide favorable habitat for a number of vertebrates and invertebrates and 

many rodents eat the nuts. Larger trees provide excellent cover for deer, nesting birds and 

rodents. The Chumash ate the walnuts and used the nutshells for dice (U.S. Forest Service 

2009). 

Many occurrences of special-status plant species were likely burned in the Jesusita Fire. 

However, many plants may have survived due to fire adaptations. Nuttall’s scrub oak is a 

stump sprouter, and will likely recover easily. Rare lilies have underground corms/bulbs that 

would likely survive and re-sprout. Recovery of special-status plant species known or 

documented within the plan area would be expected for species such as Santa Barbara 

honeysuckle, Hoffman’s sanicula, Fish’s milkwort, Santa Barbara bedstraw, Plummer’s 

baccharis, and bitter gooseberry (Dieter Wilken, pers. comm. June 5 and 6, 2009). 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

A total of 20 special-status wildlife species are reported or known to occur within the 

Mission/Rattlesnake area as reported by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

Vertebrate Zoology database and/or tracked by CDFG’s CNDDB four-quad search. 13. All 20 

wildlife species and their respective occurrences within the plan area are presented in Appendix 

E-3 of this report. The federally endangered Southern California Steelhead has designated 

critical habitat within the plan area. 

13 Salt marsh and other coastal-dependent species tracked by CNDDB in the four-quad search are not included in this analysis 

due to the lack of suitable habitat in the Plan area, including western snowy plover, tidewater goby, Belding’s savannah 

sparrow, Coast Range newt, sandy beach tiger beetle, globose dune beetle, light-footed clapper rail, and mimic tryonia. 



Fish: Southern California Steelhead Trout 

The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have duties under the 

Endangered Species Act to designate critical habitat for listed species. When a species is listed 

or critical habitat designated, the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to ensure 

that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. In 2005, a final 

critical habitat designation for the Southern California Steelhead was issued. 14 The designation 

includes the Mission Hydrologic Sub-area (Mission and Rattlesnake creeks) in the mapped 

extents of streams as critical habitat. The textual descriptions of critical habitat contained in 

the Federal Register is the definitive source for determining critical habitat boundaries, the 

mapped designation is provided for general guidance. Due to the importance of this area to 

critical recovery actions, Rincon’s biological report included a detailed account of habitat needs, 

occurrence, barriers to migration and downstream fish passage restoration projects. The full 

report is in Appendix E-1, below is a report summary. 

Occurrence in the plan area 

Steelhead, an ocean-run (anadromous) variety of rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss), are 

known to have historically inhabited many of the smaller coastal watersheds in southern Santa 

Barbara County between the Santa Ynez River and the Ventura River. While historic estimates 

of adult steelhead run size do not exist for these smaller streams, their combined annual run 

size was likely in the thousands based on comparisons of the combined quantity of these many 

streams and the quantity of stream miles in larger river systems in the region. Since the 

beginning of the century it is estimated that steelhead populations have been reduced to less 

than 1% of their former population size in southern California (NMFS 2005; Stoecker et al. 

2002). 

Mission Creek Watershed is the only watershed draining through the City of Santa Barbara that 

has extensive historical records of steelhead presence. Mission Creek contains moderate to 

high quality steelhead habitat within the MCCP area. The reach below its confluence with 

Rattlesnake Creek is in the mapped extents for steelhead critical habitat (NMFS, NOAA 2005; 

see Figure 4.3-2). High to extremely high quality habitat conditions exist in the upper watershed 

(outside of the MCCP area), but steelhead have not been observed in recent history upstream 

of a 6-foot-tall “high severity” natural boulder cascade located near the confluence of Mission 

Creek and Rattlesnake Canyon Creek (Stoecker et al. 2002). 

Rattlesnake Creek contains high quality habitat conditions for steelhead from its confluence 

with Mission Creek just downstream of the boulder cascade, extending upstream beyond the 

eastern MCCP area boundary (Stoecker et al. 2002). The high quality habitat conditions 

continue beyond the eastern MCCP area boundary upstream to the Las Canoas Road bridge. 

14 Federal Register, Vol. 70, No 170, September 2, 2005. 



Beyond this bridge, the creek provides extremely high habitat conditions upstream to the 

identified natural limit. 

Barriers to Migration 

Steelhead occupy a variety of stream habitats from the headwaters to the mouth, as both 

migratory corridors and habitat for rearing and spawning. Barriers to migration between these 

habitats have proved grievous to steelhead populations throughout their range (Stoecker et al. 

2002). Barriers lead directly to the fragmentation of steelhead habitat and may completely 

eliminate anadromous steelhead from accessing a stream to spawn. Types of barriers include 

dams, culverts, diversions, flood control channels, flow variability and velocities, water quality, 

and natural features such as waterfalls. While the natural dynamics of a creek can cause 

natural barriers and isolate upstream populations from time to time through rockfalls, 

alterations in rock formations, and debris flows, Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks have sustained 

impacts by multiple manmade barriers that are currently considered partially impassable to 

completely impassable barriers. 

Mission Creek Barriers 

High to extremely high quality habitat conditions exist in the upper watershed (outside of the 

MCCP area), but steelhead have not been observed in recent history upstream of a 6-foot tall 

“high severity” natural boulder cascade (Barrier #10 [B10] - refer to Figure 4.3-3 for all barriers 

discussed in this section) 25 feet upstream from its confluence with Rattlesnake Creek. This 

cascade feature appears to be preventing colonization of upper Mission Creek, as no rainbow 

trout were observed upstream during extensive surveys by Stoecker et al. (2002). However, 

while smaller salmonids appear to be unable to migrate upstream of this structure due to jumpheight 

limitations, adult steelhead could potentially migrate upstream of this structure with a 

high degree of difficulty during moderate to high stream flows. As long as adequate access 

exists through barriers downstream, adult steelhead may be able to re-colonize upper Mission 

Creek. 

Several manmade barriers exist downstream of the MCCP area that also impede or prevent 

access to the moderate to high quality habitat that exists upstream of the cascade barrier. The 

first barriers steelhead encounter during their Mission Creek ascent is a moderate severity 

concrete channelization feature (B1) at the Chapala Street crossing and an extremely high to 

impassable concrete channelization from Castillo bridge to upstream of Arrellaga bridge (B2). 

Two low to moderate severity grade control structures (B3 & B4) are encountered at the 

Pedregosa Street bridge, and then another extremely high to impassable concrete 

channelization stretches downstream of Mission Street bridge to Los Olivos Street (B5). These 

channelized reaches (B2 & B5) create extremely high to impassable barriers to steelhead just 

one mile upstream of the Mission Creek rivermouth. One of the last barriers s encountered 

prior to entering the MCCP area was the extremely high to impassable Tallant Road bridge 

grade control structure (B6) (removed as of October 2010), and the moderate severity grade 

control structure adjacent to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (B7)(Stoecker et al. 

2002) 



If steelhead are capable of migrating past B7 and actually enter the MCCP area, the first MCCP 

area fish barrier is the moderate severity Mission Canyon Road bridge and apron (B8). The next 

major constraint to upstream passage within the MCCP area is the extremely high to 

impassable Highway 192 bridge and apron (grade control structure) at the southern end of the 

Mission Canyon plan area (B9). The grade control structure also protects a water main 

operated by the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB) that runs below the 

creek. COMB has plans to replace the water line and has agreed to use fish passage plans to 

restore the creek. The natural boulder cascade discussed above (B10) is the next barrier, and if 

the steelhead are strong enough and conditions are sufficient to allow passage over the 

cascade, another Mission Canyon Road bridge and apron barrier (B11) presents another high 

severity passage constraint, which is followed by a moderate severity manmade pipe crossing 

grade control structure (B12) just downstream from the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. Finally, 

their upstream migration would cease at the impassable Old Mission Dam at the Santa Barbara 

Botanic Garden (B13). Although steelhead would not be able to pass the B13 barrier, four 

additional barriers also exist upstream from B13 (within the MCCP area), and include: an 

impassable debris basin dam (B14), a high severity natural bedrock chute (B15), a moderate 

severity manmade stone dam (B16), and an extremely high to impassable natural bedrock 

waterfall (B17) (Stoecker et al. 2002). 

Rattlesnake Creek Barriers 

Due to the manmade barriers presented to steelhead in the downstream reaches of Mission 

Creek (discussed above and presented in Figure 4.3-3), it is unlikely that they would currently 

be capable of entering Rattlesnake Creek. As barriers are removed, and if steelhead are 

capable of entering Rattlesnake Creek, three manmade barriers in the reach of Rattlesnake 

Creek within the MCCP area limit their use of the area: a pipe crossing grade control structure 

of moderate severity approximately 150 feet upstream from the creek confluence (B18); an 

extremely high to impassable section of riprap channelization feature (B19); and a bridge and 

apron (B20). Beyond these three barriers, outside of the MCCP area, is a low severity manmade 

barrier, and then a series of moderate to impassable manmade and natural barriers continuing 

upstream to the identified natural limit (Stoecker et al. 2002). 



Figure 4.3- 3 Salmonid Barriers 



Fish Passage Restoration Projects 

Figure 4.3-4 shows proposed Mission Creek fish passage projects that the City of Santa Barbara 

is currently working on or assisting. The following summarizes the three projects indicated in 

Figure 4.3-4 (George Johnson, pers. communication June 9, 2009 and July 20, 2009): 

Highway 192 Bridge - This fish passage project is to be constructed by Cachuma Operations and 

Maintenance Board (COMB) as part of replacing the South Coast conduit water line. The 

project will include removal of the concrete apron downstream of the bridge and 

reconstruction of the creek bed and channel banks using large rock, cobble, and gravel to 

create a stable bed with pools that will allow adult steelhead trout to migrate upstream. 

Construction for this fish passage restoration project is scheduled to commence the summer of 

2011. 

Tallant Road Bridge - This fish passage project was completed by the City of Santa Barbara in 

October 2010. The project included removal of the concrete apron downstream of the bridge, 

relocation of an existing sewer line, and reconstruction of the creek bed and channel banks 

using large rock, cobble, and gravel to create a stable bed with pools that will allow adult 

steelhead trout to migrate upstream. 

Caltrans Channels - This fish passage project is to be constructed by the City of Santa Barbara. 

The concrete flood control channels were built by Caltrans, but are owned and maintained by 

the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District. The project will include cutting out a low flow 

channel within the floor of the concrete in order to provide the proper depths, flow rates, and 

resting areas to allow adult steelhead trout to migrate upstream. This project is scheduled to 

be constructed over summers 2011 and 2012 (pending funding). 



Figure 4.3- 4 Fish Passage Restoration Locations 



Birds 

Table 4.3-2 below shows the documented occurrences of Special Status bird species as 

observed by Rincon Consultants for the supplemental biological resources study in June 2009, 

followed by a brief description of each species. 

Table 4.3- 2: Documented Occurrences of Special Status Birds Within Mission Canyon. 

Species Status 

Fed/State/CDFG/Other 

Documented Locality 

Oak titmouse -/-/-/ABC WLBCC Observed by S. Hongola from Rincon Consultants during bird 

(Baeolophus 

surveys June 3 and 4, 2009. 

inomatus) 

1. End of Palomino Road (Rapid Assessment Location 13) 

2. Mission Canyon Road north in Oak-Olive Riparian 

Woodland (Rapid Assessment Location 14) 

3. Rocky Nook Park in riparian woodland along Mission 

Creek 

4. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden 

5. Las Canoas Road, Rattlesnake Canyon 

Yellow warbler -/-/CSC/ Observed by S. Hongola from Rincon Consultants during bird 

(Dendroica 

surveys June 4, 2009 

petechia 

1. Rocky Nook Park in riparian woodland along Mission 

brewsteri) 

Creek 

2. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden 

3. Las Canoas Road, Rattlesnake Canyon 

Nuttall’s 

-/-/-/ABC WLBCC Observed by S. Hongola from Rincon Consultants during bird 

woodpecker 


(Picoides nuttalii) 

1. Palomino Road 

2. Mission Canyon Road north 

3. Rocky Nook Park 

4. Las Canoas Road 

Cooper’s hawk -/-/-/IUCN LC 

Observed by S. Hongola from Rincon Consultants during bird 

(Accipiter cooperii) Local Concern 


1. End of Palomino Road (Rapid Assessment Location 13). 

ABC WLBCC = American Bird Conservancy Watch List; CSC = CDFG Species of Special Concern; IUCN LC = 

International Union of Concerned Scientists Least Concern. 

The descriptions of the following special status birds documented in the plan area is from the 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology website (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2009). 

Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inomatus). Oak titmouse is a small grey bird found primarily in oak 

or oak-pine woodlands. It nests in tree cavities or in dense foliage and mates for life. 

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri). Yellow warbler is a small songbird with 

underparts bright yellow on both male and female. It occurs in open woodland habitat and 

nests in upright forks of shrubs or trees. 

Nuttall’s Woodpecker ((Picoides nuttalii). Nuttall’s woodpecker is a small woodpecker confined 

primarily to the oak woodlands of California. It nests in tree cavities. 



Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Cooper’s hawk is a medium size hawk that lives in wooded 

habitats from deep forests to leafy subdivisions and backyards. They build nests in pines, oaks, 

Douglas firs and other tree species, often about two-thirds of the way up a tree in a crotch or a 

horizontal branch. Potentially suitable nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk as well as and redshouldered 

hawk, exists at all five survey locations shown in Table 4.3-2. 

Other special status bird species that could occur but were not documented in the recent bird 

survey include Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), 

mountain plover (Charadruis montanus), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) and Allen’s 

hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin). The Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow has a low 

potential to occur in the plan area but they could occur in coastal sage scrub and chaparral 

habitats. The mountain plover was last documented in Mission Canyon in 1962 and currently 

has a low potential to occur in the plan area. Yellow-breasted chat also was last documented in 

the early 1960s and is considered to have a low potential to occur. Allen’s hummingbird 

inhabits riparian and oak woodlands and has a moderate potential to occur in the plan area 

although the last documented record was in 1922. 

Bird Habitat Summary 

Portions of the plan area contain moderate to good quality habitat for birds. Specifically, areas 

with native oak woodland or riparian habitat are expected to support the highest species 

diversity. Areas that have been urbanized or developed generally support lower species 

diversity. Qualitatively, the highest quality habitat of the five bird survey locations was present 

within Rocky Nook Park. 

Based on qualitative observations, the plan area is comparable to other nearby areas in terms 

of diversity and sensitive species occurrence. All of the common species observed would be 

expected to occur in similar habitat types (oak woodland, riparian, non-native woodland) in the 

region. The sensitive species that were observed (oak titmouse, Nuttall’s woodpecker, yellow 

warbler, Cooper’s hawk) are all low on the sensitivity scale as they are not listed under either 

the federal or State Endangered Species Acts, and these species would also be expected to 

occur in similar nearby habitats. Therefore, native habitat within the plan area is not 

particularly sensitive or significant in comparison to nearby areas. The plan area has a low 

potential to support threatened and/or endangered species, such as least Bell’s vireo or 

southwestern willow flycatcher, with other areas of the region that contain larger and denser 

stands of willow riparian habitat considered more suitable for such species. 

The highest species diversity (common and sensitive) occurred where there was a mix of 

different native habitat types, such as at Rocky Nook Park which contained coast live oak 

woodland and willow riparian habitat. Therefore, with regard to birds in the plan area, these 

types of habitat-intergrades are the most sensitive. Areas containing a single native habitat 

type are moderately sensitive, and areas containing non-native habitats are not sensitive. 



Amphibians and Reptiles 

Special status amphibians and reptiles that occur within or near the project area include arroyo 

toad (Anaxyrus californicus), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), coast horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma coronatum), Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallid) and twostriped 

garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii). Arroyo toad is not likely to be present in the 

plan area because it typically occupies dry sandy stream beds in the interior of the County, and 

not coastal streams. California red-legged frog has a low potential to occur in the plan area; its 

closest documented location, Montecito Creek, is more than 3 miles away, and pond breeding 

habitat is not typically present in the steep reaches of Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks. Coast 

horned lizard has a moderate potential to occur in the chaparral or coastal sage scrub portions 

of the plan area with the closest documented occurrence in Rattlesnake Canyon. Southwestern 

pond turtle inhabits permanent or nearly permanent water bodies and has a moderate 

potential to occur in the plan area. The two-striped gartersnake is found in or near permanent 

fresh water and riparian growth and has a moderate potential to occur with the closest 

documented occurrence also in Rattlesnake Canyon. 

Mammals 

In total about 50 mammals species could occur in Mission Canyon including bats, rodents, deer, 

bobcat, mountain lion, coyote and even black bear. Three special status mammals could occur 

in the plan area including ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and big 

free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis). The ringtail is a mammal of the raccoon family typically 

found in rocky area or riparian habitat. It has a low occurrence to occur but was last 

documented in the plan area in 1982. Hoary bat prefers open habitats with access to trees for 

cover and has a moderate potential to occur. Big free-tailed bat needs high cliffs or rocky 

outcrops for roosting sites and has a low potential to occur. 

Invertebrates 

The special status Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) has been observed and could occur 

throughout the plan area. The potential to occur is considered low due to distance from the 

coast and high relative elevations and no known roost sites occur within the plan area. 


Several existing federal, state and local regulations apply to biological resources in Santa 

Barbara County. A few key regulations are summarized below. 

Federal 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects federally listed threatened and endangered species. 

Consultation with the USFWS is required under ESA Section 7 if a listed species would be 



adversely affected by a federal action. ESA Section 9 prohibits the taking of a listed species 

without authorization from the USFWS. ESA Section 10 provides an exception to the “take” 

prohibition for private parties, provided a USFWS incidental take permit is obtained. USFWS 

defines "take" to include the harassment, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, 

killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or the attempt to engage in such conduct. Harm can 

include habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife (USFWS 2004). 

The ESA Section 10 process provides protection and habitat conservation of listed species from 

non-Federal development and activities where a Federal permit is not required. It provides a 

mechanism for ensuring economic development does not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

the survival and recovery of species in the wild.” The Section 10 process requires submittal of a 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that includes: 

• Impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of species for which permit coverage 

is requested; 

• Measures the applicant will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such 

impacts; 

• Funding that will be made available to undertake such measures and for procedures to 

deal with unforeseen circumstances; 

• Alternative actions which the applicant considered that would not result in take, and 

the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and 

• Additional measures USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of 

the plan. 

The purpose of an HCP is designed to offset any harmful effects a proposed activity might have 

on a federally listed species. The HCP process allows development to proceed while promoting 

listed species conservation. No HCP has been developed for a project within or adjacent to the 

plan area. 

Federal Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s waters through the elimination of discharges of pollutants. 

Among other things, the CWA provided that continuing (point-source) pollutant discharges 

could not occur unless specifically authorized by permit, and established permit programs for 

various forms of discharges, including the discharge of dredged materials. 

CWA Section 401. Section 401 Certification is required to demonstrate that discharges of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. comply with state water quality standards for 

actions within state waters. Compliance with Section 401 is provided by approval of a Water 

Quality Certification or waiver from the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (SWRCB and RWQCB, respectively), and is a condition for issuance of a 

Section 404 permit discussed below. 



CWA Section 402. Section 402 requires that permitted projects comply with National Pollutant 

Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) requirements. The state is required to establish waste 

discharge standards for all state waters, under Section 301 of the CWA. Compliance with 

Section 402 is provided by approval of a NPDES permit from the SWRCB and RWQCB. 

CWA Section 404. Section 404 addresses permits required for discharge of dredged or fill 

material. It establishes guidelines for the discharge of dredged or fill materials and for the 

prevention of such discharges, individually or in combination with other activities, from having 

unacceptable adverse impacts on the ecosystem. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the legal authority to regulate, through the 

issuance of a Section 404 permit, the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, 

and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The take of all migratory birds 

is governed by the MBTA's regulation of taking migratory birds for educational, scientific, and 

recreational purposes and requiring harvest to be limited to levels that prevent overuse. The 

MBTA also prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or 

offering for sale, purchase or barter, any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as 

authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Certain individuals, including Department of the 

Interior employees enforcing the MBTA, employees of federal agencies, state game department 

staff, municipal game farms or parks employees, public museum, public zoological park, 

accredited institutional members of the American Association of Zoological Parks and 

Aquariums (now called the American Zoo and Aquarium Association), and public scientific or 

educational institution staff are exempted from this statute. 

Executive Order 13186 (effective January 10, 2001), outlines the responsibilities of federal 

agencies to protect migratory birds, in accordance with the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Acts, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, ESA, and NEPA. This order specifies the 

following: 

• The USFWS as the lead for coordinating and implementing EO 13186; 

• Requires federal agencies to incorporate migratory bird protection measures into their 

activities; and 

• Requires federal agencies to obtain permits from USFWS before any “take” occurs, 

even when the agency intent is not to kill or injure migratory birds. 

Active nests of most bird species, including those not otherwise listed, are also protected under 

California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 



State 

Endangered Species Act, California Native Plant Protection Act 

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is a trustee agency for biological resources 

throughout the state under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and also has direct 

jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game Code for resources protected by the State of 

California under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under the State and federal 

Endangered Species Acts, the CDFG and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

have direct regulatory authority over species formally listed as threatened, endangered or 

candidates for listing. The CDFG maintains lists of special status plants, animals, natural 

communities and other habitats with the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). CDFG 

staff makes recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission regarding which species 

should be formally listed. 

Local 

Land Use Element 

The Land Use Element of the County Comprehensive Plan includes biological protection 

policies, which currently apply to applicable projects in Mission Canyon. For example, Land Use 

Element Hillside and Watershed Protection and Stream and Creeks Policies require preservation 

of natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, to the maximum extent 

feasible and all permitted construction and grading within stream corridors shall be carried out 

as to minimize impacts from increased runoff, sedimentation, biochemical degradation, or 

thermal pollution. 

County Ordinance Code 

County code contains several ordinances protective of biological resources as follows: 

• Chapter 9A – Brush Removal, Southerly Coastal Area regulates the removal of native 

brush, shrubs, trees and roots to prevent erosion damage, floods hazards and soil loss. 

• Chapter 14 – Grading Code applies to all new grading, excavations, fills etc. where the 

transported amount of material exceeds 50 cubic yards. The code sets forth local storm 

water requirements to avoid pollution of water courses and drainage ways with 

sediments or other pollutants. 

• Chapter 15B- Development Along Watercourses prohibits development within 50 feet of 

the top of bank of any watercourse unless specific findings can be met. 

1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan 

The 1984 Specific Plan includes tree preservation development standards. These include 

avoiding the removal of native and specimen ornamental trees. The trees listed as deserving 

special protection include oaks, sycamores, California bays, alders, willows, and maples. This 

standard has been carried forward with some modifications to the draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan as Policy BIO-MC-4. 




The County’s Environmental Thresholds Manual contains criteria for determining the 

significance of an impact to biological resources. The manual references CEQA guidance for 

biological impact assessment, and per CEQA Appendix G, a project will normally have a 

significant effect on the environment if it will: 

• Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it 

is located; 

• Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal, plant or the habitats 

of the species; 

• Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or 

wildlife species; and 

• Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. 

The following specific thresholds of significance are provided in the Thresholds Manual. The 

evaluation of project impacts as detailed in the manual calls for an assessment of both short- 

and long-term impacts. Significant impacts to species or habitats are those that substantially 

impact significant resources in the following ways: 

1. Substantially reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance. 

2. Substantially reduce or eliminate quantity or quality of nesting areas. 

3. Substantially limit reproductive capacity through losses of individuals or habitat. 

4. Substantially fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or 

access to food sources. 

5. Substantially limit or fragment range and movement (geographic distribution or 

animals and/or seed dispersal routes). 

6. Substantially interfere with natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon 

which the habitat depends. 

Instances in which project impacts would be less than significant include: 

1. Small acreages of non-native grassland if wildlife values are low. 

2. Individuals or stands of non-native trees if not used by important animal species 

such as raptors or monarch butterflies. 

3. Areas of historical disturbance such as intensive agriculture. 

4. Small pockets of habitats already significantly fragmented or isolated, and 

degraded or disturbed. 

5. Areas of primarily ruderal species resulting from pre-existing man-made 

disturbance. 

Additional County guidelines are provided for specific biological communities. These are used 

in conjunction with the general impact assessment guidelines described above. 



Wetlands. Based on the County guidelines, the following types of project-created impacts may 

be considered significant: 

a. Projects that result in a net loss of important wetland area or wetland habitat 

value, either through direct or indirect impacts to wetland vegetation, 

degradation of water quality, or would threaten the continuity of wetlanddependant 

animal or plant species are considered to have a potentially 

significant effect on the environment. 

b. Wildlife access, use, and dispersal in wetland habitats are key components of 

their ecosystem value. Projects that substantially interrupt wildlife access, 

use and dispersal in wetland areas would typically be considered to have 

potentially significant impacts. 

c. The hydrology of wetlands systems must be maintained if their function and 

values are to be preserved. Therefore, maintenance of hydrological 

conditions, such as the quantity and quality of runoff, must be assessed in 

project review. 

Vernal Pools. Based on the County guidelines, the following types of project-related impacts 

may be considered significant: 

a. Direct removal of a vernal pool or vernal pool complex; 

b. Direct or indirect adverse hydrologic changes such as altered freshwater 

input, changes in the watershed area or runoff quantity and/or quality, 

substantial increase in sedimentation, introduction of toxic elements or 

alteration of ambient water temperature; 

c. Disruption of a larger plant community (e.g., grassland) within which a vernal 

pool(s) occur; 

d. Isolation or fragmentation of contiguous habitat which would disrupt animal 

movement patterns or seed dispersal routes; 

e. Activities that would increase the chance of exotic plant invasion; 

f. Activities that would increase the vulnerability of species to local extirpation. 

Riparian Habitats. Based on the County guidelines, the following types of project-related 

impacts may be considered significant: 

a. Direct removal of riparian vegetation; 

b. Disruption of riparian wildlife habitat, particularly animal dispersal corridors 

and or understory vegetation; 

c. Intrusion within the upland edge of the riparian canopy (generally within 50 

feet in urban areas, within 100 feet in rural areas, and within 200 feet of 

major rivers), leading to potential disruption of animal migration, breeding, 

etc., through increased noise, light and glare, and human or domestic animal 

intrusion; 

d. Disruption of a substantial amount of adjacent upland vegetation where such 

vegetation plays a critical role in supporting riparian-dependent wildlife 

species (e.g., amphibians), or where such vegetation aids in stabilizing steep 



slopes adjacent to the riparian corridor, which reduces erosion and 

sedimentation potential; and 

e. Construction activity that disrupts critical time periods (e.g., nesting, 

breeding) for fish and other wildlife species. 

Native Grasslands. Native grasslands are defined as an area where native grassland species 

comprise 10% or more of the total relative cover. Based on the County guidelines, the 

following types of project-related impacts may be considered significant: 

a. Removal or severe disturbance to a patch or patches of native grasses greater 

than ¼ acre; or 

b. Removal or severe disturbance to native grassland patches that are part of a 

larger significant native grassland. 

Oak Woodlands and Forests. Based on the County guidelines, project-created impacts on oak 

woodlands and forests may be considered significant due to changes in habitat value and 

species composition such as the following: 

a. Habitat fragmentation; 

b. Removal of understory; 

c. Alteration to drainage patterns; 

d. Disruption of the canopy; or 

e. Removal of a significant number of trees that would cause a break in the 

canopy or disruption in animal movement in and through the woodland. 

Individual Native Trees. Based on the County guidelines, the following types of project-related 

impacts may be considered significant: 

a. Impacts to native specimen trees, regardless of size. Specimen trees are 

defined as mature trees that are healthy and structurally sound and have 

grown into the natural stature particular to the species; 

b. Impacts to rare native trees, which are very low in number or isolated in 

distribution; or 

c. The loss of 10% or more of the trees of biological value on a project site. 

Other Rare Habitat Types. The Environmental Thresholds Manual recognizes that not all 

habitat-types found in Santa Barbara County are addressed by the habitat-specific guidelines. 

Impacts to other habitat types or species may be considered significant, based on substantial 

evidence in the record, if they substantially: 

a. Reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance; 

b. Reduce or eliminate the quality of nesting areas; 

c. Limit reproductive capacity through losses of individuals or habitat; 

d. Fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or access to 

food sources; 

e. Limit or fragment range and movement; or 

f. Interfere with natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the 

habitat depends. 




The analysis of biological resources impacts within the plan area is based on reconnaissance 

level field surveys conducted by Planning & Development staff in February 2008 and by Rincon 

in June 2009, in addition to a search of available biological databases, and a review of literature 

and maps. No focused or protocol-level surveys were conducted for this analysis. 

IMPACT BIO-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the proposed Community Plan. 

The only biological resource standard from the 1984 Specific Plan is a native and specimen 

ornamental tree preservation standard, requiring that all development avoid removal to the 

maximum extent feasible. This standard has been carried forward with some modifications to 

the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan as Policy BIO-MC-4. Replacement of the Specific 

Plan with the Community Plan would have a Class IV beneficial impact for biological resources 

due to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat identification and mapping and other protective 

policies. However, unlike the Specific Plan, the proposed Community Plan Policy BIO-MC-4 

does not specifically protect non-native trees, which can have biological and ecological 

functions in the landscape, for example, many raptors and other birds nest in non-native 

ornamental trees. The policy also requires revisions to make it consistent with proposed tree 

protection policies specific to environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The impact of not 

continuing the protective policy is potentially significant but mitigable (Class II). 

Mitigation Measure 

MM-BIO-1: Revise native tree protection policy to protect non-native trees that have a 

biological or ecological function and for consistency with proposed environmentally sensitive 

habitat standards. 

The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan Policy BIO-MC-4 shall be revised as follows 

(deletions strike through, additions underlined). 

Policy BIO-MC-6: Native trees shall be preserved where appropriate protected within 

environmentally sensitive habitat areas and retained outside of 

environmentally sensitive habitat areas to the maximum extent 

feasible. A “native protected tree” is at least six inches in diameter 

(largest diameter for non-round trunks) as measured 4.5 feet above 

level ground (or as measured on the uphill side where sloped). Native 

trees found in Mission Canyon area include, but are not limited to: 

coastal live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Western sycamore (Platanus 

racemosa), California bay (Umbellularia californica), Bigleaf maple 

(Acer macrophyllum), White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and California 

black walnut (Juglans californica). 



Non-native trees that provide nesting habitat or cover shall be 

preserved where appropriate. A “non-native protected tree” has a 

biological or ecological function (i.e., it provides nesting habitat or 

cover) and is at least six inches in diameter (largest diameter for nonround 

trunks) as measured 4.5 feet above level ground (or as 

measured on the uphill side where sloped). 

If it is determined by the County Planning & Development that tree 

removal cannot feasibly be avoided, removed trees shall be relocated 

or replaced onsite to the extent feasible provided the relocated or 

replaced trees can be accommodated in a location and manner that 

does not conflict with defensible space clearance requirements. 

Replacement for native trees should be propagated from onsite or 

nearby specimens. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The revised policy would be included in the final Mission 



Mitigation measure BIO-1 would continue the policy of protecting non-native trees with 

biological or ecological function and would mitigate the potential impact of replacing the 

Specific Plan policy with the Community Plan thus the impact is less than significant with 

mitigation (Class II). 

IMPACT BIO-2: Plan buildout could significantly impact environmentally sensitive plant 

communities and habitat. 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan (MCCP) anticipates plan buildout under existing primary 

zoning and land use designations. The impact analysis evaluates impacts of buildout of 157 

primary residential units on the baseline biological conditions (i.e., conditions on the ground at 

the time of the Notice of Preparation – June 2009). Buildout would occur according to policies 

and standards contained within the MCCP, which emphasize protection of natural habitats and 

sensitive biological resources. The MCCP also includes several policies and development 

standards that could have a beneficial effect on special status plant and animal communities as 

shown below. 

• A prohibition of most residential second units thus reducing additional development 

potential; 

• Mapping of approximately 217 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) and 

application of protective development standards; 

• Stringent standards for septic systems and best management practices to protect water 

quality; and 



• A lighting ordinance to reduce the impacts of outdoor artificial night lighting on sensitive 

species. 

While much of the residential buildout would occur in already developed urban neighborhoods, 

a portion of the residential buildout potential (approximately 68 of the 157 new residential 

units), would occur on parcels that contain special status plants and sensitive or rare natural 

communities which are proposed to be designated ESH. These habitats include oak, sycamore 

and arroyo willow riparian forests and woodlands and wetlands. Impacts to biological 

resources in these areas are expected within the building footprints for the residences and 

associated structures. 

Table 4.3-3 shows ESH vegetation in acres, percent of plan area proposed to be designated ESH, 

and acres of ESH on vacant and underdeveloped buildout parcels. Table 4.3-4 shows the 

percentage of ESH on vacant and underdeveloped parcels. In terms of potential disturbance to 

sensitive vegetation from buildout, many of the units may be able to avoid ESH but depending 

on the size of the parcel and the amount of ESH present, there may be unavoidable building 

envelope encroachment and disturbance to ESH and/or ESH buffers. Assuming 10,000 sf. of 

vegetation disturbance per unit 15 , at a worst case scenario there could be approximately 16 

acres of ESH habitat or buffer removal, or about 7% of total ESH. However, as shown in Table 

4.3-4, approximately half the parcels identified for buildout units have 0.1 to 49% ESH overlay 

on them and thus development may be able to completely avoid ESH and ESH buffers. 

Table 4.3- 3: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Acres 

ESH Vegetation Description Acres % of Plan Area Acres of ESH on 

Vacant and 

Central Coast Arroyo Willow 0.5 0.05 

Underdeveloped 

Parcels 

0 

Riparian Woodland 

Central/Southern Coast Live Oak 

Riparian Forest 

52.0 4.63 3.4 

Coast Live Oak Forest 28.1 2.51 11.8 

Coast Live Oak Olive Riparian 

Woodland 

3.4 0.30 0.8 

Coast Live Oak Woodland 94.5 8.42 31.5 

California Sycamore Riparian 47.7 4.26 16.9 

Forest 

Freshwater Marsh 0.7 0.06 0.4 

TOTAL 226.8 20.22 64.8 

Table 4.3- 4: Buildout Parcels and Percent ESH 

15 Including building footprint, defensible space clearance, and access driveways or roads. 



Vacant Buildout Parcels with Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Designation 

Number of 

Vacant Parcels 

with Buildout 

Potential 

Number of 

Buildout 

Units 

Total 

Acres of 

ESH 

Number of 

Parcels with 0.1 

- 49.9% ESH 

Number of 

Parcels with 50 - 

100% ESH 

34 38 28.8 14 20 

Underdeveloped Buildout Parcels with Proposed ESH Designation 

Number of Number of Total Number of Number of 

Underdeveloped Buildout Acres of Parcels with 0.1 Parcels with 50 - 

Parcels 

Buildout 

Potential 

with Units ESH - 49.9% ESH 100% ESH 

21 30 34.5 10 11 

The majority (76%) of the buildout parcels within proposed ESH overlay are in Upper Mission 

Canyon where development could result in an increase in the amount of the plan area that can 

only support species adapted to human occupation and disturbance. Additional development 

in these areas could also contribute to the conversion of native communities to those 

dominated by non-native species, and could also alter or interfere with existing corridors for 

species’ dispersal and habitat connectivity. The proposed Plan contains numerous policies and 

development standards that seek to prevent new development, remodels, and additions from 

impacting native habitats and ESH. Nevertheless, with the development of new primary 

residences, a reduction in the amount of native vegetation and environmentally sensitive 

habitats could occur. 

In terms of physical development, in addition to the building footprint, each proposed new unit 

would require at least 100 feet (or more depending on site-specific conditions) of defensible 

space around homes and structures. 16 To comply with this requirement, defensible spaces 

clearance is required by the County Fire Department prior to occupancy. The requirements for 

fuel modification are ongoing and include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that 

might grow into overhead power lines, certain ground and ladder fuels, and tree pruning. 

Depending on the size of the parcel and proposed development, the defensible space area may 

encroach into ESH and/or proposed buffers from ESH (generally 25 or 50 feet depending on 

habitat type). Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15304, Minor 

Alterations to Land, fuel management activities are exempt from CEQA provided that the 

activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare or threatened plant or animal species 

or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. The project does not increase the 

16 In 2005, the State Board of Forestry adopted provisions now contained in California Public Resources Code Section 4291 that 

require all structures on State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands to maintain 100 feet of defensible space. The County Fire 

Department is the authority having jurisdiction to ensure minimum defensible space is maintained within the unincorporated 

areas of the County located within both State and Local Responsibility areas. The 100-foot defensible space is a guideline; the 

Fire Department can require more distance when necessary. 



requirement for fuel modification beyond that already required by county and state 

regulations. Fuel modification for defensible space at any one parcel is not likely to create a 

significant loss of native habitat because it does not require complete removal of healthy native 

plants, only the reduction in plant biomass that contributes to a fire hazard and removal of 

dead and dying vegetation. 

Careful review of new development proposals in compliance with proposed policies and 

programs would reduce impacts but may not completely avoid the conversion of areas 

containing special status plant communities, or environmentally sensitive habitat, if, for 

example, such development were located entirely within ESH or ESH buffer Thus, 

implementation of the plan would result in a potentially significant impact, (Class I) to riparian 

habitats, woodlands and possibly other rare natural communities. 


MM-BIO-2.1: Incorporate proposed land use and biological resource goals, policies, 

development standards and actions (or functional equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon 


The following goals, policies and development standards are included in the proposed 

Community Plan and would decrease the potential biological resource impacts from buildout: 


Policy LU-MC-2: Residential second units shall be prohibited in the Mission Canyon Plan 

Area unless: 

• The project application involves two contiguous legal lots under 

one ownership, at least one of which is vacant; 

• The owner has submitted an offer to dedicate a Covenant of 

Easement over the vacant lot so long as a residential second unit is 

maintained on the developed lot; and 

• The vacant lot is otherwise residentially developable. 

GOAL BIO-MC-1: The native and created biological diversity of the Canyon is an 

important asset that shall be protected, preserved, and enhanced. 

Policy BIO-MC-1: Environmentally sensitive biological resources and habitat areas shall 

be protected and, where appropriate, enhanced. 

Policy BIO-MC-2: The following general criteria are used to determine which resources 

and habitats in the Mission Canyon plan area are identified as 

environmentally sensitive: 



• Unique, rare or fragile communities which should be preserved to 

ensure their survival in the future; 

• Habitats of rare and endangered species as protected by State 

and/or federal law; 

• Outstanding representative natural communities that have values 

ranging from particularly rich flora and fauna to an unusual 

diversity of species; 

• Specialized wildlife habitats which are vital to species survival; 

• Areas structurally important in protecting natural landforms that 

physically support species (e.g., riparian vegetation protecting 

stream banks from erosion, shading effects of tree canopies); 

• Critical connection between separate habitat areas and/or 

migratory species routes; and 

• Areas with outstanding educational values that should be 

protected for scientific research and educational uses now and in 

the future, the continued existence of which is demonstrated to be 

unlikely unless designated and protected. 

Policy BIO-MC-3: The following biological resources and habitats, as identified and 

generally described by the Plan shall be presumed to be 

“environmentally sensitive,” provided that the biological resource(s) or 

habitat(s) actually present on a project site satisfy one or more of the 

criteria listed in Policy BIO-MC-2. These resources and habitats shall 

be identified on a Mission Canyon Community Plan Environmentally 

Sensitive Habitat (ESH) Overlay Map to the extent that their general or 

specific locations are known: 


animal or plant species or rare natural communities; 


Woodland; 





• Native grasslands or other habitats with understory dominated by 

native grass species. 

The scale of the overlay map precludes complete accuracy in the 

mapping of habitat areas. In some cases, the precise location of 

habitat areas is not known and is therefore not mapped. In addition, 

the migration of species or discovery of new habitats may result in the 

designation of new areas, or site-specific reviews may indicate 



different habitat designations. As new information becomes available, 

Planning & Development will periodically update the boundaries of the 

designations. 

Action BIO-MC-1.1: The Land Use & Development Code shall be amended to include an 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat overlay district for the Mission 

Canyon area (ESH-MC). Location of biological resources/habitat areas 

shall be depicted on the ESH-MC overlay map. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.2: The process for delineating the exact boundary of the ESH occurs 

during an application for development. New areas of ESH that meet 

the criteria listed in Policy BIO-MC-2 and which are identified through 

the biological review process but are not currently mapped shall be 

considered ESH. Boundaries of mapped and unmapped ESH shall be 

confirmed on a site-specific basis by a County approved biologist based 

on a site visit during the permit review process, and shall be precisely 

shown on all development plans. 

DevStd BIO- MC-1.3 Development shall be required to include the following buffer areas 

from the boundaries of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH), unless 

it would preclude development of a parcel to such extent that an 

unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs: 


Woodland and California Sycamore Riparian Forest — 50 feet, as 

measured from the geologic top of creek bank. When this habitat 

extends beyond the geologic top of creek bank, the buffer shall 

extend an additional 25 feet from the outside edge of the Central 

and Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and California 

Sycamore Riparian Forest canopy. 


canopy. 



minimum, full extent to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

• Creeks and Steelhead critical habitat streams — 50 feet, as 

measured from the geologic top of creek bank. 

• Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest —50 feet, as 

measured from edge of riparian canopy. 

• Wetland Habitats —50 feet, as measured from edge of wetland 

habitat. 

• Buffer areas from other types of ESH shall be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 



These buffers areas may be adjusted upward or downward on a caseby-case 

basis given site specific conditions. Adjustment of the buffer 

shall be based on site-specific conditions such as slopes, biological 

resources, and erosion potential, as evaluated and determined by 

Planning & Development and other County agencies, such as 

Environmental Health Services and the Flood Control District. Buffer 

areas may be adjusted to avoid precluding development of a parcel to 

such extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.4: Where development cannot be sited to avoid ESH, development in ESH 

and ESH buffer areas shall be designed and carried out in a manner 

that protects the sensitive habitat areas to the maximum extent 

feasible without precluding development of a parcel to such extent 

that an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.5: Development proposed within areas zoned with the ESH-MC Overlay 

shall be subject to the applicable regulations and permit requirements 

contained in the County Zoning Ordinance ESH-MC Overlay 

regulations. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.6: Development shall be sited and designed at an appropriate scale (size 

of main structure footprint, size and number of accessory 

structures/uses, and total areas of paving, motor courts and 

landscaping) to avoid disruption and fragmentation of biological 

resources in ESH areas, avoid or minimize removal of significant native 

vegetation and trees, preserve wildlife corridors, and minimize fugitive 

lighting into ESH areas to the maximum extent feasible without 

precluding development of a parcel to such extent that an 

unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. Where appropriate, 

development envelopes and/or other mapping tools shall be used to 

protect the resources. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.7: For existing structures in any zone district located within designated 

ESH or ESH buffer areas, structural additions shall be designed to 

minimize ground disturbance to protect the ESH resource to the 

maximum extent feasible. Site design and appropriate scale of the 

addition shall conform to the following guidelines: 

1. Second-story additions should be encouraged as a design 

alternative to avoid ground disturbance, subject to approval by the 

South Board of Architectural Review and general compliance with 

the Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines. 



2. Where an existing structure is located only partially inside an ESH 

or ESH buffer area, dwelling unit additions should be located on 

those portions of the structure located outside or away from the 

ESH or ESH buffer area. 

3. Where the structural addition cannot avoid significant ESH, a 

biological assessment may be required to determine the location of 

the addition that will result in the least disruption to the ESH. 

4. Where the structural addition cannot avoid the ESH or ESH buffer 

areas, restoration or enhancement of the ESH resource may be 

required to offset the increased area of disturbance. Restoration or 

enhancement shall be contained in a Restoration Plan prepared by 

a County-approved biologist and approved by Planning and 

Development. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.8: New development on parcels entirely covered with ESH shall be subject 

to the following development standards. Development of a parcel shall 

not be precluded to an extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of 

property occurs: 




2. The main structure and accessory structures and uses, including 

roadways, landscaping, and agricultural uses, shall be clustered in 

one contiguous area to avoid fragmenting the habitat. 

3. Development shall be located adjacent to existing access roads and 

infrastructure to avoid fragmenting the habitat, subject to the 

requirements of “1” and “2” listed above. 

4. If impacts to ESH are greater than 0.5 acres, restoration shall be 

required at a 2:1 ratio. For parcels less than 0.5 acres, 

enhancement of adjacent ESH shall be required at a minimum 2:1 

ratio. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.9: All construction activity, including but not limited to staging areas, 

storage of equipment and building materials, and employee vehicles, 

shall avoid disturbance to the ESH and ESH buffer areas. 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.10: Public trails shall be sited and designed to avoid or minimize impacts to 

environmentally sensitive habitat, areas of steep slopes, and/or highly 



erosive soils. Proposed trail routes should be surveyed and re-routed 

where necessary to avoid sensitive species, subject to final approval by 

Planning and Development and the Parks Department. 

Policy BIO-MC-4: Fuel modification for defensible space shall adhere to standards and 

guidelines specified in the California Fire Code, County of Santa 

Barbara Fire Prevention Code, and Mission Canyon Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan, and their successors to the extent feasible and 

consistent with other provisions of this plan. 

DevStd BIO-MC-4.1: Vegetation clearance for fuel management within ESH shall maintain 

the habitat’s structural integrity and ecological functions that 

physically support species (i.e., stream bank stabilization, erosion 

control and water quality, shading effects of tree canopies). 

DevStd BIO-MC-4.2: Except for vegetation management plans approved by Santa Barbara 

County Fire Department, a Land Use Permit shall be required for the 

following activities: 


vegetation clearance for fuel management consistent with DevStd 

BIO-MC-2.1, along 50 linear feet or more of a creek bank or 

removal that, when added to the previous removal of native 

vegetation within the affected habitat on the site, would total 50 

or more linear feet of native vegetation along a creek bank. 

DevStd BIO-MC-4.3: To the extent feasible, fuel modification practices involving mature oak 

and other native trees shall be limited to removing dead trees and 

materials, proper pruning, mowing the understory, and limbing up the 

branches. Fuel modification practices shall not result in the removal or 

substantial risk of loss of, protected, mature, healthy oak and other 

native trees. 

Policy BIO-MC-5: Landscaping for development shall use appropriate plant species to 

ensure compatibility with and preservation of sensitive resources. 

Property owners are encouraged to remove existing non-native 

flammable or invasive exotic species and replace them with noninvasive, 

fire- resistant varieties. 

DevStd BIO-MC-5.1: Development requiring a landscape plan should use only non-invasive, 

fire resistant species (see firewise garden example species listed in 

Appendix E). Undesirable Plant Species listed in Appendix E shall not 

be included in any landscape plan for new development. 



Policy BIO-MC-6: Native trees shall be preserved where appropriate to the maximum 

extent feasible. A “native protected tree” is at least six inches in 

diameter (largest diameter for non-round trunks) as measured 4.5 feet 

above level ground (or as measured on the uphill side where sloped). 

Native trees found in Mission Canyon area include, but are not limited 

to: coastal live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Western sycamore (Platanus 

racemosa), California bay (Umbellularia californica), Bigleaf maple 

(Acer macrophyllum), White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and California 

black walnut (Juglans californica). If it is determined by Planning & 

Development that native tree removal cannot feasibly be avoided, 

removed trees shall be relocated or replaced onsite provided the 

relocated or replaced trees can be accommodated in a location and 

manner that does not conflict with defensible space clearance 

requirements. Replacement for native trees should be propagated 

from onsite or nearby specimens. 

Policy BIO-MC-7: Natural stream channels shall be maintained in an undisturbed state 

to the maximum extent feasible in order to protect water quality and 

banks from erosion, enhance wildlife passageways, and provide 

natural greenbelts. “Hardbank” channelization (e.g., use of concrete, 

riprap, gabion baskets) of stream channels shall be prohibited, except 

where necessary to protect existing structures. Where hardbank 

channelization is required, the material and design used shall be the 

least environmentally damaging alternative and site restoration on or 

adjacent to the stream channel shall be required, subject to a 

Restoration Plan. 

Policy BIO-MC-8: Native riparian vegetation shall be protected as part of a stream or 

creek development buffer. New development shall be setback a 

minimum fifty [50] feet from the geologic top of bank of any stream or 

creek. When the riparian habitat extends beyond the geologic top of 

bank, the buffer shall extend an additional 25 feet from the outside 

edge of the riparian canopy. Buffer areas may be adjusted upward or 

downward on a case-by-case basis given site-specific conditions. 

Adjustment of the buffer shall be based on site-specific conditions such 

as slopes, biological resources, and erosion potential, as evaluated and 

determined by Planning & Development and other County agencies, 

such as Environmental Health Services and the Flood Control District. 

Buffer areas may be adjusted to avoid precluding development of a 

parcel to such extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of property 

occurs. Public or privately initiated restoration of degraded riparian 

areas to their former state shall be encouraged. 



DevStd BIO-MC-8.1: The native riparian buffer area shall be indicated on all site and 

grading plans. All ground disturbance and vegetation removal shall be 

minimized in the buffer area to the maximum extent feasible, except 

for appropriate vegetation fuel modification for defensible space for 

existing development and public trails that would not adversely affect 

existing habitat. 

DevStd BIO-MC-8.2: When activities permitted in stream corridors would require removal of 

native riparian plants and non-native invasive species, 

revegetation/restoration with local native plants, obtained from seed 

and rootstock within as close proximity to the site as feasible shall be 

required. Native seed and rootstock shall come from as close as 

possible to the site within the Mission Creek watershed or , if not 

available, from within the South Coast (Gaviota to Rincon Creek) in 

order to protect local native plant genetics. 

The policies, development standards and actions listed above and contained in the draft plan 

will help to minimize impacts to biological resources. The following mitigation measures are 

recommended to increase the protection of environmentally sensitive habitats within the plan 

area. 

MM-BIO-2.2: Revise Environmentally Sensitive Habitat mapping 

The MCCP includes Figure 17, Vegetation and Habitats, which forms the basis for Figure 18, 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Overlay. The Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment 

prepared by Rincon Consultants revised the mapping to exclude some areas where 

development was prominent and to include some areas that had not been previously mapped. 

The amount of ESH mapped for this supplemental study totals 223.77 acres, and includes all 

habitats previously considered except for one small area of Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, 

which was changed to a new classification based on field verification. ESH also now includes 

Coast Live Oak-Olive Riparian Woodland because this habitat, dominated by coast live oaks with 

escaped ornamental olives in the understory, was determined to meet the ESH criteria. 

Accordingly, the draft Community Plan actions for ESH mapping shall be revised as follows 


Policy BIO-MC-3: The following biological resources and habitats, as identified and 

generally described by the Plan shall be presumed to be 

“environmentally sensitive,” provided that the biological resource(s) 

or habitat(s) actually present on a project site satisfy one or more of 

the criteria listed in Policy BIO-MC-2. These resources and habitats 

shall be identified on a Mission Canyon Community Plan 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) Overlay Map to the extent 

that their general or specific locations are known: 




animal or plant species or rare natural communities; 


Woodland; 



• Coast Live Oak/Olive Riparian Woodland 



• Native grasslands or other habitats with understory dominated by 

native grass species. 

The scale of the overlay map precludes complete accuracy in the 

mapping of habitat areas. In some cases, the precise location of 

habitat areas is not known and is therefore not mapped. In addition, 

the migration of species or discovery of new habitats may result in the 

designation of new areas, or site-specific reviews may indicate 

different habitat designations. As new information becomes available, 

Planning & Development will periodically update the boundaries of 

the designations. Where proposed development could impact 

environmentally sensitive habitat present on site, a biological report, 

prepared by a County approved biologist shall be required. The report 

shall follow the County’s and CDFG’s most current guidelines as 

determined by Planning & Development. 

Action BIO-MC-1.1: The Land Use & Development Code shall be amended to include an 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat overlay district for the Mission 

Canyon area (ESH-MC). Location of biological resources/habitat areas 

shall be depicted on the ESH-MC overlay map as amended by the July 

2009 Mission Canyon Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment. 

MM-BIO-2.3: C l a r i f y p e r m i t r e q ui r e m e n ts fo r vegetation removal i n d e s i g n a t e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y 

sensitive habitat. 

Draft Mission Canyon Community Plan Development Standard BIO-MC-2.2 and proposed LUDC 

ordinance amendments for the Mission Canyon Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Overlay Zone 

includes a list of activities that require a Land Use Permit, including vegetation removal along 

creek banks, unless proposed as part of a vegetation management plan approved by the County 

Fire Department. For new structures, as part of the permit application process, the County Fire 

Department requires defensible space inspection and approval prior to final occupancy. New 

structures within or near sensitive habitat would also be subject to setbacks and other 

development standards to minimize impacts to sensitive vegetation to the extent feasible. 



For existing buildings and structures, a property owner is not currently required to secure a 

permit or develop a vegetation management plan to comply with defensible space 

requirements. Rather, the Fire Department conducts annual visual inspections of each property 

and then notifies property owners who have failed to create or maintain defensible space, with 

follow up enforcement and administrative fines for those who do not comply. 

While the standard and ordinance amendments were intended to protect sensitive habitat with 

exemptions for fuel management to comply with the required defensible space regulations, as 

written they do not clarify what types of fuel modification activities would qualify for an 

exemption from permit requirements. In addition, the removal of mature native trees, which 

could potentially have the greatest impact on sensitive riparian habitat and creeks, would 

currently not trigger permit review. 

The intent of the proposed mitigation measure is to provide for property owner ongoing 

compliance with State and local Defensible Space laws while clarifying what activities qualify for 

a permit exemption. Exempt activities would include selective limbing, thinning, pruning and 

mowing of vegetation but not complete removal of native plants and roots. The proposed 

definitions will clarify the types of vegetation management actions and equipment use would 

qualify for a permit exemption as well as providing criteria for permitting regulations. Overall, 

the amendments are proposed to maintain sensitive habitat’s structural integrity and ecological 

function such as stream bank stabilization, erosion control, shade and water quality by 

protecting mature native trees and riparian and understory vegetation. Lastly, the mitigation 

measure would change the development standard to an action to amend the zoning ordinance 

to appropriately implement Community Plan policy within the Mission Canyon Community Plan 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat overlay section of the Land Use and Development Code. 

Therefore, the development standard shall be deleted and a new action shall be proposed as 

follows (deletions strike through, additions underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-2.2: Except for vegetation management plans approved by Santa Barbara 

County Fire Department, a Land Use Permit shall be required for the 

following activities: 


vegetation clearance for fuel management consistent with DevStd 

BIO-MC-2.1, along 50 liner feet or more of a creek bank or removal 

that, when added to the previous removal of native vegetation within 

the affected habitat on the site, would total 50 or more linear feet of 

native vegetation along a creek bank. 

Action BIO-MC-4.2: Amend the zoning ordinance to: 1) regulate and provide criteria for 

the removal of vegetation and mature native trees in designated 

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat areas and 2) identify activities that 

are exempt from permits, in addition to other existing permit review 

provisions and policy. 



1. The intent of the exemptions is to allow for compliance with State 

and local Defensible Space laws while protecting environmentally 

sensitive habitat. Exempted activities shall not involve any grading 

or use of heavy equipment within riparian areas. Exempt activities 

include: 

• Removal of non-native trees or immature native trees. 

• Removal of surface debris. 

• Removal of exotic or invasive species as shown on a Countyapproved 

list. 

• Removal of vegetation in non-riparian oak woodland or forest 

within the minimum Defensible Space area from permitted or nonconforming 

buildings or other structures as defined in the 

ordinance. 

• Selective limbing of mature trees for required Defensible Space as 

defined in the ordinance. 

• Thinning, pruning or mowing of vegetation (except trees) to no 

less than that required to meet fuel modification criteria (in no 

case less than a 4 inch stubble) and leaving the roots intact. 

2. A Land Use Permit shall be required for: 

• Removal of mature native trees. 

• Removal of riparian vegetation. 

• Removal of oak woodland or forest understory vegetation not within 

the minimum area of Defensible Space as defined in the ordinance. 

3. A Minor Conditional Use Permit shall be required for: 

• Removal of riparian vegetation for a distance of 500 feet or more 

along a creek that disturbs the habitat. 

• Removal of 1 acre or more of vegetation within an oak woodland or 

forest habitat, exclusive of the minimum area required for Defensible 

Space, as defined in the ordinance. 

4. The amendment shall include the following definitions: Riparian 

Vegetation, Mature Native Tree, Defensible Space, Fuel Modification, 

Limbing, Heavy Equipment and Vegetation Removal. 

LUDC Ordinance Addition: Amend the Mission Canyon Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 

Overlay Zone permit and processing requirements as initiated to clarify intent and terminology 

for Land Use Permits for native vegetation removal. 



MM-BIO-2.4: Increase riparian habitat buffer. 

Per County Code Chapter 15B and proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan policy, the 

standard creek setback is 50 feet from geologic top of bank of any watercourse. In addition, the 

draft Community Plan contains environmentally sensitive habitat buffer policies to extend the 

setback as needed to further protect sensitive resources. For example, when the riparian 

habitat extends beyond top of bank, an additional 25 feet from the outside edge of the riparian 

canopy is required although it may be adjusted upward or downward on a case-by-case basis. 

The process for determining the exact boundary of the environmentally sensitive habitat and 

appropriate creek and riparian habitat setbacks occurs during an application for development. 

The planner requests a site visit by the County biologist during the permit review process to 

confirm the boundary of mapped and unmapped ESH and the appropriate buffer area needed 

to protect the habitat. 

Mitigation is proposed to increase the required riparian habitat buffer from 25 to 50 feet from 

outside edge of the riparian habitat. This would provide additional protection to sensitive creek 

habitat by providing: 1) at least a 50 foot setback from top of bank and 2) the potential for an 

additional 50 foot setback from the creek where the riparian habitat extends beyond top of 

bank, as well as providing the additional buffer for required defensible space clearance from 

buildings and structures. In accordance with the County’s Defensible Space Standards, the first 

30 feet radius (zone 1) from the structure is where vegetation must be well maintained; large 

trees or other vegetation may be retained but plants should be low growing, irrigated plants. In 

the 70 foot zone (zone 2), vegetation is retained but spaced to reduce plant-to-plant, plant-totree, 

and tree-to-tree transfer. If the buffer is increased to 50 feet from the edge of riparian 

habitat, then fuel modification activities within zone 1, as well as other impacts of 

development, would occur further from the creek zone and riparian habitat. Also, this 

amendment would align the Mission Canyon Community Plan riparian setback policy with the 

already existing policies for similar urban areas in the Toro Canyon Area Plan and the Goleta 


The draft Community Plan development standards and policy for riparian habitat buffers shall 

be revised as follows (deletions struck through, additions underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.3: Development shall be required to include the following buffer areas 

from the boundaries of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH), 

unless it would preclude development of a parcel to such extent that 

an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs: 

• Creeks and Steelhead critical habitat streams — 50 feet from the 

geologic top of creek bank. 


Woodland, Coast Live Oak/Olive Riparian Woodland, California 

Sycamore Riparian Forest and Central Coast Arroyo Willow 



Riparian Forest — 50 feet, as measured from the geologic top of 

creek bank. When this habitat extends beyond the geologic top of 

creek bank, the buffer shall extend an additional 25 50 feet from 

the outside edge of the Central and Southern Coast Live Oak 

Riparian Forest and California Sycamore Riparian Forest canopy. 


canopy. 



minimum, full extent to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

• Wetland Habitats —50 feet from edge of wetland habitat. 

• Buffer areas from other types of ESH shall be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 

These buffers areas may be adjusted upward or downward on a caseby-case 

basis given site specific conditions. Adjustment of the buffer 

shall be based on site-specific conditions such as slopes, biological 

resources, and erosion potential, as evaluated and determined by 

Planning & Development and other the County agencies, such as 

Environmental Health Services and the Flood Control District. Buffer 

areas may be adjusted to avoid precluding development of a parcel to 

such extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. 

DevStd BIO-MC-4.1: Vegetation clearance for fuel management Fuel modification for 

defensible space within ESH and ESH buffers shall maintain the 

habitat’s structural integrity and ecological functions that physically 

support species (i.e., stream bank stabilization, erosion control and 

water quality, shading effects of tree canopies). 

Policy BIO-MC-8: Native riparian vegetation, including trees, shall be protected as part 

of a stream or creek development buffer. New Development shall be 

setback a minimum of fifty [50] feet from the geologic top of bank of 

any stream or creek or outside edge of riparian vegetation, whichever 

is greater. When the riparian habitat extends beyond the geologic top 

of bank, the buffer shall extend an additional 25 feet from the outside 

edge of the riparian canopy. Buffer areas may be adjusted upward or 

downward on a case-by-case basis given site-specific conditions 

Adjustment of the buffer shall be based on site-specific conditions 

such as slopes, biological resources, and erosion potential, as 

evaluated and determined by the County. Planning & Development 

and other County agencies, such as Environmental Health Services and 

the Flood Control District. Buffer areas may be adjusted to avoid 

precluding reasonable primary use development of a parcel to such 

extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. Public 



or privately initiated restoration of degraded riparian areas to their 

former state shall be encouraged. 

MM-BIO-2.5: Revise Development Standard for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat areas. 

A revision to the draft Community Plan development standard for ESH is proposed to improve 

protection of sensitive habitat and natural communities by clarifying standards for 

development on parcels entirely within ESH. The draft Community Plan development standard 

shall be revised as follows (deletions struck through, additions underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-1.8: New development on parcels entirely covered with ESH shall be 

subject to the following development standards. Development of a 

parcel shall not be precluded to an extent that an unconstitutional 

deprivation of property occurs: 




1.The main structure and accessory structures All permitted 

development and uses, including structures, roadways, 

landscaping, and agricultural uses, shall be clustered in one 

contiguous area to avoid fragmenting the habitat. 

2. Development shall be located adjacent to existing access roads 

and infrastructure to avoid fragmenting the habitat., subject to the 

requirements of “1” and “2” listed above. 

3. If impacts to ESH are greater than 0.5 acres, restoration of 

degraded native habitat shall be required at a 2:1 ratio. For parcels 

impacts less than 0.5 acres, enhancement (e.g., invasive species 

removal) of on-site adjacent ESH shall be required at a minimum 

2:1 ratio. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed and revised policies, development standards and 

actions would be included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 


Implementation of the above policies, development standards and actions, as required by the 

proposed Community Plan, would reduce biological resources impacts. Mitigation Measure 2.1 

would adopt policies and development standards protective of biological resources, 2.2 would 

result in additional acreage of ESH and require biological reports for projects potentially 

impacting ESH. MM 2.3 would clarify procedures and permit exemptions for vegetation 



removal in sensitive riparian habitat, MM 2.4 would increase riparian habitat setbacks from 25 

to 50 feet to buffer creeks from development impacts such as noise and lighting and potentially 

reduce sensitive vegetation loss, including that from fuel modification for defensible space and 

MM 2.5 would clarify a development standard to potentially reduce impacts to ESH. However, 

under a reasonable worst-case scenario, project impacts to sensitive plant communities and 

habitat would not be fully mitigated and would remain Class I, significant and unavoidable 

impact. 

IMPACT BIO-3: Buildout of the plan area could introduce invasive plant species into sensitive 

habitat areas. 

Native habitat is vulnerable to the introduction of invasive plants, particularly if they are used in 

adjacent ornamental landscaping. Construction often results in disturbed soils, which provide 

resting places for wind-blown seed from invasive plants, especially if these areas are not 

immediately planted. Invasive ornamentals can increase fire fuel loads, clog creeks, and 

significantly degrade wildlife habitat. Buildout of the plan area would include additional 

grading, clearing of native vegetation, construction of residential units, and installation of 

ornamental landscaping in areas in and adjacent to riparian habitat and woodlands. Riparian 

areas of high quality could be negatively impacted by the introduction of invasive plants into 

areas where they did not previously exist. The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan includes 

Development Standard BIO-MC-3.1 that prohibits undesirable plant species as included in 

Appendix F in any landscape plan for new development, but this list is limited to highly 

flammable species and does not include plant species that can impact natural areas, sometimes 

called “wildland weeds”. Thus, implementation of the plan would result in a potentially 

significant but mitigable impact, (Class II) to sensitive habitat areas. 


The following mitigation measure is required to reduce the potential impact of introducing 

invasive plant species into native habitat. 

MM-BIO-3: Revise Development Standard for landscaping. 

The plan includes provisions for reducing impacts of human activities on sensitive resources but 

more specificity is needed to ensure invasive plant species are not included in landscape plans. 

The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan development standard shall be revised as follows 


DevStd BIO-MC-5.1: Development requiring a landscape plan should primarily use noninvasive, 

fire resistant species (see firewise garden examples listed in 

Appendix E). Plants listed on the most recent California Invasive Plant 

Council (Cal IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory and Undesirable Plant 

Species listed in Appendix E shall not be included in any landscape 

plan for development. 



Plan Requirements and Timing: The revised development standard would be included in the 



Other plan policies and standards would require restoration of graded sites. These policies, in 

addition to the above mitigation revising the development standard for invasive plants, would 

reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant (Class II). 

IMPACT BIO-4: Buildout of the plan area could directly and indirectly impact Southern 

California steelhead trout and other aquatic species habitat. 

Of the twenty listed special status animal species in the plan area, the Southern California 

steelhead trout is the only one with designated critical habitat (Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks) 

and previous surveys have documented occurrences of steelhead in both Mission and 

Rattlesnake Creeks. 

Rattlesnake Creek contains high quality habitat conditions for steelhead from its confluence 

with Mission Creek just downstream of a boulder cascade, extending upstream beyond the 

eastern plan area boundary. Mission Creek also contains moderate to high quality steelhead 

habitat within the plan area. High to extremely high quality habitat conditions exist in the 

upper watershed (outside and north of the plan area) but steelhead have not been observed in 

recent history upstream of a natural boulder cascade 25 feet upstream from its confluence with 

Rattlesnake Creek. As noted earlier in this section, several manmade barriers exist downstream 

of the plan area that impede or prevent access to moderate to high quality habitat that exists 

upstream of the cascade barrier. 

Regardless, potential direct and indirect impacts to steelhead habitat could occur. Indirect 

impacts would include construction activities that could introduce sediment and storm water 

pollutant runoff, including insecticides and herbicides, to creeks. Fire results in erosion of 

burned slopes and this can result in significant amounts of sediment. Groundwater extraction 

can eliminate surface flow and de-water pools in drainages (NMFS, NOAA 2009). Certain 

pesticides (which include insecticides and herbicides) are known to result in decreased 

biodiversity in aquatic communities (Relyea 2005), and it is believed that this is due to direct 

toxicity. Herbicide risk assessments specific to steelhead have been conducted by the U.S. EPA 

(Turner 1993a, 1993b), with results varying based on the specific herbicide and its location of 

use (e.g., irrigation canals, roads rights-of-way, citrus groves). Use of herbicides to selectively 

remove invasive exotic plants along creek corridors could result in adverse impacts to fish and 

wildlife. 

Direct impacts would include direct removal of riparian vegetation and/or construction 

activities directly in a creek corridor. Road density, including roads in close proximity to creeks, 

and passage barriers, consistently rank as “Severe to Very Severe” threat sources. Plan impacts 



to steelhead habitat would be Class II, potentially significant and mitigable. The following 

mitigation measures would reduce these impacts. 


MM-BIO-4.1: Incorporate proposed biological policy and development standards (or 

functional equivalent) from the draft Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon 


The following policy and development standards are included in the proposed draft Community 

Plan and would decrease the potential for impacts to steelhead trout and other species that are 

dependent on stream corridor habitat: 


DevStd BIO-MC-8.3: No structures shall be located within a stream corridor except: public 

trails that would not adversely affect existing habitat, flood control 

projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in 

the floodplain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for 

public safety or to protect existing development, and other 

development where the primary function is for the improvement of fish 

and wildlife habitat. All development shall incorporate the best 

mitigation measures feasible to minimize the negative impact to the 

greatest extent. 

Policy BIO-MC-9: Southern California steelhead trout is a federally listed endangered 

species which, if identified in the plan area, shall be protected. 

DevStd BIO-MC-9.1: Development activity that requires ground disturbance on parcels 

containing ephemeral (dry except during and immediately after 

rainfall) or intermittent (seasonal) streams and creeks, and associated 

riparian vegetation shall be subject to all applicable permit 

requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

DevStd BIO-MC-9.2: Stream crossing projects shall refer to the “Guidelines for Salmonid 

Passage at Stream Crossing”, or its successor, prepared by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (see Appendix F). Projects that 

require creek and riparian habitat restoration shall also refer to the 

California Department of Fish and Game “California Salmonid Stream 

Habitat Restoration Manual”, or its successor, for project design and 

implementation methods. 



Indirect Impacts from Construction Activities 

The Water Resources Section 4.11 of this EIR contains mitigation measures to minimize water 

quality impacts from short term construction activities including erosion control measures and 

sedimentation traps to minimize the erosion of soils and movement of sediment into natural 

and man-made drainages. Similarly, long-term water quality impacts from storm water 

pollutants are addressed in mitigation measures requiring best management practices and low 

impact development measures to reduce the volume, rate and duration of storm water runoff. 

Compliance with existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit 

requirements, the County’s Grading Code and implementation of the Community Plan policies 

and development standards would reduce short- and long-term water quality impacts to 

steelhead habitat to less than significant levels. 

MM-BIO-4.2: Revise draft Mission Canyon Community Plan policy and development 

standards for activities permitted in stream corridors to provide enhanced protection of 

steelhead habitat. 

Indirect Impacts from Herbicide Use 

Certain activities permitted in stream corridors, such as habitat restoration, flood management 

or fuel modification to reduce fire hazards, may include herbicide use to remove exotic invasive 

plants. An amendment is proposed to development standard BIO-MC-6.2 to minimize the 

potential indirect impact to aquatic species of herbicide use in stream corridors. 

Mission Canyon Community Plan draft development standard BIO-MC-6.2 shall be 

amended as follows (additions underlined): 

DevStd BIO-MC-8.2: When activities permitted in stream corridors would require removal 

of native riparian plants and non-native invasive species, no herbicide 

use shall occur within a 15-foot wide exclusion zone at the top of 

creek bank, on the creek bank, or in the creek bed. Herbicide use in 

the creek channel shall be approved by CDFG, and shall be of materials 

approved for aquatic use and conducted in accordance with a site 

specific revegetation/restoration plan prepared in consultation with a 

County approved biologist. Revegetation/restoration with local native 

plants, obtained from seed and rootstock within as close proximity to 

the site as feasible shall be required. Native seed and rootstock shall 

come from as close as possible to the site within the Mission Creek 

watershed, or, if not available, from within the South Coast (Gaviota to 

Rincon Creek) in order to protect local native plant genetics. 



Direct Impacts to Stream Corridors 

While it is the policy of the Community Plan to protect steelhead trout, more specificity is 

needed for activities in stream corridors and a biological assessment should be conducted for 

any activity in stream corridors to ensure there is no impact on identified steelhead habitat. 

Mission Canyon Community Plan policy and draft development standards shall be revised as 

follows (deletions struck through, additions underlined): 

Policy BIO-MC-7: Natural stream channels corridors shall be maintained in an 

undisturbed state to the maximum extent feasible in order to protect 

water quality and banks from erosion, enhance wildlife passageways, 

and provide natural greenbelts. “Hardbank” channelization (e.g., use 

of concrete, riprap, gabion baskets) of stream channels or corridors 

shall be prohibited, except where it has been demonstrated that no 

other method for protecting existing habitable structures or 

infrastructure in the floodplain is feasible and where such protection is 

necessary for public safety or to necessary to protect existing 

habitable structures (existing habitable structures and infrastructure 

shall be as of the Community Plan adoption date). Where hardbank 

channelization is required, the material and design used shall be the 

least environmentally damaging alternative and site restoration on or 

adjacent to the stream channel shall be required, subject to a 

Restoration Plan. 

DevStd BIO-MC-8.3: No structures shall be located within a stream corridor except: public 

trails that would not adversely affect existing habitat, flood control 

projects where no other method for protecting existing habitable 

structures in the floodplain is feasible and where such protection is 

necessary for public safety or to protect existing habitable structures 

development (existing habitable structures shall be as of the 

Community Plan adoption date), and other development where the 

primary function is for the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 

All Development within a stream corridor shall require a biological 

assessment prepared by a County approved biologist with steelhead 

experience according to current County and/or CDFG guidelines and 

shall otherwise incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible to 

minimize the any negative impacts to the greatest extent. 

DevStd BIO-MC-9.1 Development activity involving road construction, bridge construction, 

bridge replacement, streambank restoration, and/or culvert removal 

or installation that requires ground disturbance in or within 250 feet 

of ephemeral (dry except during and immediately after rainfall), or 

intermittent (seasonal) or perennial streams and creeks, and 

associated riparian vegetation shall require a biological assessment 



prepared by a County approved biologist with steelhead experience 

according to current County and/or CDFG guidelines and shall be 

subject to all applicable permit requirements of the California 

Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Improvements for Steelhead Passage 

The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan does not include standards to improve fish passage 

in the event that existing manmade barriers to fish passage are modified and/or downstream 

barriers (outside the plan area) are removed. Thus, the draft Community Plan should be 

revised to include a new development standard and actions to address fish passage concerns. 

MM-BIO-4.3: Add fish passage measures to the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

The draft plan shall be revised to include the following additional development standard and 

actions (additions underlined). 

DevStd BIO-MC-9.3: Any modification (i.e., reconstruction of existing bridges or in-stream 

aprons) to existing (as of Community Plan adoption date) manmade 

barriers to fish passage (as identified in the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment) shall 

include improvements to allow enhanced fish passage in accordance 

with all applicable permit requirements of the California Department 

of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

Action BIO-MC-9.4: As fish passage restoration projects are completed downstream of the 

plan area, the County should coordinate with the City of Santa Barbara 

and other appropriate entities and seek funding to create and 

implement plans to restore fish passage within the upstream reaches 

of Mission and Rattlesnake Creek where feasible. 

Action BIO-MC-9.5: Development proposals that include rezones, major conditional use 

permits, subdivisions, or development plans and that could have 

significant impacts on steelhead habitat shall, in addition to required 

mitigation, contribute funding to a study of off-site fish passage 

barrier removal in Mission Canyon. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed and revised policy, development standards and 

actions would be included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 




The proposed Plan contains numerous policies and development standards that seek to prevent 

new development from impacting native habitats and special status species. Careful review of 

new development proposals to ensure consistency with existing and proposed policies and 

programs as specified above would likely reduce impacts to steelhead habitat and impacts are 

less than significant with mitigation (Class II). 

IMPACT BIO-5: Buildout of the plan area could directly and indirectly impact Special Status 

animal and plant species and habitats. 

Special Status Animals 

Twenty special status animal species occur or potentially could occur in the plan area (Appendix 

E). Of these, 4 are federally listed as threatened or endangered. These species include the 

Least Bell’s vireo, California red-legged frog, southern steelhead (discussed above), and arroyo 

toad. Least Bell’s vireo is not likely to be affected because its closest known distribution is on 

the upper Santa Ynez River area and it has a low potential to occur in the plan area. California 

Red-Legged Frog is not likely to be affected because the closest known location, Montecito 

Creek, is more than 3 miles away, and pond breeding habitat is not typically present in the 

steep reaches of Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks. Arroyo toad is not likely to be affected 

because it typically occupies dry sandy stream beds in the interior of the County rather than the 

coastal streams that occur in the plan area. Of the listed species, the southern steelhead has a 

moderate potential to occur in the plan area, there is currently designated critical habitat for 

this species on Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks and previous surveys have documented 

occurrences of steelhead within the plan area. 

Two species are listed by the State as threatened or endangered species, including the Least 

Bell’s vireo (mentioned above) and the bank swallow. The bank swallow would not be affected 

because suitable habitat (i.e., vertical, eroding river banks) is not present in the plan area and it 

is no longer breeding in Santa Barbara County. 

Other special-status species included in the list of California Department of Fish and Game 

Species of Special Concern have a moderate to high potential to occur in the plan area including 

coast horned lizard, southwestern pond turtle, two-striped garter snake, Allen’s hummingbird, 

and hoary bat. Cooper’s hawk, oak titmouse, yellow warbler, and Nuttall’s woodpecker have 

recent documented occurrences in the plan area. Impacts to the special status animals include 

direct and indirect impacts over short-and long-term periods. Overall, buildout and the 

implementation of the plan would result in some loss of habitat and continued fragmentation. 

Direct mortality due to construction activities can occur through grading that would kill 

subterranean or less mobile species, as well as vehicular strikes due to increased traffic levels. 

Indirect impacts during construction include noise and other disturbance that could interrupt 

breeding, foraging and nesting activities. Conversion of undeveloped areas to residential would 

result in the long-term loss of wildlife corridors and suitable habitat areas. Most of the special 



status animal species that can occur in the plan area are not able to utilize areas that are 

converted to these types of land uses. Long-term direct impacts of the Plan include increased 

mortality due to vehicle strikes from increased traffic levels, and predation from domestic dogs 

and cats or animals associated with human occupation such as raccoons. Long-term indirect 

impacts include interference with critical behaviors such as nesting, breeding and foraging due 

to human activity, excessive night lighting, and rodenticide use. Research on insects, turtles, 

birds, fish, reptiles, and other wildlife species shows that light pollution can alter behaviors, 

foraging areas, and breeding cycles (Chepesiuk 2009). 

Wildlife corridors have not been specifically identified in the plan area but even in urban areas, 

drainages and riparian areas are generally regarded as providing safe corridors for wildlife 

movement. Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks, which retain their natural character from the top 

of the canyon to the vicinity of Rocky Nook Park, can facilitate the movement of wildlife, 

especially for birds and mammals. It should be noted that animal movements, especially large 

mammals such as deer and coyote, are not confined to riparian areas and drainages. The 

habitat resources of the Botanic Garden and surrounding area, and Las Canoas Creek tributary 

drainage to the east are important in local movement and migration (Envicom 2009). Further 

buildout of the plan area has the potential to disrupt existing wildlife corridors, particularly if 

projects were to substantially disrupt wildlife habitat. 

Special Status Plants 

Thirty special status plant species occur or potentially in the plan area. Of the 30 species, the 

Santa Ynez false lupine is listed by the state as rare, the remaining are listed by the California 

Native Plant Society or in Santa Barbara Botanic Garden List of Species of Local Concern. The 

three special status plant species observed during the biological resources survey include: 

• Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa – CNPS List 1B.1) 

• Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata – CNPS List 1B.2) 

• Southern California black walnut (Juglans California – CNPS List 4.2) 

About 40% of listed plants have a low potential to occur in the plan area due to lack of suitable 

habitat or the closest documented localities are outside the plan area. Other species have prior 

documented occurrences in the plan area but were not located during the field surveys. Many 

occurrences of special status plant species were likely burned in the Jesusita Fire. Recovery of 

special status plant species known or documented within the plan area would be expected for 

species such as Santa Barbara honeysuckle, Hoffman’s sanicula, Fish’s milkwort, Santa Barbara 

bedstraw, Plummer’s baccharis, and bitter gooseberry. 

Direct mortality of special status plants could occur with grading and construction and clearing 

of vegetation for fire protection. Indirect impacts to habitat could occur by landscaping with 

invasive plants. 

The proposed Plan contains numerous policies and development standards that seek to prevent 

new development from impacting native habitats and special status species. Careful review of 



new development proposals to ensure consistency with existing and proposed policies and 

programs would reduce impacts to special status species. Plan impacts to sensitive wildlife and 

plant species would be Class I, potentially significant. 


MM-BIO-5.1: Incorporate proposed visual resource policy and development standard (or 

functional equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission 


The proposed draft Mission Canyon Community Plan policies and development standards 

enumerated above for impact BIO 1 and 3 would also serve to minimize impacts to sensitive 

wildlife species. In addition, the Visual and Aesthetic Resources section of the draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan includes the following policy and development standard for outdoor 

lighting. The new outdoor lighting ordinance is intended to preserve and protect the nighttime 

environment of Mission Canyon by regulating unnecessary and excessive outdoor lighting. The 

new requirement for fully shielded outdoor lighting would reduce the impacts of excessive 

night lighting on sensitive species. 


Policy VIS-MC-2: The night sky of Mission Canyon shall be protected from excessive and 

unnecessary light associated with new development and 

redevelopment. 

DevStd VIS-MC-2.1: All new development and redevelopment in the plan area shall be 

subject to the requirements of the Mission Canyon Outdoor Lighting 

Ordinance. 

While the draft Community Plan includes numerous policies and development standards to 

protect environmentally sensitive habitat, water quality, and steelhead habitat, additional 

measures should be included to ensure that development does not significantly impact wildlife 

corridors and nesting migratory birds. 

MM-BIO-5.2: Require a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for projects that affect Special Status 

species and nesting birds. 

The following policy and development standard shall be added to the final Mission Canyon 

Community Plan to minimize impacts to special status animals and nesting birds protected 

under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act (additions underlined): 

Policy BIO-MC-11: Development shall include provisions to minimize impacts to special 

status animals and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (MBTA). 



DevStd BIO-MC-11.1: When special status animal species are found on or near a site during 

biological review for projects, or if the project may affect nesting birds 

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the applicant 

shall submit to the County a mitigation and monitoring plan that 

details protections to be implemented for identified species during 

project construction and development. The plan shall include 

compensatory habitat mitigation, if applicable. The mitigation plan 

shall contain the following elements: 

• Pre-construction surveys (including nesting bird surveys); 

• Project avoidance and/or minimization measures, including work 

window restrictions; 

• Methods to avoid individuals and allow them to leave the site on 

their own, along with exclusionary measures to prevent individuals 

from returning to the work area. If avoidance does not work, 

include a species removal and relocation plan in compliance with 

the federal Endangered Species Act and California Fish and Game 

Code for the handling and relocation of listed species; 

• Worker environmental training; 

• On-site biological monitoring; 

• Habitat protective measures, such as buffer area fencing, spill 

prevention, sedimentation and erosion control measures, and 

trash containment guidelines; 

• Minimization measures to avoid the introduction and 

establishment of non-native species; 

• Revegetation plans for temporary impacts to significant habitat 

areas using native species; and 

• A compensatory mitigation (on- or off-site habitat preservation, 

enhancement or creation) plan, if the County determines that 

significant habitat areas used by special status animal species will 

permanently be impacted. 

MM-BIO-5.3: Include new action and development standard for protection of wildlife 

corridors. 

The following action and development standard shall be added to the final Mission Canyon 

Community Plan (additions underlined): 

Action BIO-MC-10.1: If a wildlife corridor is identified in the plan area by a County approved 

biologist during the biological review process, it shall be indicated on 

all development plans. Planning and Development should develop 

and maintain a database of known wildlife corridors in the plan area. 



DevStd BIO-MC-10.2: Development shall not interrupt major wildlife travel corridors and 

linkages. Typical wildlife corridors include, but are not limited to, 

riparian habitats, streams and floodplains, and unfragmented areas of 

grassland and oak woodland. 

MM-BIO-5.4: Include a policy to address Special Status Animal and Plant Species surveys and 

mitigation. 

The draft plan does not contain provisions for animal Species of Special Concern that are listed 

by the state. The following policy shall be added to the final Mission Canyon Community Plan 


Policy BIO-MC-10: Where sensitive plant species and sensitive animal species are found 

pursuant to the review of a discretionary project, efforts shall be made 

to preserve the habitat in which they are located to the maximum 

extent feasible. For the purpose of this policy, sensitive plant species 

are those species that are officially listed under the State or Federal 

Endangered Species Act, Native Plant Protection Act, and the 

California Fish and Game Code, or those that appear on List 1B of the 

California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Endangered Vascular 

Plants of California. Additional species of local concern may be 

considered if the biological report indicates such is warranted. 

Sensitive animal species are those listed as endangered, threatened, 

or candidate species by the California Department of Fish and Game 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and those considered to be 

Species of Special Concern (CSC) by the CDFG pursuant to the most 

recent statewide list maintained by that agency. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: These proposed and new development standards, policies, 

and actions would be included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 


Plan policies and development standards requiring protection of riparian vegetation and 

natural stream channels would help reduce these impacts. In addition, MM 5.2 would require a 

Mitigation Monitoring Plan including avoidance of special status species and worker training 

during construction of development projects, which would reduce impacts. MM 5.3 would add 

protection for wildlife linkages, and MM 5.4 would add a specific policy requiring preservation 

of habitat for special status species that are found pursuant to the review of discretionary 

projects. These measures would help to minimize impacts, but impacts would remain 

significant (Class I). 



IMPACT BIO-6: Cumulative impacts on biological resources. 

This assessment of the significance of the cumulative impacts to biological resources is based 

upon: 

• The cumulative contribution of the impacts from other approved and proposed 

development to biological resources in general in the plan area vicinity; 

• The loss of special status habitats and species; 

• Fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats and plant and animal populations within 

the plan area by future projects in the vicinity. 

Impacts of the plan, including buildout, would be combined with cumulative impacts resulting 

from development contemplated within the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden as well as relevant 

projects in the adjacent areas within the City of Santa Barbara’s jurisdiction. 

Regarding discretionary projects (3 or more units/lots) approved or pending within the City of 

Santa Barbara, none are in areas of significant biological resources and no cumulative impacts 

are anticipated. 

Project impacts for the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan include: 

• Impacts to special-status plants; 

• Direct impacts to oak woodlands; 

• Removal of individual coast live oak trees; 

• Impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat; and 

• Impacts to special-status wildlife species and wildlife movement. 

The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 

(Envicom 2009) proposes a series of mitigation measures for the identified impacts, 

implementation of which on a project level and as contributions to cumulative impacts, would 

be reduced to less than significant. 

As discussed above, a number of policies and development standards are proposed as part of 

the Community Plan to minimize impacts to biological resources in the plan area. Mitigation 

measures have been included to further reduce these impacts. Impacts to biological resources 

from the areas outside of the plan area would add to the impacts expected in the plan area, 

which were determined to be significant on a program level in the following categories: 

impacts on sensitive plant communities and habitat, including riparian and woodlands and 

impacts to special status animal and plant species and habitats over short-and long-term 

periods. The combined effect of cumulative development is anticipated to result in significant 

and unavoidable cumulative impacts to biological resources. Due to the amount of 



development that the Mission Canyon Community Plan would facilitate, the Plan’s contribution 

to this impact would be considered on a cumulative basis. 


As discussed above, a number of policies and development standards are proposed as part of 

the draft Community Plan to minimize biological resources impacts in the plan area. In 

addition, mitigation measures have been designated herein to further reduce these impacts. 

However, given the diminishing habitat for plants and animals that is occurring regionally as a 

result of development, along with water quality impacts associated with the introduction of 

impervious surfaces, cumulative impacts on biological resources due to regional development 

are considered significant. This is exacerbated by the recent Jesusita Fire which damaged or 

destroyed significant areas of native vegetation and plant communities in the general vicinity of 

the project site, providing habitat for wildlife as well as water quality and general watershed 

benefits. The project’s significant impacts identified above are also considered a significant 

contribution to these cumulative impacts (Class I). 


The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts to biological 

resources in the Mission Canyon watershed would remain Class I, significant and unavoidable, 

and no mitigation measures are available to fully address this impact. 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 

4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources 

This section assesses the effects of the Mission Canyon Community Plan on cultural and historic 

resources. The analysis is based on record searches and prior cultural resources studies 

conducted in the plan area. 


Prehistoric and Historic Setting 

Santa Barbara County is one of California’s richest areas for archaeological resources. Current 

research indicates that the mainland was inhabited at least 9,000 years ago, with evidence for 

habitation on the Channel Islands at least 10,000 years ago, representing some of California’s 

earliest coastal populations. At one time there were hundreds of separate Native American 

villages, temporary camps, fishing and hunting sites, and ceremonial sites throughout the area, 

dating from the Prehistoric to post-Mission Periods. Some were as large as towns, while others 

were small activity areas such as hunting camps or bedrock mortars for plant food processing. 

Sites could be multi-component, spanning several time periods, or could represent a single 

period of time. Researchers have divided the prehistory of the Santa Barbara Channel area into 

Early, Middle and Late Periods, based on changes in artifact types, subsistence practices, social 

organization and settlement patterns. 

At the time of European contact in 1542, the plan area was occupied by the Barbareno 

Chumash. The Chumash had a rich and complex culture with villages as large as 1,000 

inhabitants, a well-developed technology, complex trade network, hierarchical social 

organization and a money economy. Much of what we know about the Chumash culture is 

derived from the records kept by early explorers. The October 1542 arrival of the Cabrillo 

expedition in the Santa Barbara Channel marks the beginning of the 227-year period of limited, 

direct European contact referred to as the Protohistoric Period. The Historic Period begins with 

the 1769 Portolá expedition and the establishment of Spanish military and mission settlements 

in Southern California. The first permanent Spanish settlement in the Channel area was the 

Santa Barbara Presidio, founded in 1782. This time of mission activity (Mission Period) lasted 

until secularization of mission holdings by the Mexican government, which took place in 1834 in 

the Santa Barbara area. This is followed by the Mexican Rancho Period (A.D. 1834 to 1849) and 

the American Period (beginning A.D. 1849). 

Chumash Culture 

Santa Barbara County lies in the ethnographic territory of the Chumash, one of the most 

populous and socially complex native groups in California. The Chumash homeland 

encompasses the coastal and inland areas from present-day San Luis Obispo 250 miles south to 

Malibu Canyon, and includes the Santa Barbara Channel Islands (Grant 1978a:505). The 

Chumash spoke at least six related languages, each corresponding to a regionally based group. 

To the west of the mouth of Mission Creek, the village of Syuxtun was the main historic-period 

settlement in Santa Barbara. The settlement was noted by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo who spent 



three days at Syuxtun where the Chumash helped supply his ship with wood and water. Later, 

in 1769, the Portolá expedition camped near the settlement (Gamble 2008). While camping, 

the Portolá expedition received a visit from Indians from another village, Xana’yan, which was 

located in Mission Canyon. This was the only other village besides Mismatuk known to have 

existed in Santa Barbara away from the coast during the Spanish period (Johnson 1986). 

Chumash social organization was remarkably complex, with society stratified into three general 

levels: the elites, craft specialists, and commoners. Among the elites, the political leader of the 

village was the chief or wot (Gibson 1991:48). Leadership was hereditary, although the 

legitimacy of the chief required approval of the members of the village. The influence of some 

chiefs extended over several villages, indicating a simple chiefdom level of social organization 

(Arnold 1992; Johnson 1988; Parker 2005). The chief was assisted in his duties by a ceremonial 

leader or paxa, who presided over rites and other religious events (Gibson 1991:57). In 

addition, dances and ceremonies were performed by a powerful elite cult organization whose 

members were referred to as ‘antap (Blackburn 1975). 

Exchange within Chumash society was based on differences in resource availability and 

abundance among the geographic regions of each community. There is evidence that trade 

resulted in the movement of marine resources to the interior (Colten 1994; Hildebrandt 1999; 

Macko 1983), while goods such as acorns and deer flowed from inland groups to coastal and 

island groups (Gibson 1991:43). As early as 1000 B.P., the Chumash economy had developed a 

shell bead monetary system and craft specialists produced beads, headdresses, tobacco, nets, 

baskets, canoes, and other products (Gibson 1991:43). The exchange network extended 

outside Chumash territory; traders bartered beads, fish, and other local goods for steatite from 

the neighboring Gabrieliño Indians and obsidian from the eastern Sierra Nevada (Gibson 

1991:44). 

Local and Regional History 

Mission Period 

The arrival of European settlers in the area brought the complex Chumash culture to the brink 

of extinction in the late eighteenth century. The establishment of the Spanish Presidio, or 

military fort, in Santa Barbara and five Franciscan missions in Chumash territory produced 

significant disruptions in social, economic, and political organization. The introduction of 

domestic plants and animals as well as European wild grasses caused irreversible changes to 

the local environment. Native Californians had limited resistance to European diseases, which 

caused considerable population reduction among the Chumash. Nonetheless, many people of 

Chumash ancestry still live in the region today, and strive to retain their cultural traditions. 

Just to the south of Mission Canyon within the City of Santa Barbara is the location of the tenth 

Spanish colonial mission founded in California. The Mission Santa Barbara was founded on 

December 4, 1786 by Father Fermín Francisco de Lasuén on the feast day of Saint Barbara. The 

first chapel was a palisaded log building with a grass roof and earthen floor constructed in 1787. 

After the great Santa Barbara earthquake of December 21, 1812, construction of the current 



Mission began. The present church is the fourth at the site, constructed by Canalino Indians 

under the supervision of Mexican master stone mason Jose Antonio Ramirez. The original dam 

for the aqueduct system is located in the present day Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (National 

Park Service n.d.). 

American Period 

California became a state in 1850, but the population of Southern California remained relatively 

low through the 1860s and 1870s. The region was considered a remote and relatively lawless 

place, and cattle ranching continued as the principal economic activity; the historic ranchos 

remained relatively unchanged during this time. However, a period of drought and expensive 

land title defense cases in U.S. courts resulted in the sale of many of the ranches to Euro- 

Americans. 

The extension of transportation systems into the region was a precursor to more intensive 

settlement. The arrival of the Coast Line stagecoach in 1861, connecting San Francisco and 

Yuma, Arizona, and completion of the Santa Ynez Turnpike over San Marcos Pass (originally a 

Chumash route over the mountains) in 1869 led to greater interest in the region by agricultural 

developers. After annexation of California, Anglo settlers began acquiring property in the 

Mission Canyon area. First, land was used for farming and dairies to supply the growing 

population of Santa Barbara. Later, the serenity of the area with its creeks and hiking trails 

made it a popular excursion site. 

Early arrivals to the Canyon included the Mr. and Mrs. Rowald Hazard, who bought land just 

north of the Mission to build their home, Mission Hill. Mrs. Hazard founded the Museum of 

Comparative Oology, which later became the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Other 

early residents include Christopher Tornoe, a Danish craftsman for whom Tornoe Road was 

named, and Mr. and Mrs. Herman L. Eddy, the founder of County National Bank. The land that 

later became Rocky Nook County Park was owned by the Olivers, who lived in their rustic home 

named “Rocky Nook” from 1882 to 1927. The original Rocky Nook residence no longer exists 

(Nellis 2009). 

Other notable residents included William Leon Dawson, the first director of the Museum of 

Natural History and Caroline Hazard, the former president of Wellesley College. Lockwood de 

Forest, a respected landscape architect who with Beatrix Farrand designed the Santa Barbara 

Botanic Garden, lived in Mission Canyon. Around the turn of the twentieth century, 

Christopher Tornoe built Glendessary, the grandest and only landmarked home in Mission 

Canyon. It was built for Mr. and Mrs. Robert Cameron Rogers. Mr. Rogers was a newspaper 

publisher who bought The Morning Press, the primary Santa Barbara newspaper at the time 

(Nellis 2009). 

Lower Mission Canyon also includes the Santa Barbara Woman’s Club, known as Rockwood. It 

is a 1928 Spanish Revival building designed by Joseph Plunkett on the former site of the 

Rockwood Inn hotel and rooming house, which was destroyed by fire in 1927. The landscape 



architect was Lockwood de Forest and today Rockwood is a popular site for parties and 

weddings (Nellis 2009). 

In the early years of settlement, Mission Canyon had its own school built in 1885 on land where 

Fire Station 15 sits today. It remained an independent school until 1925 when it was annexed 

to the Santa Barbara School District. The school was destroyed by fire in 1927 and the 20 

enrolled students were transferred to the newly built Roosevelt School in the City of Santa 

Barbara (Nellis 2009). 

Based on tract map information, it appears that Mission Canyon Heights was subdivided in the 

late 1920s and South of Foothill area was subdivided between late 1890s and 1950s. 

Information was not available for Upper Mission Canyon but it appears to be mostly part of the 

Mission Ranchos Tract. A review of aerial photographs shows that development of homes in 

Mission Canyon Heights and Upper Mission Canyon neighborhoods occurred most rapidly after 

the late 1950s. The majority of homes presently existing, both north and south of Foothill 

Road, were constructed in the 1950 – 1970 time period. By the 1980s, there were 

approximately 960 homes in Mission Canyon and in 2007, there were an estimated 1,012 single 

family homes. Presently, the growth rate is about three new homes per year. 

Prior Cultural Resources Studies and Recorded Cultural Sites 

A record search conducted at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Central Coast 

Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory (CCIC) on January 28, 2008 

identified 26 previous cultural resource surveys and 23 recorded archaeological sites within the 

Mission Canyon plan area. 

Several of the previous surveys were large-scale investigations that identified cultural resources 

both within and beyond the Mission Canyon plan area. A pedestrian survey of a proposed 

pipeline route from Mission Tunnel to Lauro Reservoir discovered two sites in the plan area 

along Laurel Canyon (Craig 1981). The Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment for the Mission 

Canyon Wastewater Disposal Project recorded 15 new sites within the South of Foothill and 

Mission Canyon Heights neighborhoods (Wilcoxon and King 1983, Wilcoxon 1984). A flood 

control study for Mission Creek and vicinity identified five new sites (Macko 1985). Several of 

these studies also clarified the location of CA-SBA-22, identified in 1929 by D.B. Rogers as the 

possible location of the Chumash village Kashwa. Additional sites in the plan area have been 

recorded as a result of surveys conducted for private development. 

The 23 recorded archaeological sites in the plan area are described in Table 4.4-1, below. The 

sites vary widely in their nature and time of use or occupation, including at least eight 

prehistoric Native American archaeological sites dated to the Early, Middle and Late Periods; 

historic sites associated with the Santa Barbara Mission (Mission dam, aqueduct sections); 19 th 

century adobe structures and other settlements; a concentration of plants culturally important 

to local Native Americans (with associated artifacts); late 19 th and early 20 th century rock quarry 

areas; and features associated with historic State Route 192. 



Despite extensive development in and around these sites, many retain a high degree of 

integrity and thus retain their cultural resource value. The distribution of mapped prehistoric 

sites is concentrated in areas along and above drainages, including creek intersections, bluffs, 

knolls and ridges. Analysis of the patterning of these resources within the City of Santa Barbara 

indicates that with a few exceptions, prehistoric archaeological sites are primarily located 

within 300 feet of drainages, bluffs and estuaries (City of Santa Barbara 2002, Appendix A). This 

information is also important to keep in mind when planning work in the adjacent plan area. 

Significantly, surveys conducted to date have not covered all of the plan area, nor have they 

covered all of the areas identified, based on the distribution pattern of existing sites, as having 

a high potential to contain such resources. 

Table 4.4- 1: Mission Canyon Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site Number Description Period NRHP/CRHR Status 

CA-SBA-22 Village and cemetery Native American 

(Kashwa?) 

1 Not evaluated (likely 

eligible) 

CA-SBA-1572H Mission Aqueduct Mission Not evaluated (likely 

eligible) 

CA-SBA-1573 H Mission Mill Aqueduct Mission Not evaluated (likely 

Segments 1-7 

eligible) 

CA-SBA-1714 H Ranch/homestead, may have Possible Mexican Not evaluated 

post Mission Native 

Rancho, Early 

American component American 

CA-SBA-1715 Concentration of native 

plants of Chumash cultural 

significance; chipped stone 

tools; shell scatter 

Native American Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-1848 Shell midden, lithic scatter, 

cemetery 


CA-SBA-1849 Bedrock mortars, associated 

ground stone, shell midden 


CA-SBA-1850 Shell scatter, trace large land 

mammal bone, mortar 

fragments, reports of burials 


CA-SBA-1851 Low density lithic artifact 

scatter, ground stone, trace 

shellfish, mammal bone 


CA-SBA-1852 H Mission Aqueduct sections 1- Mission Not evaluated (likely 

9 

eligible) 

CA-SBA-1854 H Guiterrez Adobe (1840) Mexican Rancho Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-1950 Petroglyph Native American Not evaluated 



Site Number Description Period NRHP/CRHR Status 

CA-SBA-1953 H Boulder w/ plaque dedicated 

to Maj. Gen. William Lassiter 

American Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-1959 H Sandstone quarrying loci Mission to American Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-1960 H Rockshelter w/ mortar, Mission, Mexican Not evaluated 

crucifix petroglyph, 

sandstone quarry site, 

Mission Dam Aqueduct 

section 

Rancho 

CA-SBA-1963 H Dam for Mission water Mission Not evaluated for NRHP 

supply, constructed of 

(likely eligible); SB Co. 

sandstone blocks by Indian 

Historical Landmark No. 

neophytes in 1806 

24; CA State Historic 

Landmark No. 309 

CA-SBA-2070 H Portions of Mission Water 

Company’s diversion facilities 

to provide water via pipeline 

to reservoir located east of 

Mission (ca. 1885 – 1905) 

American Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-2310 H Horno (Native American 

oven) 

Pre-1912 Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-2311 H Rectangular earthen 

platform with cobble 

retaining wall and wedge-cut 

boulder 

unknown Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-2312 Bedrock mortar, shell scatter, 

not in situ, previously 

incorrectly mapped location 

of SBA-22 


CA-SBA-2314 H Adobe structure (Hill 70 

Adobe) w/ sparse shell 

scatter 

Mission Not evaluated 

CA-SBA-3755 Sandstone culvert box & American Evaluated, (eligibility 

associated features (State 

Route 192) 

unknown) 

CA-SBA-3756 American Evaluated, (eligibility 

unknown) 

1 

Native American period ranges from prehistory to protohistoric (post-contact with Europeans). 



Historic Architectural Sites 

In conjunction with the cultural resources study completed for the Mission Canyon wastewater 

facilities project (Wilcoxon 1984), a separate architectural survey of the project area was 

conducted to identify any building which were considered potentially eligible for inclusion on 

the National Register of Historic Places. Historic architectural sites are standing structures and 

cultural features which have not yet decayed to the point where they are only identified as 

archaeological sites. Architectural sites dating from the Early American Era (1850 – 1910) 

through the period of the early years of the great depression (1929-1930) were present within 

the project area. The eleven recorded sites are shown in Table 4.4-2 below. 

Table 4.4- 2: Historic Architectural Sites 

Site Name and Address Description Significance Status 

Edelweiss (c. 1930) 

2638 Dorking Place 

Christopher Tornoe 

Home (c. 1910) 

989 Tornoe Road 

MacKay Residence (c. 

1915) 


Curtis Residence (c. 

1920) 


Weldon Residence (c. 

1900-1910) 

Residence at 875 

Cheltenham Road (c. 

1925) 

Glendessary Mansion 

(1899) 

2620 Glendessary Lane 

Stone Boulder with 

Plaque (1909) 

One-story residence built by John 

C. Rezzonico, stone cutter. 

Residence representative of a 

period in which natural materials 

were emphasized as building 

materials. 

One-story residence built by 

Christopher Tornoe, master 

craftsman. 

Two-story bungalow built by 

Christopher Tornoe and Thomas 

M. George. 

1920 home largely made with 

rough cut stone. 

Two residences built by 

Christopher Tornoe. 

Two and one-half story residence 

with stone foundation, gabled 

roof, and short corner tower. 

Three-story half-timbered 

residence constructed by 

Christopher Tornoe. 

Large natural granite boulder with 

metal plate dated 1909 with lines 

of poetry concerning the canyon 

area. 

Does not exhibit architectural 

significance as defined by 

National Register criteria. 
















Meets criteria for listing in the 

National Register and was 

designated a County 

Landmark in 1981. 

Does not exhibit criteria of 


National Register. 



Site Name and Address Description Significance Status 

The Orchard (c. 1915) 

715 Mission Canyon 

Road 

Rockwood Inn – Santa 

Barbara Woman’s Club 

(1928) 

670 Mission Canyon 

Road 

Oliver Trough (1910) 

Intersection of Mountain 

Drive and Mission 

Canyon Road 

Two-story California bungalow 

with wood shingles, gently pitched 

gables, exterior birch chimney and 

outdoor sun porch. 

Two-story structure designed by 

Edwards, Plunkett, and Howell, 

one of the two top architectural 

firms in Santa Barbara and an 

excellent example of Spanish- 

Colonial architecture. 

Water trough carved of natural 

sandstone bearing a metal plaque 

dedicated to the memory of 

George Stuart Johannot Oliver, 

“who loved this canon.” 




May be eligible for listing in 

the National Register. 

Does not exhibit criteria of 


National Register. 

Santa Barbara County Landmarks and Places of Historic Merit 

The rich history of Mission Canyon has included a number of important structures and historic 

resources. The County has two categories of protection for historic structures and sites: Place 

of Historic Merit or Landmark. Designation as a Place of Historic Merit officially recognizes the 

building or site as having historic, aesthetic or cultural value but does not restrict demolition, 

removal, alteration or use. A designated Landmark is a higher level of recognition that includes 

conditions restricting its demolition, removal, alteration or use. The Santa Barbara Historic 

Landmarks Advisory Commission has designated two places in Mission Canyon as County 

Landmarks, listed in Table 4.4-3. 

Table 4.4- 3: County Designated Landmarks in Mission Canyon 

APN Address Historic Resource 

023-221-042 2620 Glendessary Lane Santa Barbara County Landmark #15 

Designated in 1968 

023-340-013, 

023-340-014 & 

023-340-015 

English Tudor Mansion 

1212 Mission Canyon Road Santa Barbara County Landmark #24 

Designated in 1983 and expanded in 2003: 

Mission Dam, Aqueduct, Campbell Bridge, 

Entry Steps, Indian Steps, Blaksley Library, 

Caretaker’s Cottage, Information Kiosk and 

the entirety of Assessors Parcels -013, -014 

and -015. 

Glendessary, County Landmark #15, is an English Tudor mansion designed by Samuel Isley and 

built in 1900 for Robert Cameron Rogers. The resolution recommending declaration of the 



landmark noted that the home has great historical significance and is a reminder of pioneer 

days in Santa Barbara County. 

The following information about the Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens County Landmark #24 is 

from the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final EIR (Envicom 2009). 

• The Mission Dam and Aqueduct, located in the northwestern portion of the Botanic 

Garden property, pre-date the Garden itself and were built in 1807 by Native Americans 

under the authority of the Franciscan padres and are part of the original Mission 

Waterworks system that brought water to Santa Barbara Mission. The Mission Dam is 

currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also listed on the 

California Register. 

• The Campbell Bridge was built in 1941 and is located in the northwestern portion of the 

Garden. It spans Mission Creek uniting both sides of the Campbell Trail. Note that the 

Campbell Bridge was destroyed in the recent Jesusita Fire but is proposed to be rebuilt. 

• The Entry Steps were built in 1948 as a pedestrian entrance from Mission Canyon Road 

through the new parking lot. They were designed by landscape architects Beatrix 

Farrand and Lockwood de Forest and built in memory of Clara Small Smith. 

• The Indian Steps are located in the area of the original Hill Trail (noted on a 1930 map). 

These stone steps bring one down into the canyon and to the dam area. It is thought 

this path may have been the one taken by the Native Americans who built the dam. 

• The Blaksley Library, built in 1942, is a simple rectangular building designed by Lutah 

Riggs. A corner sandstone chimney and a large, well-proportioned glass door topped by 

a transom dominate the building’s main façade on the north. The Blaksley Library was 

funded by Mrs. Mildred Bliss, daughter of Anna B. Bliss. . While only the original Library 

is included in the Historic Landmark #24 designation, both the Library and the Library 

Additions qualify as a significant historic resource at the high (3) level of significance for 

integrity and architectural style and at the Exceptional (E) level for architect (SAIC 2001). 

• The Caretaker’s Cottage, built in 1926, is a one-story residence constructed of rounded 

tongue and-groove. The Cottage was relocated in 1942 to make space for the Blaksley 

Library. The Cottage retains integrity of location, materials, and workmanship and is 

considered to have good (2) significance (SAIC 2001). 

• The Information Kiosk, built in 1937, was designed by Lockwood de Forest and was 

installed slightly northwest of the Blaksley Boulder. The kiosk was to be built for the 

display of information on material and points of interests throughout the Garden. The 

Information Kiosk retains integrity of location, setting, and materials and is considered 

to have good (2) significance (SAIC 2001). Note that the kiosk sustained fire damage 

during the Jesusita Fire but will be restored. 



In addition to these specific historic structures and features, Landmark #24 also identifies the 

historic design intent and historic use of the Garden. Based on the Historic Resources 

Assessment of the entire 78-acre Garden property (Historic Resources Group 2009), a portion 

of the Garden property (5 parcels including approximately 35 acres) appears to meet the 

criteria for significance as a historic designed landscape (Historic Resources Group 2008). 

Mission Canyon also has an array of additional resources including sandstone walls, bridges and 

aqueduct traces and numerous historic and architecturally significant homes that may be 

eligible as County Landmarks or Places of Historic Merit. In 2008, the Historic Landmarks 

Advisory Commission contracted a historian to conduct a survey to identify potentially historic 

elements in the lower Mission Canyon area south of Foothill Road. The Historical Survey of 

Lower Mission Canyon (Nellis 2009) is part of a continuing series of similar surveys used to build 

a database of potentially historic elements identified throughout Santa Barbara County. 

Directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the plan area, the City of Santa Barbara identifies 

all property within one thousand feet of Part II of the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District (around 

Mission Santa Barbara) as the Mission Area Special Design District. Applications for building 

permits to construct, alter or add to the exterior of a single-family residence or related 

accessory structure in this district are referred for design review to the City’s Single Family 

Design Board. For continuity with the City’s standards, initiated amendments to the Land Use 

and Development Code in the Mission Canyon Community Plan Overlay for the Mission Canyon 

Scenic Corridor area require advisory level review by the County’s Historic Landmarks Advisory 

Committee of Land Use Permits within the context of the historic setting which includes 

Mission Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Glendessary House and 

Rockwood (the Santa Barbara Woman’s Club). Mission Santa Barbara is a City Landmark as well 

as a State Historic Landmark and is on the National Register. The Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History is designated by the City of Santa Barbara as a Structure of Merit. 


Criteria for assessing what types of activities would constitute an adverse effect on significant 

historical resources are identified in CEQA Section 15064.5. Historical resources are defined as 

any resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources 

Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), including 

prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, 

traditional cultural properties important to a tribe or other ethnic group, cultural districts and 

landscapes, and a variety of other property types. Resources included in a local register of 

historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified 

as significant in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the 

Public Resources Code), also are considered “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA. 

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not 

included in a local register of historical resources, or identified in an historical resources survey, 



does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical 

resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. 

A significant impact on historical resources would occur if the proposed project would cause 

demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the character-defining features of a 

significant historical resource. In practice, actions that would cause the loss of integrity, causing 

a historical resource to lose its significance, would be considered adverse. 

Codes Governing Human Remains. Section 15064.5 of CEQA also assigns special importance to 

human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are 

discovered. The disposition of human remains is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California 

Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, and 

falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human 

remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should 

be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are 

determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the 

NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those 

persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they 

can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal. 


The Specific Plan requires all Land Use Permit applications for projects involving grading or 

other land alterations to be referred to the County Resource Management Department’s 

Environmental Review Division (now Development Review) for an assessment of 

archaeological/historical resource sensitivity and formulation of any mitigation measures. The 

Specific Plan also recommended that a Phase I archaeological and historical sites survey should 

be conducted by a qualified Consulting Archaeologist within the Septic System Maintenance 

Area. This recommendation was not funded or implemented although a Phase I survey may be 

required for individual projects as deemed necessary by Planning & Development. 


The County’s Thresholds Manual provides guidelines for implementing CEQA’s provisions 

pertaining to sites of archaeological, historical, or ethnic importance. A project is judged to 

have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause a substantial adverse change in the 

characteristics of a historical resource that convey its significance or justify its eligibility for 

inclusion in the CRHR or a local register, either through demolition, destruction, relocation, 

alteration, or other means (CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5(b)). Direct impacts may occur by: 

• Physically damaging, destroying, or altering all or part of the resource; 

• Altering characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the resource’s 

significance; 

• Neglecting the resource to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed; or 

• The incidental discovery of cultural resources without proper notification. 



Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can directly impact their value by 

destroying the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic district. Direct 

impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, 

determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the project area, assessing the 

significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation. 

Indirect impacts result primarily from the effects of project-induced population growth. Such 

growth can result in increased construction as well as increased recreational activities that can 

disturb or destroy cultural resources. Due to their nature, indirect impacts are much harder to 

assess and quantify. 

Archaeological Resources 

Under County standards, an “important archaeological resource” can be defined by one of 

several criteria. An archaeological site is considered significant for the purposes of CEQA if it 

demonstrates one or more of the following: 

• Is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American 

history or recognized scientific importance in prehistory; 

• Can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in 

addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; 

• Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest or last surviving 

example of its kind; 

• Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or 

• Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be 

answered only with archaeological methods. 

CEQA provides guidelines for mitigating impacts on archaeological resources. The following 

factors shall be considered for a project involving such an archaeological site: 

(A) Preservation in place (avoidance) is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to 

archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the 

archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of 

groups associated with the site. 

(B) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: 

• Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; 

• Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; 

• Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building 

tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site. 

• Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. 



(C) When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery 

plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential 

information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any 

excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical 

Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains 

shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. 

(D) Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency 

determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the 

scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical 

resource, provided that the determination is documented and that the studies are deposited 

with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. 

Historical Resources 

A list of significance criteria for historical resources is found in the Historic Element of the 

County Guidelines, which state that a building, structure, or site may be historically significant if 

it possesses integrity, is at least 50 years old, and meets one or more of the following criteria: 

• Is associated with an event, movement, organization, or person that/who has made an 

important contribution to the community, state, or nation; 

• Was designed or built by an architect, engineer, builder, artists, or other designer who 

has made an important contribution to the community, state, or nation; 

• Is associated with a particular architectural style or building type important to the 

community, state, or nation; 

• Embodies elements demonstrating outstanding attention to design, detail, 

craftsmanship, or outstanding use of a particular structural material, surface material, 

or method of construction or technology; 

• Is associated with a traditional way of life important to an ethnic, national, racial, or 

social group, or to the community at large; 

• Illustrates broad patterns of cultural, social, political, economic, or industrial history; 

• Is a feature or a cluster of features which convey a sense of time and place that is 

important to the community, state, or nation; 

• Is able to yield information important to the community or is relevant to the scholarly 

study of history, historical archaeology, ethnography, folklore, or cultural geography. 

The level of significance for these criteria are established by rating each significant attribute of 

the resource according to the following scale: 

E= exceptional 

3 = high; very good 

2 = good 

1 = little 



The assignment of significance level rating for Integrity, Age, and Association are contained in 

the Thresholds Manual. 

For architectural resources, maintenance, repair, stabilization, restoration, preservation, 

conservation, or reconstruction in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines (Weeks and Grimmer 1995) generally will constitute mitigation of 

impacts to a less-than-significant level. Documentation of historic buildings and structures, 

including documentation to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey or Historic 

American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER), may lessen impacts but may not reduce them to 

less-than-significant levels. 

Ethnic Resources 

Appendix G of CEQA defines the need for evaluating the impacts a project may have on a 

community, ethnic, or social group. A project will normally have a significant effect on the 

environment if it will cause one of the following: 

• Disrupt of adversely affect a prehistoric or historical archaeological site or a property or 

historical or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group. 

• Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the 

area. 

In order to evaluate these potential impacts, the County requires that appropriate 

representatives of affected community groups be contacted to assess their concerns and 

viewpoints concerning measures to mitigate those impacts. 


The impact analysis evaluates programmatic impacts associated with the Plan which include 

buildout of the project area, policy changes, and programs proposed as part of the Mission 

Canyon Community Plan. Project-specific analysis would still be needed for any individual 

future projects proposed under the plan. 

IMPACT CR-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the proposed Community Plan. 

The 1984 Specific Plan cultural resource policy is carried forward in the proposed Community 

Plan DevStd HA-MC-1.1 which requires a Phase I archaeological survey when identified as 

necessary. The proposed Community Plan includes more policies to protect cultural and 

historic resources than the Specific Plan; thus impacts are beneficial (Class IV). 

IMPACT CR-2: Plan buildout would potentially impact cultural and historical resources. 

The buildout of the plan area would result in 157 new single-family homes. This represents an 

approximate 15% increase in residential units compared to existing conditions (1,014 units). 



The resulting construction of homes and the necessary infrastructure to support them may 

produce potentially significant impacts on historic or cultural resources through damage to or 

destruction of significant structures or sites, or by diminishing the integrity of the context and 

setting of such resources. 

The proposed plan, along with mitigation measures proposed below, provides policies and 

development standards that would ensure impacts to cultural and historic resources (including 

archaeological sites, traditionally important properties, and historic buildings) are taken into 

consideration and reduced or minimized to the extent feasible. For example, impacts to 

archaeological resources may be reduced to less than significant levels through avoidance, data 

recovery excavation, or other measures. Loss of significant archaeological and historic 

resources however may not be fully mitigable because no economically feasible mitigation may 

be available to consistently ensure the professional assessment and, if necessary, mitigation of 

unknown prehistoric and historic resources during incremental ministerial buildout. This would 

be economically infeasible because intensive archaeological surveys would be required on 

properties located in areas of high archaeological sensitivity, and if necessary, subsurface 

excavations to determine the likelihood of buried prehistoric or historic-era cultural deposits 

(extended Phase I investigations). Overall, the potential impact on cultural and historic 

resources under buildout conditions would be Class I, significant and unavoidable. 


MM-CR-1.1: Incorporate proposed history and archaeology and visual resource policies, 

development standards and actions (or functional equivalent) from the draft Community Plan 

into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

The following policies, actions and development standards are included in the proposed 

Mission Canyon Community Plan and are intended to help meet the goal of preserving and 

protecting significant cultural, historical, and archaeological resources in the plan area: 


Policy HA-MC-1: Archaeological resources shall be protected and preserved to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

DevStd HA-MC-1.1: A Phase I archaeological survey shall be performed when identified as 

necessary by a County archaeologist or contract archaeologist or if a 

County archaeological sensitivity map identifies the need for a study. 

The survey shall include all areas of projects that would result in 

ground disturbances. If the archaeologist performing the Phase I 

report, after conducting a site visit, determines that the likelihood of 

an archaeology site presence is extremely low, a short-form Phase I 

report may be submitted. 



DevStd HA-MC-1.2: All feasible recommendations of an archaeological report including 

completion of additional archaeological analyses (Phase 2, Phase 3) 

and/or project redesign shall be incorporated into any permit issued 

for development. 

Action HA-MC-1.3: The County shall work with qualified archaeologists and historians to 

identify, survey, and map parcels that potentially contain portions or 

traces of the Mission Santa Barbara Aqueduct. The County shall 

coordinate with the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee to develop 

a program for protection of the aqueduct features. 

Policy HA-MC-2: Historic resources shall be protected and preserved to the maximum 

extent feasible. 

DevStd HA-MC-2.1: No permits shall be issued for any development or activity that would 

adversely affect the historic value of the properties listed in Table 12 

unless a professional evaluation of the proposal has been performed 

pursuant to the County’s most current Regulations Governing 

Archaeological and Historical Projects, reviewed and approved by 

Planning and Development and all feasible mitigation measures have 

been incorporated into the proposal. 

Action HA-MC-2.2: The County and the community should work to identify structures and 

places that qualify for nomination to Place of Historic Merit or 

Landmark status and forward these requests to the Historic Landmarks 

Advisory Commission. 

Action HA-MC-2.3: The County shall pursue funding from federal, state and local sources 

to conduct historic resources surveys of Mission Canyon with 

consultation from the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission, and 

citizen resources such as the Mission Canyon Association, Pearl Chase 

Society, Santa Barbara Historical Society and other relevant entities. 

Action HA-MC-2.4: The County shall consider adopting the State Mills Act program to offer 

property tax abatement incentives to qualified historic properties. 

Policy VIS-MC-3: In recognition of the special character, history, and appeal of Mission 

Canyon, in particular Mission Canyon Road and adjacent properties 

from Rocky Nook Park to the intersection with Foothill, this area shall 

be designated as the “Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor” and all plans 

for new or altered buildings and structures shall be subject to the 

Mission Canyon Community Plan Overlay development standards. 



Action VIS-MC-3.1: The County shall amend the Land Use and Development Code to apply 

a Mission Canyon Community Plan Overlay with specific development 

standards to protect the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor. 

The draft Ordinance Amendments to implement Action VIS-MC-3.1 requires all projects 

requiring a Land Use Permit undergo advisory level review by the Historic Landmarks Advisory 

Committee within the context of the historic setting that includes Mission Santa Barbara, Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History, “Glendessary House” (a County Landmark), and 

“Rockwood” (the Santa Barbara Woman’s Club). 

In addition, the proposed Trail Siting Guidelines included in the Draft Community Plan would 

reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources: 

Trail Siting Guideline I D. County Parks should monitor trails for potential impacts such as 

vandalism, impacts to archaeological/historical sites, intensity of use, erosion, etc., and 

when/where necessary, recommend temporary trail closures to alleviate or remedy the 

problem. 

Trail Siting Guideline VI A. Trails should be sited and designed to avoid impacts to significant 

cultural, archaeological, and historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. This may 

involve re-alignment of the trail corridor, signage, fencing, and/or installation of access control 

barriers in certain sensitive areas. 

Trail Siting Guidelines VI B. A Phase 1 archaeological survey may be required prior to 

implementing proposed trail corridors. 

The policies, development standards and actions presented above and contained in the draft 

plan will help to minimize impacts to historic resources. However, certain standards should be 

revised to add clarity and consistence with current County guidelines and professional best 

practices. In addition to the above policies from the plan, the following mitigation measures 

are required to ensure that treatment of historical resources within the plan area is consistent 

with the Planning and Development Department’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines 

Manual and State CEQA Guidelines. 

MM-CR-1.2: Revise development standards to improve treatment of historical resources. 

Development Standards in the draft Community Plan shall be revised as follows (additions 


DevStd HA-MC-1.1: A Phase 1 archaeological survey shall be performed when identified as 

necessary by a cCounty archaeologist or contract archaeologist using 

the best available resources. or if a county archaeological sensitivity 

map identifies the need for a study. The survey shall include all areas 

of projects that would result in ground disturbances. If the 



archaeologist performing the Phase I report, after conducting a site 

visit, determines that the likelihood of an archaeology site presence is 

extremely low, a short-form Phase I report may be submitted. The 

content, format, and length of the Phase 1 survey report shall be 

consistent with the size of the project and findings of the study. If 

archaeological remains are identified and cannot be avoided through 

project redesign, the proponent shall fund a Phase 2 study to 

determine the significance of the resource prior to issuance of any 

permit for development. 

DevStd HA-MC-1.2: All feasible proposed mitigation recommendations of an 

archaeological report resulting from the Phase 1 or Phase 2 study, 

including completion of additional archaeological analyses (Phase 2, 

Phase 3) and/or project redesign, shall be incorporated into any 

permit issued for development. 

DevStd HA-MC-2.1: No permits shall be issued for any development or activity that would 

adversely affect the historic value of the properties listed in Table 12 

integrity of officially designated Historic Landmarks and Structures of 

Merit, historical resources eligible for the California Register of 

Historic Resources, or identified historical districts unless a 

professional evaluation of the proposal has been performed pursuant 

to the County’s most current Regulations Governing Archaeological 

and Historical Projects., reviewed and approved by Planning and 

Development All such professional studies shall be reviewed and 

approved by Planning and Development and all feasible mitigation 

measures shall be have been incorporated into any permit issued for 

development. the proposal. 

MM-CR-1.3: Add policy and action to the final Mission Canyon Community Plan to protect 

Cultural Resources. 

The draft plan shall be revised to include the following additional policy and action (additions 

underlined): 

Policy HA-MC-3: Traditional cultural, historical, and spiritual sites of concern to the 

Chumash Indians shall be protected and preserved to the maximum 

extent feasible. 

Action HA-MC-3.1: The County, Chumash representatives, and community should work 

together to ensure appropriate tribal access to traditional cultural, 

historical, and spiritual sites while still respecting the rights and 

privileges of private property owners. 



Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed, revised and new policies, actions and 

development standards would be included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 


The mitigation measures above will ensure that historical and cultural resources, including 

archaeological sites, sites important to tribal or ethnic groups, and historic buildings and 

structures, are treated according to CEQA requirements and County standards and guidelines. 

Application of these policies and development standards would ensure that potential impacts 

of future development are identified and avoided in advance, or are mitigated to the fullest 

extent possible. However, the residual impact on archaeological resources from buildout would 

remain significant and unavoidable (Class I), as no procedurally feasible mitigation to address 

the potential impact on unknown, subsurface archaeological resources is available. 

IMPACT CUL-3: Cumulative impacts on cultural and historical resources. 

Cumulative impacts on cultural and historic resources would result from the increases in 

population in Mission Canyon, increased development and construction throughout the plan 

area, as well as regional cumulative impacts resulting from relevant projects in the adjacent 

areas within the City of Santa Barbara’s jurisdiction. In most cases, buildout of the plan area is 

not expected to directly adversely affect any historic or archaeological resources, though with 

any development there is the potential to disrupt or destroy unknown resources, especially 

given the large number of known sites within the Mission Canyon area. However, the ability to 

completely avoid impacts on all archaeological sites through project redesign or specifications is 

unlikely. Given the small portion of the plan area that has been systematically investigated for 

archaeological resources, the potential for plan buildout to impact unknown subsurface 

resources is considered potentially significant. Therefore, related future development is 

considered to have a Class I, potentially significant cumulative impact on archaeological 

resources. 


As discussed in this impact discussion as well as in Impact CR-1 above, a number of policies, 

standards, and actions within the proposed Community Plan would reduce the potentially 

significant impact on cultural and historical resources within Mission Canyon. Additionally, 

mitigation measures CR-1.2 and CR 1.3 would help ensure that new facilities and improvements 

are sited and developed in ways that reduce the potential for significant impacts. 


The plan area buildout includes a substantial number of ministerial projects located throughout 

Mission Canyon in the proximity of potentially significant archaeological resources. A number 

of mitigative policies are proposed to reduce the impact, nonetheless, buildout in the plan area 

would contribute to the cumulative potential impact to unknown prehistoric and historical 



archaeological resources. Therefore, the plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts on 

archaeological resources would be cumulatively considerable (Class I). 

IMPACT CUL-4: Cumulative impacts on historic buildings. 

Regarding historic buildings, County permit review processes that involve the assessment of 

potential structures over 50 years of age for significance by a County-qualified historian would 

be applied to minimize the potential effects on potentially important historical resources. 

Careful review of design and siting, and compliance with proposed policies and programs would 

reduce potentially significant cumulative impacts related to historic buildings to Class II, 

potentially significant and mitigable. 


As discussed in this impact discussion as well as in Impact CR-1 above, a number of policies, 

standards, and actions within the proposed Community Plan would reduce the potentially 

significant impact on cultural and historical resources within Mission Canyon. Additionally, 

mitigation measures CR-1.2 and CR 1.3 would help ensure that new facilities and improvements 

are sited and developed in ways that reduce the potential for significant impacts. 


The plan area buildout includes a substantial number of ministerial projects located throughout 

Mission Canyon in the proximity of potentially significant historic buildings. Due to the 

mitigative policies proposed to reduce the impact and the extensive historical resource surveys 

that have been conducted, buildout in the plan area is not anticipated to significantly 

contribute to the cumulative potential impact to historical buildings. Therefore, the plan’s 

contribution to cumulative impacts on historical resources would be Class II, potentially 

significant and mitigable. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY 

4.5 Energy 

This section addresses potential impacts to energy in Mission Canyon. 


The project area consists of 1,014 residential units and a small number of institutional and 

recreational uses. There are no public energy generating facilities in Mission Canyon. 

Electricity is provided by the Southern California Edison Company and natural gas is provided by 

Southern California Gas Company. 


Energy issues are addressed in adopted County, State and Federal plans, policies and 

regulations. The County promotes energy efficient buildings via the Innovative Building Review 

Program that provides expert design review for energy efficiency, expedited plan check and a 

reduction on the energy plan check fee for development that meets energy efficiency 

standards. 

The County recently adopted the Elective Municipal Program to Optimize Water, Energy and 

Renewables for Santa Barbara County (emPowerSBC) to promote retrofits to residential and 

commercial property throughout the region. The emPowerSBC program is voluntary and allows 

property owners to finance eligible improvements through an assessment levied against their 

property. In July 2010, federal lending regulators released communication to banks outlining 

concerns regarding Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs like emPowerSBC and as a 

result the County is waiting to accept and approve applications until federal issues are resolved. 


The County Environmental Thresholds Manual does not have specific significance thresholds for 

energy. Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines considers potentially significant impacts if the 

project: 

• Would result in substantial increase in demand, especially during peak periods, upon 

existing sources of energy and 

• Would require the development or extension of new sources of energy. 


IMPACT E-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the proposed Community Plan. 

The project would not require the development or extension of new energy sources. The 

additional population that would be accommodated by the potential new units is within County 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY 

and regional population projections that form the basis of regional planning. Moreover, the 

size and scale of residential development that would be permitted in the project area would 

not require large amounts of energy warranting a substantial increase in demand during peak 

hours or the development or extension of new energy sources. 

With the following proposed energy-conserving features from the draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan and Residential Design Guidelines, potential energy impacts would be 

beneficial (Class IV): 

Dev Std PS-MC-1.1: Energy conserving designs and/or techniques shall be incorporated 

into development, including, but not limited to: 

• Energy efficient and low-emission residential water and space 

heaters; 

• Heat transfer modules in furnaces; 

• Solar panels; 

• Passive solar cooling/heating; 

• Natural lighting; and 

• Energy efficient appliances and lighting. 

Policy PS-MC-2: The County shall encourage developers and homeowners to 

incorporate green building techniques into new, remodeled, and 

rebuilt structures, to the greatest extent feasible. This can be 

achieved, in part, through continued promotion of the incentives and 

design expertise available to property owners through the Innovative 

Building Review Program. 

DevStd PS-MC-1.3: Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines - Green Design 

Guidelines should be incorporated as part of all new residential 

development, to the maximum extent feasible. 

Draft Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines 

• Green Design Guidelines 4.01 – 4.03 encourage the use of energy-conserving 

features. 

• Solar Access and Solar Energy System Guidelines 4.04 – 4.07 encourage 

structure siting and design to maximize the potential for passive and active 

solar energy use. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.6 – FIRE PROTECTION 

4.6 Fire Protection 

This section assess the effects of the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan buildout on fire 

protection, including structural and wildland fires, water pressure and fire hydrant flows and 

emergency ingress and egress. The analysis is based on input from County Fire Department and 

data from special studies including a hydraulic evaluation and an evacuation simulation study. 


Wildland fire hazard has always threatened the Mission Canyon area. The east-west trending 

Santa Ynez Mountain range dominates the area and makes the Santa Barbara front country 

prone to local Santa Ana and Sundowner wind conditions. Terrain is steep, rocky, and covered 

with chaparral vegetation that has adapted over millions of years with fire part of its natural 

ecosystem. The chaparral is highly flammable and designed to burn. Landscape vegetation also 

covers much of the developed canyon. The area where residential structures and fire-prone 

wildlands intermix is called the wildland-urban interface. The topography, amount of native 

and ornamental vegetation, and residential development makes the canyon a prime example of 

a wildland-urban interface area. 17 

The Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) define a 

“community at risk” from wildland fire as one that: 

• Is a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such 

as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to 

federal land; 

• Has conditions conducive to large-scale wildland fire; and 

• Faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result of a wildland fire. 

Based on the definition above, Mission Canyon is a community at risk. It is also defined as a 

wildland-urban interface area with inadequate emergency ingress and egress. The basic road 

network geometry was established in the 1930s and has changed little since. The roads are 

narrow, and have few turnouts and not enough vegetation clearance. In addition, there are 

numerous private roads serving multiple residences that do not meet current Fire Department 

standards for width and turnarounds. Driveways are often steep and difficult to access by fire 

apparatus or other emergency vehicles. There are few areas where firefighters can work safely 

to protect this area in a major fire event and even fewer areas that meet the recognized 

standards for Firefighter Safety Zones (Mission Canyon Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

2008). 

17 Defined as a geographical area identified by the state as a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with the Public 

Resources Code Sections 4201 – 4204 and Government Code Sections 51175 – 51189. Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code 

and Chapter 7A of the Building Code sets forth requirements for wildland-urban interface areas. 



Fire History 

In 1964, the Coyote Fire began three miles east of Mission Canyon and burned portions of 

Upper Mission Canyon. Prior to that, several unnamed fires occurred in the area including a fire 

in 1917 that also affected Upper Mission Canyon. In 1990, the Painted Cave Fire started several 

miles to the west of the plan area and rapidly spread from the top of San Marcos Pass/Highway 

154 to at least 5 miles downhill jumping the 6-lane Highway 101. In total, 5,000 acres were 

burned and 440 homes, 28 apartment complexes, and 30 other structures were lost. 

Fire history changed dramatically beginning in 2007 after a relatively long period without 

wildfires near the plan area. A large portion of the Santa Barbara backcountry (375 square 

miles of Los Padres National Forest) burned in the Zaca Fire during the summer of 2007. This 

fire was the County’s largest acreage wildlife in recorded history and prompted evacuation 

orders in the Santa Ynez Valley area and continued to burn over several weeks. In July 2008, 

the Gap Fire started in the Los Padres National Forest in the West Camino Cielo area above 

Goleta. This fire burned approximately 9,000 acres and prompted evacuation orders and 

warnings in the Goleta and West Camino Cielo area but only destroyed 4 outbuildings. 

Starting in late 2008, two wildfires directly impacted the plan area including significant 

evacuation orders and loss of homes and structures. On the evening of November 13 2008, the 

Tea Fire broke out in Montecito near Hot Springs Road. By 6:00 p.m., a mandatory evacuation 

was issued using Reverse 911® calls and Mission Canyon Road at Foothill Road was closed. Due 

to the timing and fast-moving nature of this fire, a traffic choke point was observed at Mission 

Canyon Road (north) due to the large number of people evacuating from east to west from 

Montecito and Gibraltar Road, including equestrian and large vehicle evacuations, and lack of 

law enforcement directing traffic at the time (MCPAC Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2009). 

Subsequent mandatory evacuation orders included Mission Canyon residents north of Highway 

192 to Mission Canyon Road, both sides of Tunnel Road above Montrose and the east side of 

Tunnel Road below Montrose. By November 15, most of the mandatory evacuation orders 

were lifted. In total, the Tea Fire burned 1,940 acres and destroyed 210 residences directly east 

of the plan area near Las Canoas Road. 

In May 2009, Mission Canyon suffered significant fire damage from the Jesusita Fire, which 

started at approximately 1:45 pm on May 5. Within approximately 45 minutes, a Unified 

Command was established by the Los Padres National Forest and Santa Barbara County and City 

Fire Departments. Shortly thereafter road closures were in place on roads leading into Mission 

Canyon. By early evening the first mandatory evacuation orders were issued for all Mission 

Canyon locations north of Foothill Road and Reverse 911® was activated. In contrast to the Tea 

Fire, the initial evacuation went smoothly because the fire response was rapid and people 

responded to the evacuation orders (MCPAC Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2009). 

By the afternoon of May 6, the mandatory evacuation orders extended to many other areas 

including the Mission Canyon neighborhoods south of Foothill Road. Red Cross evacuation 

centers were set up and emergency shelter locations for large and small animals were 



arranged. All roads leading into Mission Canyon above Foothill Road/Hwy192 were closed as 

well as many City streets north of State Street. By May 8, approximately 12,204 properties 

were under mandatory evacuation orders affecting over 30,000 people. By the evening of May 

10, many mandatory evacuation areas were downgraded to warnings and Mission Canyon 

residents were allowed to return home. By May 14, all evacuation orders and warnings were 

lifted. 

The fire burned 8,733 acres and was declared 100% contained on May 20, 2009. In total, 158 

structures were destroyed and 18 structures damaged. Within the plan area, 67 primary 

residential units were destroyed (Figure 4.6-1). 

The Jesusita Fire perimeter encompasses the northern half of the plan area including the Santa 

Barbara Botanic Garden, Tunnel Road, Mission Canyon Road, Palomino Road, Holly Road, Las 

Canoas Road, Paseo del Ocaso, Orange Grove and other private roads and driveways. 

Structures were also destroyed and damaged in Mission Canyon Heights along Montrose Place 

and Williams Way. The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden also sustained significant damage. 

The Jesusita Fire changed the vegetation regime in Upper Mission Canyon. Much of the dense 

stands of chaparral and oak and riparian woodlands were burned during the fire, significantly 

reducing the fuel loads in this area. However, it is likely that much of this vegetation will 

return. It is anticipated that area residents and the Fire Department may be more rigorous in 

their implementation of fuel modification for defensible space and maintenance of fuel breaks 

in the future. 

Climate Change and Fire Impacts 

Climate change projection scenarios indicate that California should expect overall hotter and 

drier conditions. The impacts assessments show that extreme weather events, such as 

wildfires, are likely to be some of the earliest climate impacts experienced. Wildfire frequency 

and intensity is expected to grow as temperatures increase and vegetation dries due to longer 

dry seasons. Currently, over 48 million acres, or nearly half the state, is at a high to extreme 

level of fire threat. An increase in wildfire intensity and extent will increase public safety risks, 

property damage, fire suppression and emergency response costs to government, watershed 

and water quality impacts, vegetation conversions and habitat fragmentation (California 

Natural Resources Agency 2009). 



Figure 4.6- 1 Jesusita Fire Damage 



Wildfire Response and Evacuation Planning 

In the event of a wildfire emergency, the first responder to the incident becomes the Incident 

Commander, or the individual who is responsible for all incident activities. As more officials 

respond, a chain of command is established for the responsibility of Incident Commander. If 

the incident involves a multiple agency jurisdiction response, then Unified Command is 

established. The Incident Commander has the authority to authorize resident notification of 

the emergency using the Reverse911® system which has the ability to send a recorded message 

to homes on local phone lines within minutes. All residents with “landline” service are in the 

Reverse911® database. County residents can also register their cell phones and email 

addresses to the system using the County Sheriff’s Department online Self Registration Portal. 

The Incident Commander can either issue an evacuation warning or an evacuation order. An 

evacuation warning means that residents should be prepared to leave immediately if their area 

is upgraded to an order. An evacuation order means that residents are being directed to leave 

their homes immediately. Ideally, a warning is issued before an order; however, if there is 

eminent danger, law enforcement can order evacuations on the spot. With an evacuation 

order, law enforcement can stop civilian traffic at designated traffic closure points. 

After the series of recent fires, the County mapped the unincorporated areas of the South Coast 

into evacuation zones based on an area that could be notified to evacuate in 45 – 75 minutes 

using Reverse911® and evacuation teams knocking on doors. Mission Canyon has two zones, 

split approximately from Mission Canyon road to the east and Tunnel Road to the west. 

Because each emergency situation is unique and can change rapidly, the Office of Emergency 

Services and the Fire Department have not prescribed fixed emergency evacuation routes. 

Instead, standard protocol is for residents to tune into local media for evacuation instructions 

when emergency personnel determine that evacuation is necessary. As part of controlling 

access to and from an evacuation area, nearby roadways will be closed by law enforcement 

agencies to inbound traffic with the exception for public safety vehicles. The closed roads or 

traffic closure points are identified in the Santa Barbara I-Zone Major Incident Preplan 

(Wildland Interface Mitigation and Evacuation Planning Task Force 2001), although they are 

evaluated and identified on a case-by-case basis and subject to change. For eastbound traffic, 

the closure points would be at the following locations: 

• Foothill Road at Alamar Road 

• Foothill Road at 2600 Mission Canyon Road 

For westbound traffic, the traffic closure points would be at the following locations: 

• Foothill Road at Mountain Road 

• Foothill Road at Mission Canyon Road (at Fire Station #15) 

At the advice of the Fire Safe Council, an evacuation drill was conducted in Mission Canyon 

Heights (approximately 200 residents) in 2005. The drill informed emergency responders and 



residents of the inherent problems of evacuating large numbers of people from the Canyon at 

one time. The drill also was the test run for the County’s use of the new Reverse 911® 

community notification system. 

According to the After Action Report (Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 2007), the 

primary objective of the drill was to exercise existing evacuation plans. The overall results 

found that existing plans are more than adequate to meet the needs of this type of response 

and allow for flexibility to anticipate, react and respond to dynamic incidents. Another primary 

concern tested by the drill was traffic congestion. Prior to the drill, a great deal of effort went 

into identifying evacuation routes, manning traffic control points, and monitoring traffic. No 

traffic problems were encountered during the exercise, and many agency comments indicated 

that this was the result of an extensive public information campaign such that participants 

anticipated needs and avoided potential drawbacks by being prepared, leaving early, or simply 

leaving the area prior to the exercise to avoid the congestion. 

Animal Evacuation 

Residents are often concerned about the safety of pets and large animals during an evacuation 

situation. According to the Animal Disaster Preparedness and Response Planning Guide 

(January 1999), 10-25% of individuals will refuse to evacuate, or attempt to return to evacuated 

areas because of their animals. Additionally, the evacuation of large animals using trailers can 

further congest roads during an emergency. It is unknown how many large animals (i.e., mainly 

horses, donkeys and mules) are kept in Mission Canyon but if the lot is large enough (generally 

at least 20,000 square feet) the keeping of a least one hoofed animal is exempt from permit 

requirements in residential zones and one animal per 20,000 square feet may be kept per lot in 

the agricultural zones. 

In the event of an emergency evacuation, Santa Barbara County Animal Services is deployed to 

the Emergency Operations Center, or if needed, they will open a Department Operations 

Center to open shelters, call in additional staff, and notify the media of a telephone hotline for 

information. If the situation requires additional assistance for large animal evacuations, Animal 

Services calls upon the Santa Barbara Equine Assistance and Evacuation Team (Equine Evac), a 

volunteer organization to assist residents in transporting and handling of animals during 

emergencies. Animal Services has also purchased a mobile command post to assist staff in field 

operations and conducted disaster training drills. Generally, small animals are brought to the 

Humane Society in Goleta and large animals to Earl Warren Showgrounds in Santa Barbara. If 

the showgrounds are not available, other options include Ventura County Showgrounds and 

some private property owners have also agreed to provide safe haven for large animals. 

During the Jesusita Fire, 147 horses were brought in to shelter at the Earl Warren Showgrounds 

in addition to mules, pigs, lamas, goats and other animals. One of the biggest problems faced 

by Equine Evac is the ability to get trailers up during an emergency and lack of room to access a 

property and turn the trailers around (Gene Granaroli, Equine Evac, personal communication 

May 4, 2010). 



Roads 

The road system, including public and private streets and driveways, have a significant effect on 

emergency response and evacuation and the ability to safely evacuate the public when 

necessary. Typically a standard residential road should have 12 foot wide travel lanes on each 

side and, if on-street parking is allowed, an 8 foot wide shoulder for a total width of 40 feet. 

According to County Public Works data for Mission Canyon, only 6 roads have an average road 

width of 40 feet or greater and they are all private roads. Average road width on the public 

roads range from 18 to 30 feet, and many public roads do not prohibit on-street parking. The 

average public right-of-way is typically much wider, ranging from 25 to 60 feet, but irregular 

parcel surveys and incremental encroachment of landscaping, walls, fences and utilities has 

occurred because the paved roadway was used incorrectly as a guide to establish property 

boundaries. Thus, the narrow, winding and often steep roadways can constrain emergency 

access and evacuation. 

Water Supply and Pressure for Firefighting 

The City of Santa Barbara operates the water distribution system that serves the plan area. The 

water distribution system is divided into six different pressure zones which are explained in 

greater detail in the Water Resources section 4.11. The County and City of Santa Barbara jointly 

funded a hydraulic model evaluation to identify any deficiencies in the existing water 

distribution system and evaluate the impacts of buildout. Full details are contained in Appendix 

F. 

In addition to serving most of the City’s water service area, the Cater Water Treatment Plant 

provides domestic water supplies to Tunnel Reservoir, which has a one-million gallon capacity. 

Tunnel Reservoir serves the Upper Tunnel Pressure Zone via a hydro-pneumatic pressure tank 

that is equipped with an emergency generator and 60-hour fuel tank. El Cielito Reservoir has a 

one-million gallon capacity and receives flows from the two 6.5 million gallon Sheffield 

Reservoirs via the El Cielito Pump Station, which is equipped with an emergency generator. 

Reservoir operating levels are pre-determined by distribution staff and are controlled by an 

electronic control system known as SCADA. SCADA allows for the water system to 

automatically respond to changing water demands throughout the entire water distribution 

system. This ensures that there is ample water flow and pressure for domestic and fire fighting 

purposes throughout the distribution system, in accordance with American Water Works 

Association (AWWA) recommendations and United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) regulations. 

The hydraulic study modeled fire hydrant flow criteria in accordance with Santa Barbara County 

Fire Department requirements, shown below on Table 4.6-1. Note that fire hydrants are 

designed to meet structural fire suppression needs for traditional fire attack tactics for fires 

occurring within residential areas. Water flow from public water systems are sometimes able 

to protect structures during wildfire and can supplement attack and defense operations, 

however it cannot be expected that flow from fire hydrants could be effective in stopping the 

advance of a major wildland fire. The amount of water needed to be stored for such an event 



would create water quality problems related to stagnant water, particularly the formation of 

disinfection by-products that are strictly regulated by the California Public Health Department. 

Table 4.6- 1: Santa Barbara County Fire Flow Criteria 

Land Use Type Required Fire Flow 

(gpm) 

Required 

Residual 

Pressure (psi) 

Minimum Allowable 750 20 2 

Urban and Rural Developed 

Neighborhood 

750 20 2 

Commercial 1,250 20 2 

Required Duration 

(hr) 

Fire Flow Analysis 

A fire flow analysis was performed using the hydraulic model to determine the available fire 

flows for existing and buildout conditions, and what impact the additional units have on the 

available fire flows. Fire flows of 750 gpm were assigned to all fire flow nodes serving only 

single-family residential or multi-family residential land uses, and fire flows of 1,250 gpm were 

assigned to all fire flow nodes serving commercial land uses. A total of 126 nodes were 

included for this analysis; however, this number does not indicate the actual number of existing 

hydrants in the Mission Canyon area, as some hydrant locations were tested at two or more 

nodes for comprehensiveness based on the proximities of the nodes within the model in 

relation to actual hydrant locations. Fire flow simulations were run under peak hour demand 18 

for the Upper Tunnel Road Zone since it is a hydropneumatic zone, while the fire flow 

simulations for the remaining zones were run under maximum day demand. 19 A summary of the 

fire flow results under existing and build-out conditions can be found in Table 4.6-2. 

Table 4.6- 2: Fire Flow Results 

Existing Buildout 

No. 

No. 

Available FF Nodes Percentage Available FF Nodes Percentage 

≥ 1250 gpm 117 93% ≥ 1250 gpm 116 92% 

< 1,250 gpm 7 6% < 1,250 gpm 8 6% 

< 750 gpm 2 2% < 750 gpm 2 2% 

< 500 gpm 0 0% < 500 gpm 0 0% 

Totals 126 100% 126 100% 

The majority of nodes in the Mission Canyon area were found to have sufficient available fire 

flows; however, existing available fire flows less than 750 gpm were identified at two separate 

18 Values based on a peaking factor of 2.47. Actual peak hour demands under extended period simulations will vary based on 

hydraulic model diurnal patterns. 

19 Calculated by multiplying average day demand by a factor of 1.8. 



nodes (Note 193 and 195), both within the Tunnel/El Cielito Pressure Zone. The available fire 

flows for both of these locations will decrease slightly if additional demands are introduced 

under buildout. Both of the nodes have relatively high elevations for this pressure zone, which 

corresponds to a lower available static pressure, and as a result, a lower available fire flow. 

Node 193 is located along Holly Road at the top of the Tunnel/El Cielito pressure zone 

boundary. According to City field data, the hydrant does not meet the County fire flow 

requirement; however, there is an adjacent hydrant 20 feet away that is connected to the 

Upper Tunnel Road Zone that can provide 1,095 gpm of fire flow to this location. The adjacent 

hydrant was installed to supplement the fire flow availability at this location due to the low 

flow capacity of the Tunnel/El Cielito hydrant. The hydrant at node 193 has been kept in the 

system at the request of the City Fire Department for the sole purpose of filling fire trucks, since 

the hydrant is supplied water via an uninterruptible gravity flow from Tunnel Reservoir. 

Therefore, node 193 does not require upgrades to meet the minimum required fire flow. 

Node 195 is located at the end of a dead-end stretch of pipeline along Las Canoas Road. The 

primary reason for the low fire flow at this location is due to the high elevation and that it is 

being served from a dead end main. The hydraulic model results and City field data indicate 

that node 195 is unable to meet the minimum required fire flow for existing and buildout 

conditions. 

Pump Stations 

The capacity of existing pump stations serving Mission Canyon was evaluated by RBF Consulting 

using a hydraulic model that used a criterion of maximum day demand plus the required fire 

flow, or peak hour demand, whichever is greater, with the largest pump out of service. The 

results of the water model indicated that if the largest pump was out of service during a fire 

condition, there would be deficiencies in the Sheffield and Upper Tunnel Road water pressure 

zones (see Figure 4-11-4 in the Water Resources section), both under existing and buildout 

conditions. The Sheffield Pump Station can provide the ultimate required capacity, however 

when one pump is out of service, the pump station cannot meet the maximum required 

capacity for a fire condition. This deficiency is considered insignificant because there is a 

redundant water supply to the pressure zone, and the zone also includes a large amount of 

water storage, access to other zone supplies through three pressure reducing stations, and an 

additional reservoir connection through an additional pressure reducing station. 

The Tunnel Road Pump Station is the sole supply to the Upper Tunnel Road water pressure 

zone. The pump station has two small pumps for domestic water use and one larger fire pump 

that is used to meet fire flow requirements (i.e., provide sufficient water supply and pressure to 

hydrants for fighting structural fires). The pump station is adequately sized to meet the 

average day, maximum day and peak hour demands. However, the pump station analysis 

indicated that both the total capacity and the firm capacity (assumes the largest pump is out of 

service) do not meet required criteria. The pump station is supplied with a hydropneumatic 

tank that can provide a small amount of backup supply and operational flexibility. Also, the fire 

pump is rated for 550 gallons per minute (gpm), which does not meet the current criteria of 750 



gpm for this area. With all pumps operating, the pump station has adequate capacity to meet 

the fire flow requirement. Assuming the fire pump is out of service results in a deficiency for 

the zone. Under such circumstances, a portable water pumper would be brought to the site to 

provide the required pumping capacity. 

Pump station upgrades are programmed by the City of Santa Barbara for the El Cielito/Tunnel 

water pressure zone, which serves both City and Mission Canyon residents. The Distribution 

Pump Station Rehabilitation Project would replace aging pump station equipment in Rocky 

Nook Park and El Cielito and would upgrade fire fighting capabilities in the foothills (City of 

Santa Barbara 2004). These improvements are planned in the City’s Capital Program FY 2009- 

2010 to FY 2014-2015. Emergency generators are also proposed to be installed by late 2011 at 

the El Cielito Pump Station. The Tunnel Road Pump Station is currently programmed for 

upgrades in the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program. 

Defensible Space 

Defensible space is the area surrounding a building or structure where basic wildfire protection 

practices are implemented. The area is characterized by the establishment of fuel modification 

measures, where the volume of flammable vegetation is reduced providing reduced fire 

intensity and duration. In 2005, California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4291 was amended to 

expand defensible space clearance requirement maintained around structures from 30 feet to a 

distance of 100 feet. Proper clearance to 100 feet dramatically increases the chance of a house 

surviving a wildfire. This same defensible space also provides for firefighter safety when 

protecting homes during a wildland fire. The 100-foot defensible space area is state law and 

adopted County Fire Department standard. The County Fire Department has jurisdiction to 

ensure the minimum defensible space is maintained for all buildings and structures within the 

unincorporated areas of the county. In some instances the Fire Department will require more 

than the minimum defensible space area due to the location of the structure on a slope or 

because of the vegetative fuel loading surrounding a structure. 

For new structures, as part of the permit application process, the County Fire Department 

requires a defensible space inspection prior to occupancy. The inspection will include removal 

of dead vegetation, litter, and vegetation that might grow into overhead power lines or 

overhang chimneys and roads, trimming of ground fuels and ladder fuels, as well as the limbing 

and thinning of live trees. The Fire Department also implements an annual fuel hazard 

abatement program beginning in May, which includes drive by inspections of every property in 

Mission Canyon. Those who fail the initial inspection are provided with a notice to abate fire 

nuisance and are provided approximately three weeks to meet the requirements for defensible 

space clearance, or face citations, costs for clearance and administrative fees. 

Since 2000, grant funds have been used to decrease the amount of vegetation encroaching on 

roadways needed for evacuation purposes in Mission Canyon. The Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden was awarded a grant to clear roadways along their property boundaries and additional 

vegetation reduction in identified areas. The Mission Canyon Association (MCA) has been 

awarded California Fire Safe Council grants to maintain previous vegetation reduction projects 



as well as establish new clear areas. Areas that have been cleared include upper Tunnel Road 

trailhead area, Spyglass Road, the olive grove on the east side of Mission Canyon Road, and 

Cheltenham Road. The MCA also organizes annual brush clean up days when residents can 

bring brush to a designated area for chipping and disposal. The grant funding sources have 

indicated that a consistent and sustainable source of funding should be pursued because grant 

opportunities and funding sources fluctuate year to year and do not allow for a systematic 

approach to project completion and maintenance due to funding uncertainty. 


Fire Protection Areas and Agencies 

The State Board of Forestry designates fire protection responsibility areas for federal, state, and 

local agencies. Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service have responsibility to provide 

wildland resource fire protection on all Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) lands, including the 

Los Padres National Forest. To more efficiently provide protection over a more contiguous land 

base, federal agencies trade protection areas with the California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The resulting lands are called State Direct Protection Areas or 

Federal Direct Protection Areas. 

State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands are designated by the State Board of Forestry. The state 

assumes financial responsibility for protecting natural resources on these lands from damage by 

fire. CAL FIRE has legal responsibility to provide wildland resource fire protection on all SRA 

lands, including the financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires. Santa Barbara 

County is one of six “contract counties” that executed a contract with the State of California to 

provide wildland fire protection on SRAs. As such, the County Fire Department functionally 

operates as a unit of CAL FIRE. SRA lands within Mission Canyon are located north of Foothill 

Road and encompass approximately 870 acres. South of Foothill Road, there are an additional 

160 acres of Local Responsibility Area (LRA) within Mission Canyon where fire protection is 

under the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. 

CAL FIRE has adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for areas of California where the state 

has fiscal responsibility for fire suppression efforts. CAL FIRE also prepares mapping 

information for local agencies to designate fire hazard severity zones by ordinance. The County 

has designated all of Mission Canyon in a High Fire Hazard Area via Building Code Ordinance 

4683 (Figure 4.6-2). 



Figure 4.6- 2 Fire Hazard Severity Zone 

County Fire Department 

County Fire Department Station No. 15 is located at 2491 Foothill Road and is the primary 

station serving Mission Canyon. Station No. 15 is staffed by 3 firefighters on a 24-hour basis. 

Available ground equipment includes: one Type 1 Engine, and one Type 3 Brush Truck. All of 

the firefighters have Emergency Medical Technician training (EMT-1) and provide first response 

medical services. Paramedic and ambulance service is provided by American Medical Response 

under contract to the County of Santa Barbara. The Fire Station is programmed for 

replacement at the current site because it is inadequate to support current staffing and 

operations and does not meet building requirements for fire facilities but the project is 

currently unfunded. 

The Fire Department actively participates in the land development application review process 

for all new development within the Mission Canyon Special Problem Area. This provides the 

opportunity to review development early in the process and address emergency access, water 

supply, vegetation management, and fire protection systems (e.g. sprinklers, fire hydrants, 



etc.). Through this process, older structures are progressively made more fire safe as permit 

applications for remodels and additions meet current building and fire codes. 

County Fire Department Development Standards 

County Fire Department enforces standards for the following developments: 

• Private roads and driveways: includes standards for minimum widths, turnouts, 

turnarounds, access roads, surfaces, street name signs and addresses, and vegetation 

clearance along roads; 

• Hydrant spacing and flow rates: includes flow rates, spacing policy, hydrant 

requirements; 

• Stored water fire protection systems: includes standards for residential units outside of 

a water purveyor’s district; 

• Automatic fire sprinkler systems: includes standards for fire sprinkler plans; 

• Automatic alarm systems: includes standards for alarm system plans when required by 

law; 

• Defensible Space: provides standards for fuel modification measures for buildings and 

structures, driveways and roadways and continuous tree canopies and; 

• Access gates: outlines the requirements for gates on private roads and driveway access 

points. 

As noted earlier, a County Fire Department representative reviews all proposed development 

applications for building and structures and may recommend any and all reasonable conditions 

of approval considered necessary to mitigate present and anticipated problems. 

County Building Regulations and Fire Code Requirements 

The County’s Building Regulations Chapter 10, Article XII. - High Fire Hazard Areas sets 

standards for building construction in the designated high fire hazard areas including criteria for 

roof coverings, eaves, exterior walls, wood columns, unenclosed underfloor protection, roof 

structures and appendages, exterior glazing, attic ventilation, rafter space ventilation, and 

under floor ventilation. 

In July 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Fire Code, which incorporates 

the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code with California amendments. The Code allows 

local jurisdictions to establish more restrictive and reasonably necessary differences to the 

code, as was done by the County when it adopted the 2010 California Fire Code with 

amendments in December 2010. A key component to the new California Fire code is the 

addition of residential fire sprinklers in all new one and two family and town-home 

construction. 

Although residential fire sprinkler systems are a life safety device designed for interior fires and 

not exterior fires, a functioning sprinkler system could help prevent a small house fire from 

spreading and becoming a wildfire. In addition, some insurance companies may reduce rates 



for homes with fire sprinklers. Thus, the new requirement should be a positive benefit for fire 

protection in Mission Canyon. 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act directs federal agencies to collaborate with communities in 

developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which includes the identification and 

prioritization of areas needing hazardous fuels treatment. With a CWPP in place, community 

groups can apply for federal grants to treat hazardous fuels and address special concerns to 

reduce the risk of catastrophic loss as a result of wildland fire. Santa Barbara County Fire 

Department prepares a Santa Barbara County CWPP to incorporate the wildfire hazard element 

of the Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. 

The Mission Canyon CWPP (Santa Barbara County 2008a) was completed in cooperation 

between the Mission Canyon Association, County Fire, City of Santa Barbara Fire Department, 

and the USDA Forest Service to outline the priorities, strategies and action plans for fuels 

reduction treatments in the Mission Canyon wildland urban interface and vicinity. Grant funds 

are used to decrease the amount of vegetation encroaching on roadways needed for 

evacuation purposes and to clear vegetation on large privately owned parcels in key locations. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Watersheds Initiative (Fuel Management Planning on 

Non-Federal Lands). 

Since 2004, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has funded fuel reduction 

activities throughout the forested mountain communities in Riverside, San Bernardino and San 

Diego Counties. A subsequent inventory of high priority projects in at-risk forest and shrublands 

was conducted that included Santa Barbara County. The objective is to mobilize a 

collaborative, interagency effort and prepare a uniform fuel treatment project inventory in the 

seven participating counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa 

Barbara and Ventura) that if implemented, would reduce risk to agriculture, communities and 

wildlife. With partner agencies including Santa Barbara County Fire Safe Council and Santa 

Barbara County Flood Control Department, 26 projects were identified in Santa Barbara County 

totaling 73,329 acres of fuel management treatment. Several fuel management projects were 

identified in and around the Mission Canyon plan area but it is unknown when they will be 

completed. 

Red Flag Alert Plan 

The County’s Red Flag Alert Plan (Santa Barbara County 2008b) uses Fire Department, fire 

agencies, citizens groups and news media to inform the public of high fire danger, the potential 

for a major wildfire, and the need to be aware of and exercise fire safe practices during these 

periods. The program is implemented during Red Flag weather conditions as predicted by the 

National Weather Service, when Red Flag indices reach or exceed local plan levels, when 

suppression and prevention force availability is severely depleted due to emergency activity 

and other incidents, and when other unusual circumstances dictate the need to implement Red 

Flag activities. The Santa Barbara County Fire Chief may enact a Red Flag Alert. A Red Flag Alert 

may be initiated in the Santa Barbara Front Country when the temperature is greater than or 



equal to 85°, the winds are greater than or equal to 15 miles per hour, and the relative humidity 

is less than or equal to 20%. 

When a Red Flag Alert is called, the County Fire Department will place in service Red Flag Alert 

signs, four of which are located in Mission Canyon at Tye and Foothill Road, Cheltenham and 

Foothill Road, on Mission Canyon Road and on Tunnel Road. Other activities can include fire 

closure on private and public lands, additional fire agency and sheriff patrol units, and news 

media contact. 

Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 

The Hazard Mitigation Plan is used as a tool for all stakeholders to increase public awareness of 

local hazards and risks, while at the same time providing information about options and 

resources available to reduce risks. The plan is also prepared to make the County eligible for 

funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. For 

wildland fire, the plan includes and prioritizes a series of implementing actions such as updating 

fire hazard zone mapping and the County Wildfire Management Plan. The plan is valid for five 

years from the approval date and as it was last approved in 2005, the County is in the process 

of updating the plan. 

Seismic Safety and Safety Element 

The Seismic Safety and Safety Element (Safety Element) is intended to guide land use planning 

by providing data regarding geologic, soil, seismic, fire and flood hazards. In summer 2010, the 

County updated the Safety Element to comply with new state laws and provide updated 

information. The update includes goals, policies and implementation measures adopted by the 

County which demonstrate compliance with fire prevention and protection requirements, such 

as implementing Fire Code specifications and standards for fire safety and prevention, as 

outlined in state law. 


The 1984 Specific Plan noted fire hazards associated with high fuel loading and serious 

emergency access problems. At the time, Mission Canyon Road above Foothill, Tunnel Road, 

Las Canoas Road and Holly Road were considered particularly overgrown with vegetation. In 

addition, the Fire Department cited a lack of safety zones where emergency vehicles could park 

in the event of a major fire, many driveways had gradients too steep for emergency vehicles, 

and residences could not be located due to poor address markings. Flow to the water tank at 

the end of Tunnel Road was considered unreliable and there were problems with the pump 

station capacity behind Fire Station #15. The Specific Plan development regulations included 

incorporating the entire plan area into the County’s High Fire Hazard Zone in order to ensure 

that existing and new development compliance with High Fire Hazard Zone code requirements 

and formulation of a fuel management plan with a particular focus on roadside fuel 

management. 




The County’s Environmental Thresholds Manual does not include specific significance 

thresholds for wildland fires. Therefore, based upon Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, 

impacts are considered significant if project implementation would: 

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving 

wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where 

residences are intermixed with wildlands; and 

• Buildout development in a high fire hazard areas and constraints on infrastructure 

would substantially limit the Fire Department’s ability to provide optimal protection to 

the citizens of Mission Canyon. 

The County Fire Department standards typically used to determine if a significant impact on fire 

protection would occur are as follows: 

• Buildout results in populations that would exceed a ratio of one firefighter for every 

4,000 residents in the service area; or 

• Buildout would occur beyond a 5-minute response time from the nearest fire station. 

Evacuation Simulation 

Because Mission Canyon has been identified as an area with existing infrastructure constraints 

that could affect orderly evacuation, a traffic simulation model was used to identify bottlenecks 

and choke points during the evacuation process under existing conditions and with future 

buildout. Areas adjacent to the plan area and cumulative traffic conditions were also 

considered in the evacuation scenarios, taking into account the experiences learned from the 

recent Jesusita and Tea Fires. Appendix G contains the full results of the simulation model 

prepared by Fehr & Peers. The project impacts section summarizes the findings. 


IMPACT FIRE-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon Community 


The 1984 Specific Plan action to include the entire Specific Plan area within the County’s High 

Fire Hazard Zone is carried forward by County Ordinance and special building code regulations 

are implemented through the building permit process. The Special Problems Committee will 

continue to review projects and can require necessary site-specific measures for fire safety. 

The proposed Community Plan includes more policies for fire protection than the 1984 Specific 

Plan; thus impacts are beneficial (Class IV). 



IMPACT FIRE-2: Plan area buildout would potentially expose people or structures to a 

significant risk of wildland fires. 

Potential future build out of the plan area would occur in the high fire hazard urban-wildland 

interface area. Recent fire events that reduced the fuel load may have temporarily diminished 

the hazard for Upper Mission Canyon but vegetation cover is still heavy in the Mission Canyon 

Heights and the neighborhood South of Foothill Road and the vegetation is expected to return 

throughout the canyon. In addition, climate change is predicted to potentially increase 

wildland fire frequency over time. 

Extensive federal, state and local plans are in place for responding to wildland fires. The County 

enforces Fire Code building standards and active fuels management. The Special Problems 

Committee review of development projects provides the opportunity for Fire Department staff 

to specifically require standards to improve fire safety. Evacuation planning and improving 

emergency response is an on-going process. The County Sheriff’s Reverse 911® system, which 

went online in 2005, is used to enhance emergency preparedness and facilitate urgent and 

necessary notifications to citizens during emergency events. In February 2010, the County held 

a groundbreaking ceremony to herald the beginning of construction for the County’s new 

Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to be built off Cathedral Oaks Road near the County Fire 

Department Headquarters. The EOC serves as a single focal point for the management of 

information, policy making and resource support and allocation during all phases of a local 

emergency. The new EOC will enhance the County’s ability to fulfill the overall objective of 

emergency management. The Red Flag Warning Plan provides a procedure to inform the public 

of high fire danger and to be aware of and to exercise fire safe practices during these periods. 

The County Fire Department standard 5-minute response time incorporates one minute for 

turnout time and 4 minutes or less for the arrival of the first engine company. The entire plan 

area is within the 5-minute response time of Fire Station 15. The response time does not 

change at potential build out (Captain Martin Johnson, pers. comm.., October 16, 2008). 

Mission Canyon residents are suitably aware of the wildlife hazards faced in their community 

and special attention was paid to drafting policies and development standards in the Mission 

Canyon Community Plan (MCCP) to reduce the risk. The MCCP also includes several policies 

and development standards that would have a beneficial effect on fire protection including: 

• A prohibition of most residential second units thus reducing additional development 

potential; 

• Support for cooperative fuels management and developing a Wildland Fire Benefit 

Assessment District to provide additional fire prevention services to reduce the damage 

and severity of wildfires; and 

• Policies and development standards to address defensible space, parking prohibitions 

and road improvements for emergency ingress and egress. 



Careful review of development proposals in compliance with Fire Department development 

standards, High Fire Hazard Area building codes and the proposed Community Plan policies and 

development standards would reduce impacts but may not entirely reduce the risk of wildland 

fires. Thus, implementation of the plan would result in a potentially significant Class I impact. 


MM-FIRE-1.1: Incorporate proposed land use and fire protection goals, policies, actions and 

development standards (or functional equivalent) from the draft Community Plan into the 


The following goals, policies, actions and development standards are included in the proposed 

Community Plan and would reduce the potential risk of wildland fire from buildout: 


GOAL LU-MC-1: Assure that development does not exceed the availability of adequate 

services and infrastructure to provide for public health and safety 

within an area with limited ingress and egress. 

Policy LU-MC-1: The County shall recognize that the Mission Canyon Community Plan 

area is a constrained community with respect to fire hazard, parking 

and circulation, flooding and drainage, wastewater and geology, 

hillsides and topography, and shall require that future development is 

adequately served by existing services and infrastructure. 

GOAL FIRE-MC-1: Maximize effective and appropriate prevention measures to reduce 

wildfire damage to human and animal life, property, and the Canyon 

ecosystem. 

Policy FIRE-MC-1: Support collaborative fuel management projects between County 

Planning and Development, Fire and Public Works, the City of Santa 

Barbara, and Mission Canyon residents to encourage fire hazard 

reduction and protection of natural resources. 

Action FIRE-MC-1.1: The County shall work with Mission Canyon residents to prepare a 

feasibility study for developing a Wildland Fire Benefit Assessment 

District to provide additional fire prevention services to reduce the 

damage and severity of wildfires. Additional services may include: 

improvement of evacuation routes; defensible space inspection and 

assistance; development of on-street parking turnouts and fire 

hydrants where needed; and vegetation management programs. 



Action FIRE-MC-1.2: The Planning and Development Department shall coordinate with the 

County Fire Department to develop educational materials and 

enhanced programs for properties along creeks and with 

environmentally sensitive habitat to ensure that fuel modification 

activities and practices achieve a balance between habitat values and 

fire hazard risk. 

Policy FIRE-MC-2: Fire hazards in the Mission Canyon plan area shall be minimized to 

reduce the cost and need for increased fire protection services and to 

protect natural resources. 

DevStd FIRE-MC-2.1: Along access roads and driveways, limbing of native tree branches 

shall be allowed to meet the minimum vertical clearance requirements 

of the California Fire Code and Santa Barbara County Fire Department 

development standards. To the maximum extent feasible, fuel 

management practices shall not result in the removal or substantial 

risk of loss of mature, healthy, native trees. 

DevStd FIRE-MC-2.2: Fire hydrants shall be required on both sides of a roadway whenever: 

1) the roadway represents a main route out of the Mission Canyon 

area; or 2) if the Fire Chief, or his designated representative, 

determines the use of fire hydrants on the opposite side of the 

roadway may prove operationally difficult, or may create unsafe 

working conditions. 

DevStd FIRE-MC-2.5: Development shall demonstrate compliance with State Defensible 

Space requirements (i.e., a minimum of 100 feet of fuel modification 

from buildings and structures). 

Action FIRE-MC-2.6: The County shall investigate the feasibility of establishing a utility 

undergrounding program throughout Mission Canyon for the purpose 

of fire hazard reduction. 

Policy FIRE-MC-3: Ensure that adequate fire facilities and staffing are available to meet 

the needs of both existing and new development in Mission Canyon. 

The policies, development standards and actions presented above and contained in the draft 

plan will help to minimize impacts to fire protection. However, Action Fire-MC-1.1 should be 

revised to clarify the process and types of projects that should be considered for additional fire 

prevention purposes. 

MM-FIRE-1.2: Revise draft Mission Canyon Community Plan Action FIRE-MC-1.1 to provide 

more direction on the process for this action. 



Action FIRE-MC-1.1 from the draft Community Plan shall be amended as follows (deletions 

struck through, additions underlined): 

Action FIRE-MC-1.1: The County shall prepare a plan and adopt a Resolution of Intention to 

fund work with Mission Canyon residents to prepare a feasibility study 

for developing a Wildland Fire Benefit Assessment District to provide 

additional fire prevention services to reduce the damage and severity 

of wildfires. Additional services may include: improvement of 


development of on-street parking turnouts and fire hydrants where 

needed; and vegetation management programs. 


means of a Benefit Assessment District or Special Tax. If required, an 

Engineer’s Report shall be prepared that contains a description of the 

improvements to be financed, the proposed district boundaries, and a 

description of the special benefit that each parcel would receive as a 

result of the assessment. Fire prevention services may include: 


Community Wildfire Protection Plan (i.e., reducing hazardous fuels 

on public and private lands, increase education and awareness, 

and improve and protect critical evacuation routes); 



Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed and revised goals, policies, development 

standards and actions would be included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

MM-FIRE-1.3: Incorporate a new action in the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan to 

consider red flag warning closures and parking prohibitions at the trailhead on Tunnel Road. 

The end of Tunnel Road provides public parking and access through property owned by the City 

of Santa Barbara to Tunnel and Jesusita trails. The residents of Mission Canyon rated this area 

as experiencing the most severe parking problems in the canyon and there is a great concern 

that the presence of potentially over a hundred extra cars and people in the forest area and 

parked on the roads could increase the risk of a wildfire and pose significant public safety risks, 

particularly during a red flag warning period. The County’s Red Flag Warning Plan and the 

California Fire Code provides the authority to invoke fire closures on private and public lands 

and roadways when a Red Flag Warning is called. However, coordination would be necessary 

to ensure that residents and visitors are made aware of proposed closures and enforcement is 

available. Therefore, a new action is proposed to coordinate such an effort (additions 

underlined). 



Action FIRE-MC-2.7 The County shall coordinate with the City of Santa Barbara, the Front 

Country Trails Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force and the California 

Highway Patrol to consider a plan to invoke fire closure of the Tunnel 

Road trailhead and a prohibition of parking on Tunnel Road when a 

Red Flag Warning is in effect. The plan shall include an educational 

program to inform residents and visitors of any proposed closures and 

potential enforcement actions that could occur. 


With the incorporation of the proposed policies, actions and development standards, County 

Fire Department development standards and Building Code requirements, and fuel reduction 

projects, risk posed by wildland fire to additional residential development would be reduced. 

Additionally, the proposed new action to consider trail closures and parking restrictions on Red 

Flag Warning days could reduce the risk of wildland fire and to public health and safety. While 

this will help mitigate the situation somewhat, wildland fires also start on non-red flag warning 

days when there could be significant numbers of extra people in the forest lands and cars 

parked on Tunnel Road. Therefore, due to the existing extreme high fire hazard and the 

significant risks to public health and safety, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable 

(Class I). 

IMPACT FIRE-3: Buildout of the plan area would potentially impact emergency ingress and 

egress and limit emergency responder’s ability to provide optimal protection to the citizens 

of Mission Canyon. 

Emergency ingress and egress in Mission Canyon is limited due to the existing road 

configurations. Upper Mission Canyon in particular has limited exits for an evacuation. Tunnel 

Road and Mission Canyon Road are the two main roads for egress to the south. Las Canoas can 

be used to the east but it is a narrow, winding road that continues into the foothills. 

Cheltenham Road to Tye and Glen Albyn is another means of evacuating Mission Canyon 

Heights to the south but it is a narrow, winding road with many driveways and few shoulders 

for cars to pull over. There are no paved exit roads to the west until Foothill Road. The number 

of existing residential units that would rely on these roads to evacuate is 779. South of Foothill 

has more options including Mission Canyon Road to the south and Puesta del Sol to the west. 

The number of existing units that would rely on these roads to evacuate is 233. 

Many of the roadways and driveways serving Mission Canyon were built prior to current 

roadway and access standards. The narrow, steep and often winding roads constrain 

emergency ingress and egress. On-street parking on most public roads creates traffic flow 

problems by reducing the effective travel lane area often down to a single lane width. 

Several independent studies have noted potential evacuation vulnerability in this area. The 

Vehicle Intelligence & Transportation Laboratory and Department of Geography at University of 

California Santa Barbara (UCSB) study (Church and Sexton 2002) presented a micro-scale traffic 



simulation model analysis and concluded that without special evacuation plans in place, the 

neighborhood may not be able to evacuate in a timely manner during a wildfire. A second 

study (Cova 2005) suggests that Mission Canyon scores poorly against a set of “egress 

standards” due to too many homes relying on two exit routes that are lined with too much 

vegetation. These studies point to the fact that existing emergency ingress and egress 

conditions are problematic, particularly north of Foothill Road. 

A micro-scale traffic simulation model was developed by Fehr & Peers to identify the 

bottlenecks and choke points and evacuation times during the evacuation process under 

existing conditions and with future buildout of the Community Plan. The purpose was to 

understand current problems and identify recommendations for traffic control strategies and 

potential infrastructure improvements to improve traffic flow conditions. The full report is 

provided in Appendix G. Note that although evacuation impacts and procedures were focused 

on wildfires, other emergencies such as earthquakes, floods, and release of hazardous materials 

release could also require evacuation although the time frames to leave the plan area may be 

different. 

The following fire evacuation scenarios were developed and analyzed for the evacuation 

simulation: 

1. Existing Scenario/Moderate Intensity (fire in Upper Mission Canyon area): average trip 

generation rate of 0.5 vehicles per household inbound and 1 vehicles per household 

outbound with existing development. 

2. Existing Scenario/High Intensity (major fire in Upper Mission Canyon expanded to the 

Upper Las Canoas area): average trip generation rate of 0.5 vehicles inbound and 2 

vehicles outbound, plus additional traffic from Upper Las Canoas neighborhoods and full 

occupancy events at local venues. 

3. Buildout Scenario/Moderate Intensity: the above assumptions plus buildout and 

cumulative traffic growth. 

4. Buildout Scenario/High Intensity: the above assumptions plus buildout and cumulative 

traffic growth. 

Note that the scenarios presented above assume that a certain number of vehicles would be 

allowed back into the plan area to retrieve people, pets or possessions and therefore 

represents the worst case scenario. If an evacuation order were called, any allowance for 

inbound vehicles would be made on a case by case basis and may require a Sheriff’s escort. 

For existing conditions in the moderate intensity fire scenario, it was found that the majority of 

households could leave their houses within 45 minutes and be directed to safe destinations 

within two hours. For the purposes of the simulation scenarios, the safe destination was 

assumed to be major intersections just south of the City/County boundary. In an actual 

evacuation event, the safe destination would vary from situation to situation but would more 

likely be further towards the coast to school grounds or Earl Warren Showgrounds at Highway 

101 and Las Positas. 



Existing Conditions: Moderate vs. High Intensity Evacuation Scenarios 

The moderate intensity existing condition scenario found that the majority of vehicles could be 

evacuated within two hours but approximately 2% of the vehicles (105 vehicles comprising both 

Mission Canyon residents and background commute traffic) could still be travelling on the roads 

after the two hour evacuation analysis period. 20 Under the high intensity fire condition, the 

majority of residents could be evacuated during the analysis period but almost 730 vehicles 

(which could be a mix of Mission Canyon residents, background commute traffic, and traffic 

evacuated from event venues) could still be on the roads after 2 hours. 

Buildout Conditions: Moderate vs. High Intensity Evacuation Scenarios 

With the buildout of the plan area and anticipated regional traffic growth over the next 20 

years, an additional 1,000 vehicles would need to be evacuated in the plan area under the 

moderate intensity assumption. The majority of residents could leave their houses within 45 

minutes and arrive at safe destinations within two hours. The overall traffic congestion, 

average travel speed and vehicle hours of delay would be worse than existing conditions 

Scenario 1, and better than existing conditions, Scenario 2 of High Intensity. If a high intensity 

fire occurred under buildout, approximately 80 percent of the vehicles could be evacuated and 

rerouted within two hours. However, about 785 vehicles would remain traveling on the roads 

to exit the plan area after the two hour evacuation period. 

Optimized Traffic Control Plan 

Based on a review of the systemwide performance for fire evacuation Scenarios 1 and 2 under 

existing and 2030 MCCP buildout conditions 21 and visual inspection of the bottlenecks in each 

scenario, an initial set of traffic control strategies and potential infrastructure improvements 

were developed by Fehr & Peers to improve the traffic flow conditions. The initial 

recommendations were analyzed using the VISSIM models and were refined through multiple 

iterations. 

Current traffic control strategies were evaluated and additional traffic control strategies to 

improve traffic flow during a fire evacuation were developed consistent with proposed Mission 

Canyon Community Plan and existing Comprehensive Plan policies. The traffic control 

strategies may not fully mitigate the potentially significant ingress/egress and emergency 

access impacts relating to Fire Protection, Risk of Upset and Transportation/Circulation as 

stated in the Initial Study for the MCCP based on a threshold of introducing buildout 

development in a high fire hazard area, but would reduce or compensate for potentially 

significant traffic impacts of the theoretical buildout of MCCP. 

20 The 2-hour analysis was intended to capture peak background commute traffic and generally covers staggered arrive and 

departures of multiple neighborhood zones within and adjacent to the Plan area. 

21 The evacuation scenarios are based on assumptions that may or may not represent real evacuation situations, this is not an 

operations plan for real evacuation situations. 



Depending on the intensity and location of a fire, the number of vehicles that could be allowed 

to enter the study area could change significantly. Based on a review of the VISSIM simulation 

models, general traffic control strategies were developed and were included in the proposed 

“Optimized Traffic Control Plan.” 

As previous studies and simulation data has shown, existing conditions are not ideal for 

evacuating the plan area in the event of an emergency. New policies and development 

standards have been developed for the proposed Community Plan to improve the situation to 

the extent feasible while retaining the semi-rural ambiance that attracts people to live in 

Mission Canyon. Careful review of development proposals in compliance with Fire Department 

development standards and the proposed Community Plan policies and development standards 

would reduce impacts but may not entirely reduce the risk of wildland fires. Thus, 

implementation of the plan would result in potentially significant Class I impact for emergency 

ingress and egress. 


MM-FIRE-2.1: Incorporate proposed fire protection policies and development standards (or 

functional equivalent) from the draft Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon 

Community Plan and implement proposed Land Use and Development Code amendments for 

additional findings regarding roadway evacuation. 

The proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan includes policies, actions and development 

standards intended to improve emergency ingress and egress. The policies are focused on 

actions to create clear roadways and improvements to the public right-of-way. 


DevStd FIRE-MC-2.4: Development on private roads shall require reasonable half width road 

frontage improvements, or other applicable measures to provide space 

for emergency turn out zones, pedestrian access and appropriate 

landscaping and hardscaping, to incorporate applicable County Fire 

Department and State Fire Code private road and driveway standards 

to the extent allowable by publicly or privately owned easements. 

DevStd CIRC-MC-1.6: Development on public roads shall require reasonable half width road 

frontage improvements, or other applicable measures to provide space 

for emergency turn out zones, pedestrian access and appropriate 

landscaping and hardscaping, to meet current public road standards to 

the extent allowable in the public right-of-way. Development on State 

Route 192/Foothill Road shall be referred to Caltrans for input and 

determination on road frontage improvements and encroachment 

permit policies to meet State Highway standards. 



Policy FIRE-MC-4: New discretionary development, including new construction and 

increases in intensity of use, shall not significantly contribute, 

individually or cumulatively, to the existing deficiency in roadway 

evacuation capacity from the Mission Canyon plan area. 

DevStd FIRE-MC-4.1: The County shall require two routes of ingress and egress for 

discretionary development unless the Fire Department waives\modifies 

the requirement and documents finding(s) for the waiver\modification 

based upon substantial evidence that public safety will not be 

compromised. 

Policy CIRC-MC-11: Any temporary construction in a roadway which involves the closure of 

one or both traffic lanes shall be carefully coordinated with County Fire 

Department to ensure emergency access to and egress from the 

Canyon are available at all times. 

DevStd CIRC-MC-3.1: All access roads and driveways to new dwelling units shall be designed 

and built to allow emergency vehicle access. In addition, new 

development shall provide adequate off street parking for residents 

and guests, especially where “No Parking” restrictions exist on 

adjacent roads and/or where roads are narrow, winding, and/or steep. 

Land Use and Development Code Amendments 

Proposed amendments to the LUDC impose additional findings regarding roadway evacuation 

for 1) Temporary Uses and Events within the plan area, 2) Conditional Use Permits (other than 

those submitted in compliance with Chapter 35.38 Sign Standards), 3) Preliminary or Final 

Development Plans, and 4) Zoning Map Amendments. 

MM-FIRE-2.2: Integrate Residential Parking Strategy policies, actions and development 

standard recommendations into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

Just prior to initiation of the proposed Community Plan for environmental review, the County 

Board of Supervisors approved funding to implement the following action from the draft 

Community Plan: 

Action CIRC-MC-3.2: Planning & Development Department shall work with Public Works, 

County Fire Department, and area residents to develop an 

implementation strategy for residential parking to ensure safe 

emergency ingress and egress within Mission Canyon. 

After four community meetings and extensive public input, the Mission Canyon Planning 

Advisory Committee proposed a set of recommended policies, development standards as well 



as revisions to existing policies and development standards. The final report from this project is 

on file in Planning and Development Department. The recommendations are proposed for 

inclusion in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan to mitigate the potential impacts of 

traffic flow constraints (additions underlined, deletions struck through): 

Policy CIRC-MC-7: Parking shall be prohibited on roads where it could encroach into the 

10 foot vehicle travel lane or interfere with emergency ingress or 

egress, Fire Department access to fire fighting facilities, and safe 

pedestrian passage as determined by County Public Works or the Fire 

Department, in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. The 

outside perimeter of travel lanes shall be delineated by a white stripe 

(fog line). Parking shall be allowed to the right of the fog line provided 

it does not interfere with adequate sight distance and safe pedestrian 

passage. Parking areas in the public right-of-way shall not be reserved 

and/or posted for the sole use of the adjacent property owner and 

shall not be used for long term parking of boats, trailers or 

recreational vehicles. 

Action CIRC-MC-7.1: The County shall seek funding to paint and maintain fog line striping 

on public roads in Mission Canyon where appropriate to implement 

Policy CIRC-MC-7. Public outreach will be conducted prior to new fog 

line striping to seek public input on road striping placement. The 

County shall coordinate timing and implementation of new road 

striping with the California Highway Patrol to ensure public awareness 

of Vehicle Code enforcement. 

Policy CIRC-MC-8: Encroachments in the public right-of-way shall generally be 

discouraged. Encroachment of structures, fences, walls, landscaping, 

etc., into existing road rights-of-way shall be subject to an 

encroachment permit and may be approved only when all of the 

following conditions are met: (a) the encroachment preserves an 

unobstructed minimum distance of 7 feet from edge of pavement; (b) 

the encroachment would widen the right-of-way area usable by the 

public (e.g., pedestrian and bicycle passage) or add public parking 

spaces; and (c) the encroachment would be consistent with the semirural 

character of Mission Canyon. Board of Architectural Review 

(BAR) approval shall be required for any encroachment that requires a 

Land Use Permit under the LUDC. 

DevStd CIRC-MC-8.1: Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approval shall be required for any 

encroachment that requires a Land Use Permit under the LUDC. All 

new landscaping and hardscape within and immediately adjacent to 

public rights-of-way (ROW) shall be consistent with the continued use 



and availability of the ROW for its eventual intended use. No 

landscaping or hardscape shall be planted within the public road ROW 

without an encroachment permit. 

DevStd CIRC-MC-8.2: All new residential development on parcels located along State Route 

192 that have or could include fixed objects within the State right-ofway 

shall be forwarded to Caltrans for comment prior to BAR review. 

Policy PDR-MC-2: During reconstruction of damaged and destroyed structures, the 

County shall regain require removal of encroachments in the public 

right- of-way (e.g., remove encroachments such as walls, fences, and 

landscaping) along key ingress and egress roads (Mission Canyon, 

Tunnel, Cheltenham, and Tye Roads) within the Canyon, unless an 

encroachment permit is obtained. Regained rights-of-way shall be for 

the purpose of meeting minimum Public Works road width standards 

and to improve pedestrian and bicyclist circulation providing adequate 

sight distance, creating a clear zone to provide pull over spaces in 

emergencies, and to ensure access and safety for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed, new and revised policies, action and 

development standards would be included in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

MM-FIRE-2.3: Revise draft Mission Canyon Community Plan circulation actions to consider 

emergency turnout zones at critical locations to allow additional evacuation traffic capacity. 

Application of such strategies, if feasible, would affect capacity of those evacuation routes, and 

eventually result in different evacuation time estimates for the plan area. Under 2030 MCCP 

Buildout conditions, if a high intensity fire scenario occurs, deployment of the "Optimized 

Traffic Control Plan" 22 may not be fully sufficient to evacuate the entire Mission Canyon 

residents and the Upper Las Canoas neighborhoods within 45 minutes. Additional roadway 

spot improvements could be considered as part of the infrastructure improvements in the area 

and would require consultation with the adjacent City of Santa Barbara. These spot 

improvements could reduce the traffic congestion bottlenecks observed in the previous Jesusita 

and Tea Fire evacuation experiences. The proposed spot improvements locations are shown on 

Figure 4.6-3 and include: 

• Foothill Road and Mission Canyon Road/Tornoe Road intersection: Improve the east 

and south legs of the intersection to allow drivable shoulders and bike/pedestrian paths 

22 

The Optimized Traffic Control Plan is a set of general traffic control strategies intended to provide a menu for the Unified 

Command Team to choose from and combine when responding to fire evacuation scenarios. Further detail is included in the 

MM-FIRE -2.4. 



to be used for cars in an emergency with aid of traffic control. This may require removal 

of existing vegetation in the public right-of-way on these facilities. 

• Los Olivos Street between Mountain Drive and Alameda Padre Serra: Improve this 

segment of Los Olivos Street in the southbound direction between both intersections to 

allow drivable shoulders and bike/pedestrian paths to be used for cars in an emergency 

with aid of traffic control, or consider other traffic flow improvements such as a 

roundabout. 



Figure 4.6- 3 Proposed Spot Improvements 

Traffic simulation was also performed under 2030 MCCP buildout conditions assuming a highintensity 

(Scenario 2) fire evacuation to measure the effectiveness of combining an additional 

traffic control deployments and the two proposed spot widening projects. The systemwide 

travel statistics results summarized in Table 4.6-2 show that the proposed spot widening 

project would increase system efficiency and allow an additional 400 vehicles to exit the study 



area within two hours. The travel time map shown in Figure 4.6-3 also suggests additional 

travel time improvements by 10 to 15 minutes for several zones in Mission Canyon Heights. 

The Los Olivos Street segment is within the City of Santa Barbara and adjacent to Mission Santa 

Barbara. The southbound direction of this segment has a curb and unimproved dirt shoulders 

within the right-of-way adjacent to a historic stone wall in front of Saint Mary’s Retreat House. 

The dirt shoulder is sometimes used for parking during special events at the Mission and could 

be used in an emergency for vehicle turnouts. Any improvements would require coordination 

with the City and may be infeasible considering the significant historic resources around the 

Mission and Mission Historical Park and the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District. 

In addition, roadway shoulder improvements could be considered on Mission Canyon Road in 

the plan area, where feasible, to provide a turnout zone for emergency vehicles to pass general 

traffic. Potential locations for consideration include: 

• Mission Canyon (south)/Tornoe Road/Foothill Road 

• Mission Canyon Road (south) & Las Encinas Road 

There is approximately 500 feet of existing space for emergency turnouts (in the unimproved 

right-of-way) in discontinuous segments on the west side of Mission Canyon Road between 

Foothill and Las Encinas. Occasional mature trees and grade changes preclude turnouts in 

some locations. The east side has approximately 550 feet unimproved right-of-way available 

for turnouts in front of Rocky Nook Park and the Women’s Club but right-of-way 

encroachments preclude turnout space on the east side north of the Women’s Club. Note that 

parking is prohibited and any turnouts would just be temporary. 

As the Foothill Road/State Route 192 is a Caltrans facility, any improvement on the intersection 

of Mission Canyon (south)/Tornoe Road would require collaboration between the County and 

Caltrans. Implementation of MM-FIRE-MC-1.1 revised and new policies for road right-of-way 

encroachments may over time improve the situation to the extent that a clear zone is created 

that allows space for vehicle turnouts. 



Table 4.6- 3: Systemwide Travel Statistics Results for Evacuation Scenarios 

Land Use 

Scenarios Existing (2009) Future (2030) Buildout 

Scenario Scenario 

Scenario Scenario 

1: 

2: 

Scenario 2: 1: 

2: 

Scenario 2: 

Fire Evacuation Moderate High High Moderate High High 

Scenarios Intensity Intensity Intensity Intensity Intensity Intensity 

Traffic Control 

Scenarios 

Number of 

Vehicles Arrive 

Destinations 

within 2 hours 

(from 5 P.M. to 

Minimum Minimum Optimized Minimum Minimum Optimized 

7 P.M.) 

Number of 

Vehicles Remain 

Traveling in the 

Plan area after 2 

4,530 5,245 5,735 5,450 6,265 6,150 

hours 

Vehicle Miles 

105 730 

130 130 785 

475 

Traveled (VMT) 

Vehicle Hours 

8,745 9,192 9,870 10,575 11,570 10,625 

Traveled (VHT) 

Vehicles Hours 

1,030 2,281 1,680 1,230 2,900 2,380 

of Delay (VHD) 

Average Speed 

690 1,925 1,280 860 2,440 1,960 

[mph] 

8.7 4.2 

5.8 8.4 4.0 

5.9 

Optimized 

+ Spot 

Widening 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 4-151 MARCH 2011 DRAFT 

6,650 

50 

11,520 

1,800 

1,340 

6.4


Figure 4.6- 4 Evacuation Travel Time with Recommended Improvements 



It is further recommended that if the right-of-way were to be improved for pedestrian/bicyclist 

access on Foothill Road and Mission Canyon Road between Foothill and Rocky Nook Park as 

part of a Streetscape Plan for the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor (draft MCCP Plan Action VIS- 

MC-3.2), improvements should allow for dual purpose emergency turnout zones. In addition, if 

overhead utilities are undergrounded as recommended along this corridor, additional space will 

be created for vehicle turnouts. 

Revisions to proposed draft MCCP Action CIRC-MC-1.2 and Action VIS-MC-3.2 and a new Action 

CIRC-MC-7.2 would ensure that emergency turnout zones are considered in conjunction with 

road shoulder and streetscape improvements. The draft plan shall be revised as follows 

(deletions struck through, additions underlined): 

Action CIRC-MC-1.2: The County shall coordinate with Caltrans to ensure improvements 

along State Route 192/Foothill Road are developed in a manner 

consistent with bicycle and pedestrian safety and should be designed 

for improved bicycle access. Roadway shoulder improvements shall, 

whenever feasible, be designed to provide emergency turnout zones 

and improved pedestrian and bicycle access. 

Action CIRC-MC-7.2: The County shall coordinate with the City of Santa Barbara to evaluate 

the need for improvements to the southbound segment of Los Olivos 

Street between Mountain Drive and Alameda Padre Serra to allow for 

drivable shoulders or bicycle/pedestrian paths that could be used for 

cars in an emergency with the aid of traffic control. The feasibility of 

constructing any identified improvements would include funding, 

historic evaluation by the City’s Historic Landmarks Commission, and 

engineering requirements. 

Action VIS-MC-3.2: Planning & Development Department shall work with Public Works, 

Parks Department, the City of Santa Barbara, and area residents to 

seek grants and other funding sources to design and implement the 

Phase II Streetscape Plan for the Mission Canyon Scenic Corridor The 

streetscape plan should include, but is not limited to, the following 

programs: 


• Consideration of dual purpose pedestrian trails/emergency vehicle 

turnout zones in appropriate locations; 

• Investigation and removal of encroachments into pedestrian trails; 

• Safe pedestrian access between the Old Mission and the Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History; 






Plan Requirements and Timing: The revised actions would be included in the final Mission 


MM-FIRE-2.4: Implement Optimized Traffic Control Plan during an evacuation. 

This Plan is intended to provide a “menu” for the Unified Command Team to choose from and 

combine when responding to fire evacuation scenarios, depending on the timing and location 

of a fire, the weather conditions, and the traffic control equipment and staff resources that 

could be provided jointly by the County, Caltrans and the City of Santa Barbara. Implementation 

of the traffic control plan would require coordination of the State, County and City law 

enforcement team, Caltrans, and both County and City Public Works and Traffic Divisions. 

Figure 4.6-4 illustrates the locations of recommendations. 

The Optimized Traffic Control Plan, given adequate incident staffing, may include the following 

items: 

1. Set up cordoned traffic check points to meter the traffic entering the plan area at: 

Mission Canyon Road south of Mountain Drive (at Rocky Nook) and at Alameda Padre 

Serra (APS), Alamar Avenue at Puesta del Sol to meter northbound traffic, and Foothill 

Road at San Roque Road to meter eastbound traffic. 

2. Redirect traffic along Foothill Road in the plan area to Alamar Avenue, Mission Canyon 

Road (south), and Mountain Drive (west). 

3. Position law enforcement at Foothill Road at Alamar Avenue to facilitate the outbound 

traffic flow from Foothill Road to access Alamar southbound or to continue westbound 

on Foothill. Alternatively, an emergency signal timing plan for this location could be 

developed jointly by County, City and Caltrans staff and be activated during fire 

evacuation to allow a split phase for the westbound movement to provide additional 

green time to decrease congestion for westbound left-turning and through vehicles (by 

reducing green time for Alamar Avenue southbound approach and Foothill Road 

eastbound through movement). 

4. Deploy law enforcement to facilitate the traffic flow at the following choke points 

resulting from current intersection stop controls: 

• Foothill Road at Mission Canyon Road (north). 

• Foothill Road at Mission Canyon Road (south)/Tornoe Road 

• Mission Canyon Road (north) at Tunnel Road 

• Mission Canyon Road (north) at Las Canoas Road 

• Mission Canyon Road (south) at Mountain Drive 

• Los Olivos Road at Alameda Padre Serra (APS) 

• Tunnel Road at Montrose Place 



Figure 4.6- 5 Recommended Improvements for Evacuation 



The evacuation plan should be flexible to manage the inbound and outbound flow to allow as 

many as possible of the residents to return to their homes to pick up their children, elderly, 

special needs residents, pets, possessions, etc., without impacting exiting vehicles. With limited 

roadway capacity, the traffic control deployment would focus on maximizing system-wide 

performance and facilitating both the inbound and outbound traffic demand flow at the key 

bottlenecks. However, vehicles exiting the area should be granted priority to relieve congestion 

in the Upper Mission Canyon area and the adjacent Upper Las Canoas neighborhoods due to 

their proximity to a potential fire. For example, traffic control at the intersection of Mission 

Canyon Road (north) at Tunnel Road would focus on maximizing the southbound flow 

(outbound traffic), but would also allow some northbound movement so that residents can 

return home. Real-time communication between these traffic control stations would facilitate 

the continuous outbound flow along Mission Canyon Road and other evacuation paths in the 

northern and middle Mission Canyon Heights neighborhoods, but also allow limited inbound 

movement to help residents evacuate from their homes. 

To measure the effectiveness of the traffic controls mentioned above along Mission Canyon 

Road (north and south) and Foothill Road, a VISSIM traffic simulation model was developed for 

Scenario 2 of the High Intensity conditions under the existing and future 2030 MCCP Buildout 

conditions. The systemwide results are summarized in Table 4.6-2 and the estimated travel 

time data is presented in 4.6-5 for 2030 MCCP Buildout conditions. 

The implementation of additional traffic control would improve the overall travel time and 

vehicle hours of delay by 30 percent under existing conditions and by almost 20 percent under 

future 2030 MCCP buildout conditions. Under 2030 conditions, evacuation travel time of the 

Upper Mission Canyon residents could be reduced to an average of less than 45 minutes 

(several households in the Mission Canyon Heights may still take 60 minutes to arrive at safe 

destinations). Implementing the traffic control plan would increase traffic volumes and 

congestion on Mission Canyon Road and Alamar Avenue in the Lower Foothill area and impact 

access and travel time to and from the Lower Foothill neighborhoods. However, since the 

Lower Foothill neighborhoods are further away from the fire location, and have relatively more 

access points, they could be rerouted with additional traffic control. 

Furthermore, if additional staff and traffic control equipment are available, the following five 

locations should also be considered as part of the traffic control program to facilitate traffic 

movement in the northern and middle parts of the Mission Canyon Heights area: 

• Palomino Road at Williams Way/Vista Elevada 

• Cheltenham Road at Kenmore Place 

• Cheltenham Road at Williams Way 

• Cheltenham Road at Tye Road 

If a high-intensity fire occurs while special events are being held at the Natural History 

Museum, the Woman’s Club, and the Botanic Garden, additional traffic control teams may be 

needed to facilitate turning movements in the vicinity of these driveway locations. 



Figure 4.6- 6 Evacuation Travel Time with Optimized Traffic Control 



MM-FIRE-2.5: Develop new or alternate access routes. 

Potential extension of private roadways to allow secondary alternative access could be 

considered for upper Mission Canyon if feasible. For example, extension of Holly Road to 

connect to San Roque Road may be beneficial for fire protection planning and may improve the 

evacuation travel time for upper Mission Canyon area and relieve the traffic congestion on 

Mission Canyon Road. Any such proposal would need to be coordinated with private 

landowners and the City of Santa Barbara. Note that per the Mission Canyon Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan, continuous vegetation clearance and maintenance is scheduled for 

this unofficial secondary evacuation corridor west of Holly road to the Laurel Reservoir. 


Implementation of the above policies, development standards and actions, as required by the 

proposed Community Plan, would reduce impacts to emergency ingress and egress. The fog 

line striping should improve circulation and evacuation times from the areas north of Foothill 

Road but the program is currently unfunded and it is unknown when it will be implemented. 

With new encroachment policies, over time the public rights-of-way should include clear zones 

that will further provide space for emergency turnouts. Other improvements require funding 

and coordination with Caltrans and the City of Santa Barbara and therefore it is unknown if they 

are feasible or will be implemented. Therefore, impacts remain significant (Class I). 

IMPACT FIRE-4: Buildout could impact existing fire flow and pump station capacity 

deficiencies. 

As noted in the Hydraulic Evaluation of the Mission Canyon Area by RBF Consulting (Appendix 

F), overall the existing water distribution system that provides service to the Mission Canyon 

area is adequately sized to meet additional daily demands at buildout. Two fire flow 

deficiencies were identified: water pressure to an existing fire hydrant node and the Upper 

Tunnel Road Pump Station where the capacity does not meet required criteria for fire flow. The 

deficiencies would incrementally worsen with buildout if the new unit(s) were dependent on 

the existing infrastructure for fire protection purposes. Regarding fire hydrants, out of 126 

nodes analyzed, there were two instances of pressures below the minimum criteria and where 

existing fire hydrants do not meet the County Fire Department’s minimum flow requirements, 

one of which is immediately adjacent to a hydrant that exceeds standards and is therefore not 

considered significant. The evaluation also concludes that the Tunnel Road Pump Station 

should be evaluated for increased capacity and upgrading to ensure reliability. Due to the 

extreme high fire hazard, it is critical for the infrastructure to supply adequate water pressure 

and flows to the plan area. The plan’s contribution to this impact is considered Class II, 

potentially significant but mitigable. 

Fire Flow 

As recommended by RBF, the deficient node (195) was tested by City staff at 9:00 am on 

January 27, 2010 and the existing available flow was 664 gpm—slightly higher than the model 



flow of 600.38 and sufficient by the County Fire Department’s standards for rural areas, but 

below the required 750 gpm flow for residential areas. A second test was conducted during the 

high use summer months, and the flow rate for node 195 was similar to the initial January test. 

The ability to provide improved flow to this dead end node location will need to be balanced 

with water quality issues that occur as a result of disinfection byproducts (DBPs), the levels of 

which are regulated in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DBPs 

form when disinfectants used to treat drinking water react with naturally occurring materials in 

the water, and DBP formation is exacerbated with time. Therefore, increasing the size of a 

pipeline for improved fire flows may also introduce water quality issues by having surplus water 

sitting in the system too long. In 2012, the City will be adding ozone as a pretreatment process 

at the Cater Water Treatment Plant to comply with the EPA’s upcoming State 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproduct Rule. Depending on how well the ozone performs with reducing the 

DBP levels, additional improvements may be required in the distribution system to avoid 

violating water quality regulations. 

Pump Stations 

The Tunnel Road Pump Station serves the Upper Tunnel Road water pressure zone (see Figure 

4.11-4 in the Water Resources section). The pump station has two small pumps for domestic 

water use and one larger fire pump that is used to meet fire flow requirements (i.e., provide 

sufficient water supply and pressure to hydrants for fighting structural fires). According to the 

American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M32, pump stations should be sized at a 

minimum to meet maximum day demands with the largest pump out of service and may be 

sized for maximum day demands plus the required fire flow. The Tunnel Road Pump Station 

analysis indicated that the capacity (total capacity and assuming the largest pump is out of 

service) do not meet the required criteria. Also, the fire pump is rated for 550 gpm, which does 

not meet the criteria for 750 gpm for this area. With all pumps operating, the analysis 

concludes that the pump station has adequate capacity to meet the fire flow demand 

requirement. Assuming the fire pump is out of service results in a deficiency for this zone. 

The recommended improvements at the Tunnel Road Pump Station include: 

• Increase the overall pumping capacity by 500 gpm (by installing an additional pump or 

increasing the capacity of existing pumps) or increase the fire pump capacity by 200 

gpm; and 

• Evaluate the existing emergency back-up power in conjunction with pump 

improvements. 

The pump station was constructed in 1975 and an assessment of the condition of the pump 

station should also be conducted prior to constructing any improvements due to the age of the 

facility. Electrical system, emergency backup power and other upgrades may need to be 

conducted in order to handle increased pump capacity. 

The City of Santa Barbara is financially responsible for providing reliable water service to 

Mission Canyon. Costs relating to supplying water, fire hydrants, and related appurtenances 

installed for the purpose of extinguishing a fire in Mission Canyon are the responsibility of the 



Santa Barbara County Mission Canyon Fire Protection District. This includes upgrades of the 

Tunnel Road fire pump as its sole purpose is to pump water for fire protection to Mission 

Canyon residents. 


MM-FIRE-3: Ensure that fire flow infrastructure meets minimum standards for new 

development. 

A new development standard is proposed to clarify that new projects must be served by fire 

hydrants that meet minimum flow and pressure requirements (additions underlined): 

DevStd FIRE-MC-2.3: New development shall ensure that fire suppression hydrant 

infrastructure is adequate to meet the project’s fire fighting needs. 

The Tunnel Road Pump Station is programmed for improvements in the City’s five-year Capital 

Improvement Program. The City will coordinate with the County for funding improvements 

related to the fire pump and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment at the pump 

station. Any improvements to the fire pump at the Pump Station would serve both existing 

units and new development and funding would need to be identified to carry out such 

improvements. Therefore, mitigation measure MM-FIRE-1.2, revised Action FIRE-MC-1.1 (as 

listed in IMPACT FIRE-2 and repeated below) is proposed to direct the County to develop a 

mechanism for assessing parcel specific improvement cost, including the necessary pump 

station upgrades. 

Action FIRE-MC-1.1: The County shall prepare a plan and adopt a Resolution of Intention to 

fund work with Mission Canyon residents to prepare a feasibility study 

for developing a Wildland Fire Benefit Assessment District to provide 

additional fire prevention services to reduce the damage and severity 

of wildfires. Additional services may include: improvement of 


development of on-street parking turnouts and fire hydrants where 

needed; and vegetation management programs. 


means of a Benefit Assessment District or Special Tax. If required, an 

Engineer’s Report shall be prepared that contains a description of the 

improvements to be financed, the proposed district boundaries, and a 

description of the special benefit that each parcel would receive as a 

result of the assessment. Fire prevention services may include: 


Community Wildfire Protection Plan (i.e., reducing hazardous fuels 

on public and private lands, increase education and awareness, 

and improve and protect critical evacuation routes); 





Plan Requirements and Timing: The new development standard and revised action would be 



For new development at buildout, the proposed new Development Standard FIRE-MC-2.3 

would require new projects to ensure that fire flows meet County standards. The 

recommended Tunnel Road Pump Station improvements are currently programmed in the 

City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program. The proposed revised Action item directs the 

County to develop a funding mechanism for future upgrades. Given the intention to evaluate 

the need and funding for future upgrades, the project’s contribution to the impact is less than 

significant after mitigation (Class II). 

IMPACT FIRE-5: Cumulative risk of wildfire impacts and emergency ingress and egress. 

Development within the plan area along with other development within the surrounding City of 

Santa Barbara and on the South Coast could incrementally increase population potentially 

exposed to wildfire hazards. According to the Plan Santa Barbara Draft EIR (AMEC 2010) by the 

year 2030, development within High Fire Hazard Areas could likely gradually add up to dozens 

of new homes and hundreds of fire rebuilds and major remodel/expansions. Existing City 

policies and regulations are included in the City’s Fire Master Plan and the Wildland Fire Plan. 

The City is also proposing to limit new development in High Fire Hazard Areas by offering 

incentives and/or an option to transfer development rights to urban areas, resulting in an 

incremental decrease in potential residential densities. Like the draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan, the City is proposing to restrict second units in High Fire Hazard Areas. The 

City has also initiated a Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District that has reduced 

flammable vegetation, particularly in the areas surrounding Mission Canyon known as the 

Extreme Foothill Zone. 

In October 2009, the County Planning Commission approved the Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden’s plan to upgrade and expand Garden facilities (Vital Mission Plan). Several appeals 

were filed on this decision and in June 2010 the Board of Supervisors denied the appeals and 

approved the project subject to Conditions of Approval as revised at the hearing of June 1, 

2010. The required Fire Protection Plan (FPP) for the project sets forth site-specific 

requirements for water supply, fuel modification, access, building ignition and fire resistance, 

fire protection systems, defensible space, and other criteria for fire protection In particular, 

upgrades to the water system which includes construction of a 12-inch main line connecting the 

main lines on Tunnel Road and Las Canoas Road would enhance water flows and maintain 

necessary water pressure to the Garden and the entire El Cielito/Tunnel Pressure Zone. The 

Conditions of Approval requires the Botanic Garden to construct the water infrastructure 

upgrades and have them tested to confirm compliance with Fire Department standards 



(currently 1,250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure) as the first phase of construction, prior to 

constructing new buildings. Although the upgrade is specific to this project, it will also benefit 

the surrounding neighborhoods. 

As detailed in the FPP, specific operational elements including closure of the Garden to the 

public, including special events, on all Red Flag Warning days as issued by the National Weather 

Service and restrictions on special events between May 1 and November 30 including 1) no 

more than one special event per month, and 2) the use of shuttle buses to transport guests for 

any event exceeding 80 guests. The approval also limited the population at the Garden to no 

more than 205 people at any one time during the high fire season and not more than 255 

people at any one time during the low fire season and capping overall annual attendance at 

110,000 visitors and annual special event attendance at 1,983 guests. 

Existing and proposed fire prevention and response policies and regulations would address the 

potential for limited additional growth and population in Mission Canyon and surrounding City 

of Santa Barbara High Fire Hazard Areas. Although the potential risk from wildland fires would 

not substantially change, the buildout of Mission Canyon when considered with surrounding 

development remains a significant cumulative Class I risk of exposing people or structures to a 

significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 

adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, which cannot 

be fully mitigated. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGIC PROCESSES 

4.7 Geologic Processes 

This section discusses potential significant impacts relating to seismic and other geologic 

hazards. 


The topography of Mission Canyon ranges from gently rolling to steep with elevations from 250 

feet to 1,075 feet above mean sea level. Mission Canyon is in the Santa Barbara coastal plain, 

which extends from the Santa Ynez Mountains on the north to the Santa Barbara Channel on 

the south. Numerous active and potentially active folds and partly buried thrust faults of the 

Santa Barbara fold and fault belt underlie the coastal plain. Strong earthquakes occurred in the 

region in 1925 (6.8 magnitude) and 1978 (5.1 magnitude). Young landslide deposits along the 

steep lower flank of the Santa Ynez Mountains indicate the potential for slope failure and mass 

movements (U.S. Geological Survey 2006). 

Three geologic features in the area are considered problematic: impermeable bedrock, faults 

and landslides. The bedrock is for the most part of marine origin and is in a constant state of 

uplift. The bedrock is overlain by surficial deposits of alluvium and debris flows in the low-lying 

parts of Mission Canyon. Bedrock is close to the surface in mountainous areas, where the lack 

of permeable surface deposits can limit the area available for effluent absorption from septic 

systems. 

Earthquakes and Faults 

Mission Canyon is in a zone of high seismic activity and potentially serious earthquakes, similar 

to most of California. The area could be subject to shaking from earthquakes on numerous 

faults, ranging from the San Andreas fault to local potentially active faults such as the More 

Ranch and Mission Ridge faults (Figure 4.7-1). For the purposes of this section, “active” faults 

are defined as those that have ruptured the surface during the Holocene Epoch (about the last 

11,000 years). This definition is consistent with that provided in Special Publication 42 of the 

California Geological Survey. “Potentially Active” faults are defined as those that have ruptured 

the surface during the Quaternary Period (about the last 1.6 to 2 million years), but have not 

ruptured during the Holocene. Where the age of last displacement on a fault cannot be 

determined with confidence, the fault is considered to be potentially active. 

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 prohibits the construction of buildings 

used for human occupancy on active faults. There are no faults in the plan area currently 

included within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the State of California. 

Existing County regulations require development to be set back from known active and 

potentially active fault lines and require all structures to be designed to earthquake standards 

of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 requirements (Zone 4 having the highest seismic 

potential) incorporated into the Building Code adopted by the County. These building design 

standards have been found adequate to address this regional geologic hazard. 



Slope Stability 

Slope stability is a site-specific issue that can affect proposed development projects on or 

adjacent to moderate and steep slopes. Much of Mission Canyon north of Foothill Road has a 

high landslide potential rating. Slopes in this area are naturally unstable and subject to failure 

even in the absence of development activities due to the weakness of rocks in moderately 

steep terrain. 23 

Slope instability also results from saturation of soils during intense rain or water from irrigation 

or line breaks. Site-specific geotechnical investigations may be required as part of the Land Use 

Permit process to identify unstable slopes. Engineering measures adequate to allow access 

roads and buildings to meet standards of stability are required to be incorporated into any 

approved project. Alternatively, some projects can be redesigned to avoid unstable slopes; 

however, some projects may be denied if slope stability issues cannot be resolved through 

engineering measures or redesign. For the purposes of determining slope stability, there is no 

distinction made between natural and man-made slopes, and policies or development 

standards apply to all slopes, even if altered or disturbed in the past. 

Radon Gas 

The Rincon Shale formation, found at the top of Mission Canyon Heights and around the 

Palomino Road area, is typically composed of marine claystone and siltstone. These rocks have 

high uranium content which decays and releases radon, a radioactive gas. The Rincon Shale 

formation in Santa Barbara is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as having the 

“highest” potential for radon (greater than 4-pico Curies per liter). 24 Radon gas seeps upward 

through rock and soil layers, eventually reaching the ground surface. The gas may seep from 

the soil into buildings through cracks or other openings in floors or basements, potentially 

increasing in concentration once inside the building. If radon is known to have entered a home, 

it may be removed through proper ventilation and filters. 

23 

California Division of Mines and Geology, Landslide Inventory Map of Southeastern Santa Barbara County, (2000). 

24 Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Final Environmental Impact Report (July 2009). 



Figure 4.7- 1 Geologic Features 





Soils 

According to the Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, there are eighteen different soil units in 

Mission Canyon. South of Foothill Road, the soil is mostly Ballard series comprised of alluvial 

fans with medium runoff and light erosion hazard. Mission Canyon Heights is mainly Zaca Clay 

with some portions of Milpitas series soils where runoff is rapid and erosion hazard is high. 

Upper Mission Canyon has small areas of Ayar Clay, Gaviota Sandy Loam, Milpitas series and 

Maymen Rock Outcrop complex and larger areas of Todos series and Lodo-Sespe Complex. 

With the exception of Todos Clay Loam and Ballard Variant, which are rated as medium runoff 

potential and light to moderate erosion hazard, the remaining soils have rapid runoff potential 

and high to very high erosion hazard. 

In terms of building site development, most of the soils in Mission Canyon are rated by the Soil 

Conservation Service as severe, which indicates that one or more soil properties or site features 

could require special construction and design efforts or intensive maintenance. Conformance 

with the County’s Grading and Building Codes is generally satisfactory with respect to soil 

hazards but site-specific investigations may be required on sites adjacent to faults, landslides, 

or other geologic hazards or in any case where development is proposed in areas with a slope 

of 20% or greater. Due to slope, depth to bedrock and slow percolation, soils in Mission 

Canyon are known to be severely constrained for septic effluent disposal. Any new 

development to be served by a septic system would have to demonstrate adequate 

performance and compliance with current Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan 

standards. 

Geologic hazards that may affect new development include fault surface rupture, ground 

shaking during earthquakes, landslides, soil creep, accelerated erosion, and radon gas. While 

earthquake hazards can affect the entire area, the problems relating to landslides and erosion 

are usually related to development in steeply sloping foothill areas. Approximately 80% of the 

land north of Foothill Road is on slopes exceeding 20%, while south of Foothill Road, most land 

is on slopes of less than 20%. Much of Mission Canyon north of Foothill Road has a high 

landslide potential rating. Slopes in this area are naturally unstable and subject to failure even 

in the absence of development activities due to the weakness of rocks in moderately steep 

terrain. 

Special Problem Area 

Santa Barbara County Ordinance No. 3665 provides for the delineation of “Special Problem 

Areas” for certain areas of the county where physical constraints affect development and 

building activity. Development proposals within a Special Problem Area require additional 

discretionary review by a committee of representatives of Public Works, Roads Division, County 

Flood Control, Planning and Development Department, Environmental Health Services, and 

County Fire Department. For the protection of property from damage, and public health and 

safety, the committee may impose any and all reasonable and necessary conditions to prevent 

or mitigate present or potential problems that might result from the development proposal. 

The Board of Supervisors designated Mission Canyon as a Special Problem Area in 1978 due in 



part to problems related to the use of septic systems, as well as geologic and soil constraints, 

steep slopes, and local drainage problems. 

Septic system performance in Mission Canyon has been, and will continue to be a problem. 

Property owners need to sustain proactive maintenance to extend the operational life of 

existing systems. Mission Canyon received a Medium-High Problem rating in the 2003 Septic 

System Sanitary Survey for Santa Barbara County due to the combination of very difficult soilgeologic 

conditions in most areas, the large number of older systems, the moderate number of 

failures and problems reported, and proximity to Mission Creek. Septic systems in many areas 

of the canyon continue to function well, while Las Canoas Road and Palomino Road experience 

a higher problem rating. 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan seeks to address long-term wastewater treatment needs 

by imposing additional septic system standards which focus on dual disposal areas and advance 

treatment systems for drywells. The plan also recommends development of a Wastewater 

Management Plan to tailor wastewater treatment systems for specific areas of the canyon, and 

mandatory inspection and maintenance of septic systems. 


The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 prohibits the construction of buildings 

used for human occupancy on active faults. There are no faults in the plan area currently 

included within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the State of California. 

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) defines different regions of the United States and ranks them 

according to their seismic hazard potential. There are four seismic zones, with zone 1 having 

the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest. Santa Barbara County is within 

Seismic Zone 4; accordingly any future development is required to comply with Seismic Zone 4 

design standards. 

1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan. The Specific Plan found that problematic soils and 

poorly consolidated geologic formations presents a difficulty in the Mission Canyon area in 

terms of residential development and hazards. The Specific Plan directs that all development, 

including grading, shall be avoided on slopes of 30% or more unless this would preclude all 

reasonable development of the parcel. It also requires avoidance of grading on slopes of 20% 

or more, except in special instances where such prohibition would preclude any reasonable, 

other permitted use of a legal parcel. Grading Design Guidelines are included to provide 

direction to the grading design that will be applicable in most cases. Lastly, the Special 

Problems Committee reviews all project applications and can require any engineering geology 

and/or fault investigations which it determines to be necessary for any particular project. 




The County’s Environmental Thresholds Manual states that impacts are potentially significant 

with regard to geology if the proposed development activity, including all proposed mitigation 

measures, could result in substantially increased erosion, landslides, soil creep, mudslides, and 

unstable slopes. In addition, impacts are considered significant when people or structures 

would be exposed to major geologic hazards upon implementation of the project. If the project 

involves any of the following, impacts related to geology are potentially significant: 

• The project site of any part of the project is located on land having 

substantial geologic constraints, as determined by Planning & Development 

or Public Works. Areas constrained by geology include parcels located near 

active or potentially active faults and property underlain by rock types 

associated with compressible/collapsible soils or susceptible to landslides or 

severe erosion. Special problem areas designated by the Board of 

Supervisors have been established due to geologic constraints, flood hazards 

and other physical limitations to development; 

• The project results in potentially hazardous geologic conditions such as the 

construction of cut slopes exceeding a grade of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical; 

• The project proposes construction of a cut slope over 15 feet in height as 

measured from the lowest finished grade; and 

• The project is located on slopes exceeding 20% grade. 


IMPACT GEO-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon Community 


The 1984 Specific Plan grading standards for slopes are carried forward in the draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan DevStd GEO-MC-1.1. In addition, DevStd GEO-MC-3.1 requires sitespecific 

geologic investigations on sites on or adjacent to faults, landslides or other geologic 

hazards. The Special Problems Committee will continue to review projects and can require 

necessary site-specific engineering geology or fault investigations. The proposed Community 

Plan includes more policies to protect structures from geologic processes than the 1984 Specific 

Plan; thus impacts are beneficial (Class IV). 

IMPACT GEO-2: Buildout of the plan area could potentially expose structures to 

unstable earth conditions. 

Mission Canyon is in a zone of high seismic activity and potentially serious earthquakes could 

occur. Slope stability is an issue and much of Mission Canyon north of Foothill has a high 

landslide potential rating (California Division of Mines and Geology 2000). According to the 



Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Mission Canyon has a 

low rating for liquefaction, moderate rating for high groundwater, low to moderate rating for 

compressible-collapsible soils, low to high rating for expansive soils, slope stability, landslides, 

and soil creep potential, low-moderate to severe rating on the geologic problems index, and 

high rating for seismic and tectonic. Thus, the areas that could accommodate new single family 

homes would require close review for potential geologic problems. All future development 

would be subject to the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and geologic 

constraints would be evaluated by the Special Problems Committee who could recommend 

conditions of approval necessary to mitigate present or anticipated problems. The expose of 

people and structures to potentially unstable earth conditions is a potentially significant but 

mitigable impact (Class II). 


MM-GEO-1: Incorporate proposed geologic hazard policies and development standards (or 



The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan contains the following policy and development 

standards to reduce the potential for exposing development to geologic hazards: 


Policy GEO-MC-4: Development shall be sited and designed to minimize the potential for 

geologic hazards, including but not limited to, seismic, soil, or slope 

hazards. 

DevStd GEO-MC-3.1: The County shall require site-specific geologic and/or geotechnical 

investigation(s), prepared as appropriate by a Professional Geologist, 

Certified Engineering Geologist, and/or licensed Geotechnical Engineer, 

on sites that are on or adjacent to faults, landslides, or other geologic 

hazards or in any case where development is proposed in areas where 

the slope is 20% or greater. Where applicable, the measures 

recommended to avoid or mitigate geologic hazards shall be 

incorporated into the proposed development in a manner that avoids 

or minimizes any potential adverse effects of such measures (for 

example, hillside scarring). Potential subdivisions shall demonstrate all 

areas for feasible building sites and access on less than 20% slopes. 

DevStd GEO-MC-3.2: Structures shall be prohibited within fifty feet of an Active or 

Potentially Active fault. All structures shall be built according to 

Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 standards or such other 

standards as may be in effect. 



Plan Requirements and Timing: The policy and development standards would be included in 



With implementation of the above policy and development standards, as required by the 

proposed Community Plan, including Uniform Building Code requirements, evaluation and 

recommendations from the Special Problems Committee for geologic constraints, and 

recommendations from site-specific geologic and/or geotechnical investigations, impacts of 

unstable geologic conditions would be less than significant, Class II. 

IMPACT GEO-3: Buildout of the plan area may result in the potential for geological and soil 

instability and hazards, including excessive grading, expansive soils and erosion. 

Buildout of the project area is expected to involve grading of building pads for individual single 

family homes that would typically involve minor topographic changes. It would also include 

grading for private roads and driveways to serve parcels in Upper Mission Canyon that are not 

currently accessible by existing roads or driveways. The configuration and amount of grading 

that would be required for new private roads and driveways is unknown at this time. 

Santa Barbara County Planning & Development (P&D) has identified levels of ground 

disturbance that represents the minimal amount that P&D would readily find consistent with 

County policy on slopes of less than 16%. Depending on the lot size and slope gradient, this 

amount ranges from ≤450 cubic yards on lots less than 1 acre, ≤550 – 600 cubic yards for lots of 

1-10 acres, and ≤650 – 750 cubic yards on lots greater than 10 acres. 

Nonetheless, whether it is a building pad, an access road or minor road widening, development 

must be found consistent with County minimization of grading policies to be approved, 

including the following Hillside and Watershed Protection policies of the Land Use Element: 

1. Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring 

excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the 

development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain. 

2. All developments shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, 

hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and 

other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, 

landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the 

maximum extent feasible. Areas of the site which are not suited to development 

because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in 

open space. 



Development that exceeds 50 cubic yards of transported material or where the cut or fill 

exceeds three feet in vertical distance to the natural contour of the land would be subject to 

the requirements of the County Grading Ordinance, which sets grading standards and 

limitations to which all projects would adhere. 25 The ordinance states that no person shall 

cause or allow a significant environmental impact to occur as a result of new grading, including 

grading that is otherwise exempt from the ordinance regulations. In accordance with the 

ordinance, all graded surfaces and materials shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a 

manner as to prevent dust. In addition, an erosion and sediment control plan that incorporates 

applicable best management practices is required as part of the grading plan and permit 

requirements. The potential for geological and soil instability hazards as a result of buildout is a 

potentially significant but mitigable impact (Class II). 


MM-GEO-2: Incorporate proposed hillside and watershed protection policies (or functional 

equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon 


The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan includes several measures relating to preserving 

hillside and watershed areas from excessive grading and other geologic impacts as follows: 


GOAL GEO-MC-1: Protect the public health, safety and welfare by preserving hillside and 

watershed areas in the most natural state feasible. 

Policy GEO-MC-1: Hillside and watershed areas shall be protected to the maximum 

extent feasible to avoid adverse geologic impacts and to preserve 

watershed function. 

DevStd GEO-MC-1.1: Development, including grading, shall be prohibited on natural and 

man-made slopes greater than 30% unless this would preclude 

development of a parcel to such an extent that an unconstitutional 

deprivation of property occurs. In areas of unstable soils, highly 

erosive soils, or on slopes 20% or greater, development shall not be 

allowed unless an evaluation by a qualified professional (e.g., 

geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, etc.) establishes that the 

proposed project will not result in unstable slopes or severe erosion, or 

unless this would preclude development of a parcel to such an extent 

that an unconstitutional deprivation of property occurs. Grading and 

25 Santa Barbara County Code, Chapter 14 Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control. 



other site preparation shall be minimized to the maximum extent 

feasible. 

DevStd GEO-MC-1.2: In order to minimize erosion, landscape plans shall be required for 

development on slopes 20% or greater and for any project requiring a 

grading permit. Such plans shall include revegetation of graded areas 

with appropriate firewise planting designed to blend with the natural 

terrain and stabilize slopes. Landscape plans will be subject to review 

and approval by the South Board of Architectural Review. 

Policy GEO-MC-2: Grading shall be designed to minimize scars in topography and avoid 

the potential for earth slippage, erosion and other safety risks. 

DevStd GEO-MC-2.1: The shape, height and grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed 

to blend with existing contours and scale of the natural terrain as 

follows. 

1. Natural stream channels shall be maintained wherever possible. 

2. The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the 

angle of the natural terrain. 

3. Graded slopes shall be concealed wherever possible, and 

revegetation of those slopes with firewise plantings shall be 

required. 

4. The toe and crest of any slope in excess of 10 feet vertical height, 

excepting the toe of any slope within 25 feet of a dwelling, shall be 

rounded with vertical curves of radii no less than five feet and 

designed in proportion to the total height of the slope. Any 

manufactured slope bank in excess of the 10 feet vertical shall have 

variable gradients. 

5. Where cut and fill slopes more than three feet are created, a 

detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared. 

DevStd GEO-MC-2.2: Temporary erosion control measures, as determined by Planning and 

Development using Best Management Practices, shall be used to 

minimize on- and off-site erosion related to construction. 

DevStd GEO-MC-2.3: Where feasible, development on previously cleared slopes that show 

scarring or significant disturbance shall include plans for appropriate 

revegetation of the affected areas. 

DevStd GEO-MC-2.4: Revegetation and/or landscaping of project sites shall be accomplished 

as soon as is feasible following grading/vegetation clearing in order to 

hold soils in place. 



Policy GEO-MC-3: Excessive grading for the sole purpose of creating or enhancing views 

shall not be permitted. Typically, grading should not place more than 

five (5) feet of fill above natural grade under a structure. 

In addition, a proposed Land Use and Development Code amendment to the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan Overlay disallows the agricultural grading exception in the Mission Canyon 

Community Plan area and requires the Special Problems Area Committee to review all grading 

permit applications, including those for agricultural grading. 

The draft Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines provides grading guidelines for 

development that stress siting new buildings, additions and associated infrastructure in 

locations that would minimize filling or placement or earth materials and avoid major 

modifications that would change the character of an existing landform, maintain the existing 

grade to the extent feasible and limit grading to the footprint of the structure and its adjacent 

usable exterior space and naturalize contours to eliminate abrupt edges. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The goal, policies and development standards would be 



Implementation of the goal, policies and development standards, as required by the proposed 

Community Plan, would reduce impacts to soil and geologic features to a less than significant 

level (Class II). 

IMPACT GEO-4: Cumulative geologic hazard impacts. 

The impacts of the Plan would be combined with cumulative impacts resulting from 

development contemplated in the City of Santa Barbara, which proposes under the Plan Santa 

Barbara General Plan Update a buildout of 2,795 residential units and 2 million square feet of 

commercial development. 

Such development would alter landforms in the plan area and would expose new residents and 

property to seismic, erosion and soil-stability related hazards that exist in the area. Future 

housing projects would incrementally contribute to these cumulative impacts. However, 

grading and seismic issues would be addressed on a case-by-case basis to mitigate impacts 

resulting from individual projects. Development projects within the City of Santa Barbara would 

be subject to seismic standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, the California Building 

Code, and mitigative policies within the General Plan. Projects within the plan area would be 

required to adhere to policies and development standards contained in the Community Plan, as 

well as seismic standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, the California Building Code, 

and Santa Barbara County Building Codes and Ordinances, and the additional mitigation 

measures provided. Hence, the Community Plan’s contribution to cumulative geologic hazards 

would be Class III, less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.8 – NOISE 

4.8 Noise 

This section addresses the potential noise impacts that would result from the buildout of the plan 

area. 


In Santa Barbara County, as in most areas, transportation facilities are by far the most 

significant sources of noise, both in terms of the magnitude of noise produced and the number 

of people affected. To determine the extent of noise impact, the County estimated Day-Night 

Average Sound Level contours to illustrate the dispersion of noise from its source. The County’s 

Noise Element Map (revised Dec 1993) shows a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 

65-69 decibels (dB) approximately 50 feet from road centerline on both sides of Foothill Road. 

The rest of Mission Canyon is considered relatively quiet. 

The most recent noise measurements in the plan area were made for the Santa Barbara 

Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Envicom 2009) to 

record existing baseline levels in the Botanic Garden area. Short-term on-site noise 

measurements were conducted on a Friday and Saturday in August 2006 at 12 locations within 

the garden. The results showed that the highest noise levels were measured closest to Mission 

Canyon Road and were 54.1 and 42.3 dB. The interior of the garden is relatively quiet. The 

DEIR also measured existing conditions along the two busiest road segments, Mission Canyon 

Road and Foothill Road. The dBA for the 24-hour noise descriptor, CNEL, at 50 feet from road 

centerline on Mission Canyon Road ranged from 49.7 to 64.6 dB and was 63.2 on Foothill Road, 

within the expected range for roadway segments in this area. 

R e g u l a t o r y S e t t i n g 

An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated for residential dwellings in Title 24 of the California Code 

of Regulations. Santa Barbara County requires a 45 dB(A) Ldn/CNEL interior standard for all 

residential occupancies. Because typical noise attenuation within residential structures with 

closed windows is about 20dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is generally the 

noise/land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwelling units in California. 

1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan. The 1984 Specific Plan contains no policies for noise 

attenuation. 


According to the County’s Environmental Thresholds Manual, a proposed development that 

would generate noise levels in excess of 65 dB(A) CNEL and could affect sensitive receptors 

would generally be presumed to have a significant impact. A project will generally have a 

significant effect on the environment if it will increase substantially the ambient noise levels for 

noise-sensitive receptors in adjoining areas. In addition, noise from grading and construction 



activity proposed within 1600 feet of sensitive receptors, including schools, residential 

development, commercial lodging facilities, hospitals or care facilities, would generally result in 

a potentially significant impact. 

Im pa c ts a n d M it ig a t ion Measures 

I M P A C T N O I S E-1 : B u i l d o u t o f t h e p la n a r e a could result in exposure of noise-sensitive recep t o r s 

to noise levels exceeding County thresholds. 

Projected buildout of the project area is single family residential and the project area is 

surrounded by residential development; thus there is no proposal that would result in longterm 

exposure to noise levels exceeding County thresholds. Residential uses, by their nature, 

would not general noise exceeding County thresholds. Increased traffic that would result from 

the potential construction of up to 157 new residential units may increase noise incrementally 

on roads throughout the plan area. However, due to the dispersed nature of the potential 

development and the relatively low level of traffic in Mission Canyon, the noise increases 

should be imperceptible. 

Temporary noise impacts may result from construction of individual units. However, due to the 

dispersed nature of the potential development, noise impacts would not be expected to exceed 

the County noise threshold. Where construction noise impacts may occur, the County’s 

standard condition limiting construction hours between 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through 

Friday, is used. Further, noise from grading and construction activity proposed within 1,600 

feet of sensitive receptors, including residential development, is mitigated by limiting 

construction hours to weekdays between 8:00 and 5:00 pm only. The County may also require 

noise attenuation barriers and muffling of grading equipment. Thus, impacts are adverse but 

less than significant (Class III). Although mitigation is not required, adoption of the following 

proposed policy and development standard from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan 

would be beneficial. 

RM-NOISE-1: Incorporate proposed land use policy and development standard (or the 



The following policy and development standard is included in the proposed Community Plan 

and would decrease the potential noise impacts: 


Policy LU-MC-3: The public shall be protected from continuous noise that could 

jeopardize health and welfare. 



DevStd LU-MC-3.1: Stationary equipment, such as air conditioning units, pumps, and 

generators, that could generate noise exceeding 65 dB(A) at property 

boundaries shall be shielded to Planning and Development’s 

satisfaction, and shall be located a minimum of two hundred (200) 

feet, unless demonstrated infeasible, from offsite sensitive receptors. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The policy and development standard would be included in 



Implementation of the above policy and development standard, as required by the proposed 

Community Plan, would ensure that any impacts to noise are less than significant (Class III). 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.9 – PUBLIC FACILITIES 

4.9 Public Facilities 

This section addresses potential impacts to police services, schools, parks, solid waste, and 

wastewater services in Mission Canyon. Domestic water service is included in Section 4.11, 

Water Resources. 


Police and Health Care Services 

Police protection in the unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County is primarily provided 

by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff Department. The City of Santa Barbara provides police 

services if needed under a mutual aid agreement. The California Highway Patrol is responsible 

for roadway safety issues including vehicle code enforcement, accidents, and illegal parking. 

Typically 2-3 Sheriff officers are assigned to the Mission Canyon area on any given shift 

(Commander Meyer, personal communication 8/29/07). 

Schools 

Mission Canyon is within the Roosevelt Elementary School, Santa Barbara Junior High and Santa 

Barbara High School district boundaries. 

Parks and Recreation 

Recreation in the plan area is provided by the 19-acre Rocky Nook County Park along the banks 

of Mission Creek. Just outside the plan area boundary in the City of Santa Barbara are a variety 

of public parks and open spaces including the Mission Historical Park and A.C. Postel Rose 

Garden to the south and Skofield Park to the east. Tunnel Trail in the Los Padres National 

Forest is accessed from the plan area at the end of Tunnel Road, while the Rattlesnake trailhead 

is just outside the plan area on Las Canoas Road. Rocky Nook Park has an existing off-road trail 

which leads from the park entrance to Foothill Road at the intersection with Mission Canyon 

Road east. 

Solid Waste 

The Public Works Department Resource Recovery & Waste Management (RRWM) Division is 

responsible for planning and implementing waste collection and recycling programs. The 

Division contracts with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services. Solid waste, 

green waste and recyclable materials in Mission Canyon are collected by MarBorg Industries. 

Tajiguas Landfill, located on the Gaviota Coast, is the landfill serving the project area. Tajiguas 

is currently permitted to accept up to 1,500 tons of waste per day. The landfill is estimated to 

reach its capacity in the year 2022. One of the primary goals of the County’s Resource Recovery 

and Waste Management Division (RRWMD) is to divert recyclable waste from County landfills. 

The current countywide diversion rate is 69%, including both short-term construction and 

demolition debris and long-term operational waste (Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery 

and Waste Management Division, 2008). This exceeds the 50% requirement of the Integrated 

Waste Management Act. 



Sewer System 

The County provides sewer service to portions of Mission Canyon as County Service Area No. 

12. The City of Santa Barbara accepts and treats wastewater flow from the County’s collection 

system under a 1984 Joint Powers Agreement for Wastewater Collection, Treatment and 

Disposal. As of 2010, 766 parcels are on sewer comprising 809 sewer connections. Public 

sewer lines currently serve the lower canyon south of Foothill Road, the Tornoe Road and 

Mission Canyon Lane area extending northeast to Tunnel Road, and the area immediately north 

of Foothill Road known as Mission Canyon Heights. 

The County prepared two Sanitary Sewer Conceptual Design Studies to consider the feasibility 

of replacing septic systems with a public wastewater collection service for portions of Mission 

Canyon. The first study in 2003 assessed the feasibility of extending service up Tunnel Road, 

starting at the northern extent of existing sewer service at 1159 Tunnel Road. Four alternatives 

were analyzed, each starting at the same point and expanding the service area north and west 

to serve more parcels, as shown in Table 4.9-2. 

Table 4.9-1: Sanitary Sewer Conceptual Design Study for Tunnel Road Area 

Alternative Extent/# of Parcels Served Cost per Updated cost per 

parcel 2003 parcel 2007 26 

1 1,958 lineal feet, 11 parcels $55,000 $65,090 




The second study in 2009 looked at the feasibility of replacing septic systems with a public 

wastewater collection service to serve 49 parcels on Palomino Road. This study reviewed 

service to a consistent number of parcels but analyzed four alternatives for connecting to the 

public sewer system downstream of the study area. The cost to abandon existing septic 

systems and connect to the public sewer would vary depending on specific circumstances at 

each property; therefore, the study provided both a best case and worse case cost estimates as 

shown in Table 4.9-3. 

Table 4.9-2: Sanitary Sewer Conceptual Design Study for Palomino Road 

Alternative Description Cost per 

parcel best 

case 

A 8” diameter gravity sewer 

collection system 

Cost per parcel 

worse case. 

$87,669 $100,219 

B Gravity and pumped flow, public $73,480 $86,030 

26 Staff updated costs in 2007 using the Los Angeles Construction Cost Index. 



Alternative Description Cost per 

parcel best 

pump located at low point of 

Palomino Road. 

C Gravity and pumped flow, public 

pump located at low point of 

overall study area. 

D A force main collection system 

pressurized by individual private 

pumps. 


case 

Cost per parcel 

worse case. 

$87,209 $99,759 

$45,628 $58,178 

After the studies were complete, the perspective rate payers were asked for input to determine 

if there was sufficient interest to pursue moving forward. In both instances, the rate payers 

voted not to pursue the concept further. 


Public Schools 

Operating revenue provided to school districts is generated by local property taxes accrued at 

the state level and then allocated to each school district based on average daily student 

attendance. Because state funding for capital improvements has historically lagged behind 

enrollment growth, physical improvements to accommodate new students are funded primarily 

by fees assessed on development projects. In 1990, School Facilities Legislation (California 

Government Code § 65995) was enacted to generate revenue for school districts for capital 

acquisitions and improvements. This fee is divided between the primary and secondary schools 

and is termed a Level One fee, or basic fee. 

Solid Waste 

In September 1989, the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (also known as AB 

939) was enacted into law. It required that each municipality in the state to divert at least 50 

percent of its solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and 

composting by 2000. This 50 percent requirement also includes the waste stream that comes 

exclusively through construction and demolition (C&D) of buildings and homes in the County, 

which accounts for 31 percent of all waste generated by residents of Santa Barbara County. 

Long range waste management and recycling plans are prepared by the Division in accordance 

with State mandates. The California Integrated Waste Management Plan of 1989 requires 

Counties and Cities to produce a number of documents outlining current and future waste 

management and recycling programs. These documents describe the programs and policies 

that jurisdictions will employ to meet waste management and recycling goals.



The 1984 Specific Plan includes septic tank development standards whereby new septic 

systems are allowed only within the Maintenance Area where the creation of new lots smaller 

than one acre is prohibited. The siting and design of all septic systems in this area are reviewed 

by the Special Problems Committee. 


Police Services 

The County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual does not 

include specific significance thresholds for impacts to police protection services. Santa Barbara 

County Sheriff’s Department, however, considers one law enforcement officer per 1,200 

residents to be “optimal” and strives for a maximum response time to emergency calls of 5 

minutes. With respect to service ratios, according to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, a 

significant impact would occur if a proposed project would decrease adopted service ratios 

such that it would require new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could 

cause significant environmental impacts. 

Schools 

According to the County’s Environmental Thresholds Manual, a significant level of school 

impacts is generally considered to occur when a project would generate sufficient students to 

require an additional classroom. This threshold is to be applied in those school districts which 

are currently approaching, or are exceeding their current capacity. 

Parks and Recreation 

The Land Use Element establishes a minimum countywide standard of 4.7 acres of 

recreational/open space per 1,000 residents. The projected population of Mission Canyon at 

buildout is approximately 2,857 persons (total 1,171 units x 2.44 persons per household), 

resulting in a minimum need of 13 acres. 

S o l i d W a s t e 

Construction and Demolition. Any construction, demolition or remodeling project of a 

commercial, industrial or residential development that is projected to create more than 350 

tons of construction and demolition debris is considered to have a significant impact on public 

services. 

Landfill Capacity. A project is considered to result in significant impacts to landfill capacity if it 

would generate 5% or more of the expected average annual increase in waste generation (196 

tons per year). If a proposed project generates 196 or more tons per year after reduction and 

recycling efforts, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Projects with a 

specific impact of 196 tons/year or more would also be considered cumulatively significant, as 

the project specific threshold of significance is based on a cumulative growth scenario. 

However, as landfill space is already extremely limited, any increase of one percent or more of 



the estimated increase accounted for in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), 

would be considered an adverse contribution to regional cumulative solid waste impacts. One 

percent of the SRRE project increase in solid waste equates to 40 tons per year. To reduce 

adverse cumulative impacts, and to be consistent with the SRRE, mitigation should be 

recommended for projects which generate between 40 and 196 tons or more of solid waste per 

year. 

Wastewater Services 

A project is considered to result in significant impacts to wastewater services if it would require 

the need for new or altered sewer system facilities (sewer lines, lift-stations, etc.). 


IMPACT PF-1: Plan area buildout could increase demand for Police Services, Schools and 

Parks. 

Police Services 

The 157 new units projected at buildout would incrementally increase demand for police 

protection. However, this level of new development would foster population growth within the 

study area consistent with the forecasted regional population increase of the County and would 

not fundamentally alter the demographic character of the study area or create the need for 

new or expanded police or facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Class 

III). 

Schools 

Based on generation rates of 0.4 elementary school students/household, 0.1 middle school 

students/household and 0.2 high school students/household, the development of 157 housing 

units at buildout could add an estimated 63 elementary school students, 16 middle school 

students and 32 high school students to the Santa Barbara School District. According to the 

2007 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Growth Forecast, between 

2000 – 2006 school enrollment declined by 10.2% in the South Coast. The Department of 

Finance forecast to 2014 shows a leveling off through 2010 with a slight increase to 2015. The 

projected increase in students based on buildout of the Mission Canyon plan area would not 

generate students that would exceed school capacity. In addition, pursuant to Section 65995 

(3)(h) of the California Government Code, the continued collection of state-mandated fees 

would reduce impacts to public schools to a less than significant level (Class III). 

Parks 

The plan area is well supplied with public parks and recreational opportunities. Rocky Nook 

Park, at 19 acres, meets County standards and is supplemented by additional parkland and 

hiking trails available to residents immediately adjacent to the plan area. In addition, the draft 

Mission Canyon Community Plan updates the Parks, Recreation, and Trails map (PRT-3) to 

include the addition of two proposed on-road trail segments along Mission Canyon Road: from 

Foothill Road south to Mission Creek, and from Las Canoas Road north to the Santa Barbara 



Botanic Garden entrance. Identifying trails on the PRT map provides the opportunity to protect 

public trails and requires consultation with the County Parks Department prior to issuing any 

right-of-way encroachment permits. The proposed MCCP includes further actions to increase 

the quality and quantity of recreational opportunities in the plan area. There are no impacts to 

Parks. 

Solid Waste 

IMPACT PF-2: Buildout of the plan area would cumulatively increase short- and long-term 

operational waste to Tajiguas Landfill. 

Solid waste impacts can be divided into two categories: 1) short-term waste generated from 

construction and demolition projects, and 2) long-term waste generated during project 

occupancy. 

Short-Term Construction and Debris Waste 

Generation of construction waste per cubic foot varies widely depending on the type and 

location of the project. Per the Environmental Thresholds Manual, a general guideline of 15 

pounds per square foot for a new single family home is used based on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s 1998 construction and demolition study and data gathered by the San Luis 

Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority in 2005 and 2006. According to the County’s 

Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division, new homes in Santa Barbara County 

typically generate less than 5 pounds per square foot of construction waste and an assumed 

construction waste diversion rate of 75% can be used. (Carlyle Johnston, Santa Barbara County 

Public Works Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division, personal communication, 

May 4, 2009). 

The size of existing homes in Mission Canyon vary widely from less than 1,000 to more than 

7,000 square feet. The potential square foot size of homes to be built under the buildout 

scenario is unknown and it would be too speculative to determine short term construction 

waste on a programmatic level using the Environmental Threshold Manual’s guideline of 15 

pounds per square foot for new single family homes. In addition, based on permit history from 

2000 – 2007, the rate of development averages only about 3 new homes per year which, after 

recycling of construction waste as required in proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan 

Development Standard PS-MC-3.1 (detailed below), would only add an small increment of 

short-term construction waste to the landfill annually. 

Long-Term Waste Generation 

Based on an average of 2.44 persons per household (South Coast Housing Market Area) and an 

average annual solid waste generation rate of 0.95 tons of solid waste per person (Santa 

Barbara County Thresholds and Guidelines Manual 2008) the 157 potential residences at 

buildout would generate an estimated 364 tons of solid waste per year (Table 4.9-1). In 

September 1989, the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act was enacted into law. 

It required each municipality in the state to divert at least 50% of its solid waste from landfill 



disposal through source reduction, recycling and composting by 2000. As of 2004, 63% of all 

solid waste generated in the unincorporated areas of the County was diverted for recycling or 

re-use. Assuming a continued diversion rate of 63%, at total buildout an increase of 

approximately 135 tons of waste would be sent to Tajiguas landfill annually. 

Table 4.9-3: Potential Generation of Long-Term Operational Waste 

Land Use S o l i d W a s t e 

G e n e r a t i o n R a t e 

157 

Residential 

U n i t s 

2.44 pe r s on s /u ni t 

x . 9 5 

tons/person/year 

S o l i d W a s t e 

Generated at 

Buildout 

Total Solid Waste with 

6 3 % D i v e r s i o n R a t e 

364 T o n s / y e a r 135 

The impact of increased short- and long-term operational waste due to plan area buildout is 

potentially significant but mitigable (Class II). 

MM-PF-1: Incorporate proposed waste reduction goal, policy, development standard and 

action (or functional equivalent) from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the 


The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan includes several measures to improve resource 

conservation and recovery as follows: 


GOAL PS-MC-2: Provide community-wide resource recovery (recycling) opportunities to 

promote a sustainable community. 

Policy PS-MC-3: Resource conservation and recovery shall be implemented in Mission 

Canyon to reduce solid waste generation and to divert the waste 

stream from area landfills to the maximum extent feasible. Diversion 

shall be maximized through source reduction, recycling and 

composting. 

DevStd PS-MC-3.1: Recycling bins shall be provided by the applicant or contractor at all 

construction sites to facilitate the recovery of all currently accepted 

recyclable construction materials. Adequate and accessible enclosures 

and/or areas shall be provided for the temporary storage of recyclable 

materials in appropriate containers. 



Action PS-MC-3.2: The County shall work with the local waste hauler to continue 

education programs which provide residents information on 

conservation, recycling, and composting techniques. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The goal, policy, development standard and action would be 



Implementation of the above goal, policy, development standard and action, as required by the 

proposed Community Plan, will mitigate the potential cumulative impacts of short- and longterm 

solid waste disposal. The impact is less than significant with mitigation (Class II). 

Wastewater Services 

IMPACT PF-3: Plan area buildout would increase wastewater collection to the El Estero 

Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

More than half of the new units at buildout (88) would be located in the sewer service area 

served by public sewer with the remaining units (70) in the maintenance area served by septic 

systems. The City of Santa Barbara ran a preliminary sewer modeling scenario assuming full 

buildout with slightly more than half of the homes on septic systems (Upper Mission Canyon). 

Based on the remaining 88 homes at buildout proposed in the service area using 300 gallons 

per day per household, 26,400 gallons per day of effluent would be generated which is within 

the available capacity of the local sewer line system and the treatment plant. 

The additional units at buildout in the service area should not require new or altered sewer 

system facilities beyond that already accounted for when sewer service was first provided to 

this area under a 1984 Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Santa Barbara and 

the County for Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal in the Mission Canyon Area. 

The JPA states: the “City shall provide wastewater treatment and disposal for all existing and 

future buildings requiring sewers in the Public Sewer Service Area, subject to the requirements 

and limitations of said [1984] Specific Plan.” Because buildout calculations were based on 

accommodating additional units via existing land use and zoning provisions and the draft 

Community Plan proposes to eliminate the potential for most residential second units (the 

“worst case” buildout scenario in the 1984 Specific Plan calculated that all existing residences 

south of Foothill Road may add second units), impacts to sewer system facilities would be 

considered less than significant (Class III). 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.10 – TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 

4.10 Traffic and Circulation 

This section presents the traffic and circulation analysis for the proposed Mission Canyon 

Community Plan (MCCP). The analysis focuses on potential impacts to key roadways and 

intersections in the Mission Canyon Community Plan area under both Existing and Future 

Conditions. The full technical analysis, prepared by Fehr & Peers, is on file in the Planning and 

Development Department office. 

The following scenarios were evaluated as part of the analysis: 

• Existing (2009) Conditions 

• Future (2030) with MCCP Conditions 

A No Project analysis was also conducted, the results of which are detailed in Section 6.0 

Alternatives. The No Project analysis assumed that the Community Plan is not adopted and 

buildout occurs under the 1984 Specific Plan with no new Circulation goals, policies, 

development standards and actions. Full information about this analysis is included in the 

Appendix H. 

The traffic impact analysis was conducted to identify any adverse traffic impacts due to the 

theoretical maximum buildout potential of the MCCP over existing conditions and potential 

mitigation measures, where necessary. 


The assessment of existing conditions relevant to this study includes an inventory of the street 

system, traffic volumes on these facilities, and geometry and lane configurations at the study 

intersections and roadway segments. The project study area, study intersections and roadway 

segments are illustrated on Figure 4.10-1. 



Figure 4.10- 1 Analyzed Intersections and Roadway Segments 



Local Roadway Network 

Primary regional access to the study area is provided by U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and State 

Route 192 (SR 192). The U.S. 101 generally runs in the north-south direction throughout the 

State of California; however, in the Santa Barbara County area, it runs in the east-west 

direction. The U.S. 101 is located about 2 miles south of Mission Canyon. Local access to the 

MCCP area is comprised of several two-lane roads providing principal access to residential areas 

and connecting streets. 

Foothill Road (SR 192) is a two-lane state route that traverses the Santa Barbara foothills and 

provides an alternate east-west travel route to access SR 154 and U.S. 101 to the west, and 

Montecito and Carpinteria to the east. One travel lane is provided in each direction, divided by 

a double yellow centerline. For safety reasons, Caltrans recently completed a project to 

underground the drainage ditches on the roadway shoulder between Cheltenham and Tye. 

This area now has widened paved shoulders, curbs and drains and designated parking spaces. 

The remaining unimproved roadway has limited shoulders and no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. 

Foothill Road has multiple curb cuts directly serving the residential driveways in the study area. 

The posted speed limit along Foothill Road is 35 miles per hour (mph). 

Mission Canyon Road (north) is a north-south oriented collector north of Foothill Road that 

serves the upper canyon neighborhoods. Mission Canyon Road (north) extends from Foothill 

Road to Tunnel Road, Las Canoas Road, and the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. Mission Canyon 

Road (north) is generally narrow and has no shoulders, curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. The average 

roadway width varies from 18 to 24 feet. The speed limit along Mission Canyon Road is 35 mph, 

with advised speed of 15 mph for several locations with visibility issues due to the horizontal 

curve or significant grade changes. The proposed MCCP will update the Circulation Element and 

designate this portion of Mission Canyon Road as a Secondary 3 (roadways designed to 

primarily serve residential with small to medium lots). 

Mission Canyon Road (south) is a north-south oriented two-lane collector south of Foothill 

Road. It is divided by double yellow centerline. Mission Canyon Road provides direct access to 

the Mission Canyon area from downtown Santa Barbara, providing a scenic thoroughfare. It 

has no curbs and gutters but there is an informal walking path in the shoulder along the east 

side until just past Rocky Nook Park, then continuing on the west side. The average roadway 

width varies from 25 to 29 feet. The speed limit along Mission Canyon Road from the City limits 

to Foothill was officially designated by the County Board of Supervisors in November 2009 as 35 

mph. The proposed MCCP will update the Circulation Element and designate this portion of 

Mission Canyon Road as a Secondary 1 (roadways designed to primarily serve non-residential 

development and large lot residential development with well spaced driveways). 

Las Canoas Road is an east-west collector road serving the northeastern portion of the Mission 

Canyon area. It is a two-lane road divided by double yellow centerline, and it provides major 

access to the Las Canoas community and Rattlesnake Canyon. There are no shoulders, curbs, 

gutters, or sidewalks. The speed limit along Las Canoas Road is officially designated as 30 mph. 



The proposed MCCP will update the Circulation Element and designate this portion of Las 

Canoas as a Secondary 3. 

Tunnel Road is a local north-south collector road running adjacent to the Mission Canyon 

Heights neighborhood. It is a two-lane road divided by a double yellow centerline. Similar to 

Mission Canyon Road (north), Tunnel Road is generally narrow and does not have paved 

shoulders, gutters, curbs or sidewalks. The average roadway width ranges between 20 to 24 

feet. The speed limit along Tunnel Road is 25 mph, with an advised speed of 15 mph for 

locations with visibility issues due to the horizontal curve or significant grade changes. The 

proposed MCCP will update the Circulation Element and designate this portion of Mission 

Canyon Road as a Secondary 3. 

Cheltenham Road is a narrow winding Collector Road that provides direct access to Foothill 

Road for residents in the Mission Canyon Heights neighborhood. It does not have paved 

shoulders, gutters, curbs or sidewalks. Cheltenham ranges between 25 to 29 feet wide from 

Foothill Road to Kenmore Place and narrows down to 20 to 24 feet wide from Kenmore Place to 

Montrose Place. The proposed MCCP will update the Circulation Element and designate 

Cheltenham Road as a Secondary 3. 

Tye Road is a short segment that connects Cheltenham Road and Foothill Road in the Mission 

Canyon Heights neighborhood. It does not have paved shoulders, gutters, curbs or sidewalks. 

The proposed MCCP will update the Circulation Element and designate Tye Road as a Secondary 

3. 

Alamar Avenue is located immediately adjacent to the MCCP area in the City of Santa Barbara. 

It is classified as a collector north of State Street and a local street south of State Street based 

on the City of Santa Barbara roadway classification. Alamar Avenue runs north-south oriented 

and is located just west of Mission Canyon area. It is a two-lane road divided by a double 

yellow centerline. The only traffic signal adjacent to the Mission Canyon area is located at the 

intersection of Foothill Road and Alamar Avenue. The speed limit along Alamar Avenue is 35 

mph. 

Proposed Roadway Classifications 

The draft MCCP identifies roadway classifications that will supersede the roadway 

classifications and traffic impact thresholds of the County’s Circulation Element (Adopted 1980, 

Republished May 2009). 27 The new system of roadway classifications and traffic impact 

thresholds are only applicable within the Mission Canyon plan area. The County of Santa 

Barbara utilizes a "Level of Service" (LOS) grading system to evaluate traffic operations for 

roadways and intersections. Roadway levels of service are calculated based on the roadway 

classification and corresponding design and acceptable capacities established by the County. 

27 

The Circulation Element did not assign specific roadway classifications to roads in Mission Canyon Community Plan area. 



Service levels range from LOS A indicating free flow operations to LOS F indicating congested 

operations. 

The roadway classification system is divided into two main designations, Primary and Secondary 

roadways. Each of these designations is further subdivided into three subclasses, dependent 

upon roadway size, function, and surrounding uses. The MCCP roadways classification is 

comprised of a select number of Secondary roadways, as described in Table 4.10-1. 

Table 4.10- 1: Roadway Classifications 

Classification Purpose and Design Factors Design Capacity 

2 Lane 4 Lane 

Secondary 1 (S-1) Roadways designed primarily to serve nonresidential 

development and large lot 

residential development with well spaced 

driveways. Roadways would be 2 lanes with 

infrequent driveways. Signals would 

generally occur at intersections with primary 

roads. 

Secondary 2 (S-2) Roadways designed to serve residential and 

non-residential land uses. Roadways would 

be 2 lanes with close to moderately spaced 

driveways. 

Secondary 3 (S-3) Roadways designed primarily to serve 

residential with small to medium lots. 

Roadways are 2 lanes with more frequent 

driveways. 

11,600 NA 

9,100 NA 

7,900 NA 

Design capacity is determined by the County Public Works Department and is defined as the 

maximum daily traffic volume that a given roadway can accommodate. Design capacity usually 

equates to LOS E/F. Acceptable capacity for a given roadway is expressed as a percent of the 

design capacity based on the LOS threshold to reflect the specific roadway conditions in the 

study area (such as narrow pavement, roadway grade, slopes, presence of curves, sight 

distance, and prevalence of driveways and intersections or other access points that produce 

substantial turning movement conflicts in the study area, or prevalence of on-street parking). 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan (MCCP) establishes the roadway classification which then 

provides the acceptable LOS for evaluating traffic operations. Due to the area’s semi-rural 

nature and roadway conditions, the MCCP establishes the S-3 classification and LOS B (V/C ratio 

equal to 0.7 or less) as the minimum acceptable level of service for most roadways in the plan 

area. These roadways are comprised of Mission Canyon Road north of Foothill Road, Tunnel 

Road (entire length), Las Canoas east of Mission Canyon Road, and Cheltenham and Tye Roads 

in Mission Canyon Heights. The exception is a segment of Mission Canyon Road (south of 



Foothill Road) which is classified as a S-1 roadway where LOS C (V/C ratio equal to 0.8 or less) is 

the acceptable capacity. The reason for a different classification is that this segment of Mission 

Canyon Road has fewer roadway condition factors than north of Foothill (e.g., it is wider, has 

lower slopes, fewer curves etc.) and existing traffic volumes already exceed LOS B for a S1 

roadway. This information is presented in Table 4.10-2. 

In addition to the aforementioned facilities, Foothill Road (SR 192) is under the jurisdiction of 

the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The levels of service for the 

unsignalized segments on SR 192 were computed based on the Highway Capacity Manual 

(HCM) two-lane highway operations method. This method focuses on peak hour volumes, 

along with average speeds and the ability to pass, to determine levels of service for the 

roadway segment. The acceptable level of service for Foothill Road is considered to be LOS D 

(Route Concept Report - Route 192 in Santa Barbara County, Caltrans District 5, 1990). 

Table 4.10- 2: Roadway Design and Acceptable Capacity 

Roadway Segment Classification 

Mission 


(south) 



(north) 

Design 

Capacity 

(2-Lane) 

South of 

Foothill Road S-1 11,600 

North of 

Foothill Road S-3 7,900 

Tunnel Road Entire Length 

East of 

S-3 7,900 

Las Canoas Mission 

Road 

Cheltenham 

Canyon Road S-3 7,900 

Road Entire Length S-3 7,900 

Tye Road Entire Length S-3 7,900 

Acceptable 

Capacity 

(LOS) 

9,280 

(LOS C) 

5,530 

(LOS B) 

5,530 

(LOS B) 

5,530 

(LOSB) 

5,530 

(LOS B) 

5,530 

(LOS B) 

Intersection LOS Standards 

A total of 10 intersections within both the County of Santa Barbara and City of Santa Barbara 

jurisdictions were selected for analysis. Levels of service for stop- controlled intersections were 

calculated using the unsignalized operations methodology (Highway Capacity Manual, Special 

Report 209). According to the HCM, the level of service for an unsignalized intersection is 

determined by the computed or measured control delay, which is defined for each minor 

movement. For a two-way stop-controlled intersection, the worst case delay values and level 

of service for the intersection approaches are reported. For an all-way stop-controlled 



intersection, the average delay and level of service for the intersection is reported. It should be 

noted that the delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to 

control, geometrics, traffic and incidents. 

Two of the 10 analyzed intersections are located in the City of Santa Barbara, including Alamar 

Avenue & Foothill Road and Mission Canyon Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive. 

Levels of service for the City’s signalized location was calculated based on the City’s adopted 

Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The two-way stopped intersection of Mission 

Canyon Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive was analyzed based on the unsignalized 

operations methodology (Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209) and applying the City 

of Santa Barbara General Plan Circulation Element (October 1998) standards. The City has a 

minimum acceptable LOS C (with V/C ratio less than 0.77) for signalized intersections and a 

minimum acceptable LOS of C with less than 22 seconds of delay for unsignalized intersections. 

Existing Roadway Operations 

A total of 14 roadway segments were selected for analysis, as shown in Table 4.10-3 and 4.10-4. 

These segments are illustrated in Figure 4.10-2. Existing conditions were assessed for the 

roadway system using traffic counts collected in December 2009, traffic data contained in the 

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan FEIR (July 2009), and the data on file with 

County of Santa Barbara. Detailed traffic count data sheets are in kept on file in Planning and 

Development and available online. 

For the County’s roadways, segment level of service is calculated based on the proposed 

roadway classifications, design capacities, and acceptable capacity. Analysis of the existing 

daily volumes (shown in Table 4.10-3) indicate that Mission Canyon roadways are operating at 

an acceptable LOS C or better, meeting the County’s thresholds for daily roadway volumes in 

the plan area. 

Two of the 14 study segments, Glen Albyn Drive and Tornoe Road, are unclassified roadways in 

the Santa Barbara County Circulation Element (Adopted 1980, Republished May 2009) and in 

the draft MCCP. Both streets currently carry fairly low volumes to the Mission Canyon Heights 

neighborhood. 

Foothill Road (SR 192) is a Caltrans jurisdiction highway. The level of service for SR 192 was 

computed based on the HCM two-lane highway operations method. This method focuses on 

peak hour volumes, along with average speeds and the ability to pass, to determine levels of 

service for the roadway segment. Detailed peak hour LOS worksheets are on file in Planning 

and Development. As shown in Table 4.10-4, the segments on Foothill Road currently operate 

at LOS C or better during both morning and afternoon peak hours, which exceeds the Caltrans 

standards for a rural two-lane highway. 



Figure 4.10- 2 Existing Traffic Volumes 



Table 4.10- 3: Existing (2009) Roadway Segment Operating Conditions 

1 

Roadway 

Mission Canyon Rd (south) 

north of Las Canoas Rd 

Proposed 

Roadway 

Classification 

[a] 

Design 

Capacity 

[a] 

Acceptable 

Capacity 

(LOS) [a] 

Existing (2009) Conditions 

Daily 

Traffic 

Volume 

[b] 

Volume 

over 

Design 

Capacity 

Ratio LOS 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 728 0.092 A 

2 Mission Canyon Rd (north) 

between Andante Rd and Las 

Canoas Rd 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 1,477 0.187 A 

3 Mission Canyon Rd (north) S-3 7,900 5,530 B 3,324 0.421 A 

between 

Tunnel Rd 

Foothill Rd and 

4 Mission Canyon Rd (south) 

south of Foothill Rd 

S-1 11,600 9,280 C 8,762 0.755 C 

5 Mission Canyon Rd (south) 

north of Mountain Drive 

S-1 11,600 9,280 C 8,983 0.774 C 

Cheltenham Rd north of 

6 Foothill Rd S-3 7,900 5,530 B 1,000 0.127 A 

7 

Tunnel Rd north of Montrose 

Pl S-3 7,900 5,530 B 844 0.107 A 

8 Tye Rd north of Foothill Rd S-3 7,900 5,530 B 1,959 0.248 A 

9 

10 

Las Canoas Rd east of Mission 

Canyon Rd (north) 

Glen Albyn Dr north of Foothill 

Rd 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 850 0.108 A 

Unclassified [c] [c] 210 [c] 

11 Tornoe Rd north of Foothill Rd Unclassified [c] [c] 227 [c] 

Notes: 

[a] Source: Roadway classification, Design Capacity and Acceptable Capacity were determined based on the Initiation Draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan (May 2009) and consultation with the County of Santa Barbara Planning Department and Public Works, 

Transportation Division (February 2010). Acceptable Capacity is expressed as a percent of Design Capacity to reflect the special 

roadway conditions in the study area (such as narrow pavement, roadway grade, slopes, presence of curves, sight distance, and 

prevalence of driveways and intersections which produce substantial turning movement conflicts in the study area, etc.). 

[b] Daily traffic volume data was obtained from traffic counts conducted in December 2009, except that traffic counts for Mission 

Canyon Road (north) between Foothill Road and Tunnel Road and Foothill Road between Mission Canyon Road (north) and 

Mission Canyon Road (south) were obtained from the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final EIR (July 2009). 

[c] Glen Albyn Drive and Tornoe Road are unclassified roadways in the Santa Barbara County Circulation Element (May 2009) and 

are not required for the CEQA impact analysis. Both streets carry relatively low volumes to the Mission Canyon Heights 

neighborhood. Traffic volumes were presented in the table for information only. 



Table 4.10- 4: Existing (2009) State Route 192 Segment Operating Conditions 

SR 192 (Foothill Road) Segments Terrain 

12 

13 

Foothill Rd east of Mission 

Oaks Ln 

Foothill Rd between Mission 

Canyon Rd (north) and 

Mission Canyon Rd (south) 

Rural 

Rural 

Daily 

Traffic 

Volumes 

[a] Period 

2,780 

6,359 

Existing (2009) Conditions 

Peak 

Hour 

Volume 

[a] V/C 


AM 

PM 

AM 

PM 

LOS 

[b] 

235 0.11 A 

279 0.14 A 

481 0.18 A 

500 0.19 B 

AM 779 0.29 B 

14 Foothill Rd west of Mission Rural 7,100 

Canyon Rd (south) 

PM 790 0.3 C 

Notes: 

[a] Existing daily traffic volumes for Foothill Road between Mission Canyon Road (north) and Mission Canyon Road 

(west) were obtained from the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final EIR (July 2009). Existing daily 

volume count for Foothill Road west of Mission Canyon (south) was obtained from Mission Canyon CURE Project 

Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2004071078, Caltrans, September 2004). Existing daily volume data for 

Foothill Road between Mission Canyon Road (north) and Mission Canyon Road (south) and peak hour volumes for 

above three locations were obtained from December 2009 counts. 

[b] Foothill Road (State Route 192) is a Caltrans jurisdiction highway. The levels of service for SR 192 were 

computed based on the Highway Capacity Manual two-lane highway operations method. This method focuses on 

peak hour volumes, along with average speeds and the ability to pass, to determine levels of service for the roadway 

segment. Detailed peak hour LOS worksheet is included in the Technical Appendix.


Existing Intersection Operations 

A total of 10 intersections within both the County of Santa Barbara and City of Santa Barbara 

jurisdictions were selected for analysis. These are shown in Figure 4.10-3. Weekday morning 

(7:00-9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00-6:00 PM) peak period traffic counts were collected in 

December 2009 at the 10 study intersections. The one-hour period containing the highest 

volume of traffic at each intersection is considered the peak hour, and hence was evaluated in 

this analysis. The existing intersection traffic volumes are also illustrated in Figure 4.10-3. The 

traffic count data sheets are on file in Planning and Development. 

All of the analyzed intersections located within the MCCP study area are unsignalized, with the 

exception of the intersection at Alamar Avenue & Foothill Road. For stop-controlled 

intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) (Transportation Research Board, 

2000) methodology was used to determine the LOS based on delay. For signalized intersections 

and determination of impacts, the ICU method was used to determine the level of service 

based on the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio. The existing level of service at the study 

intersections is summarized in Table 4.10-5. 

The data presented in Table 4.10-5 shows that all 10 study intersections located in the vicinity 

of the MCCP area currently operate at LOS C or better during the typical commute peak hours, 

meeting the minimum acceptable LOS standards for the County, the City and Caltrans. 

For the purposes of this study it should be noted that Caltrans District 5 recently (2009) 

completed the Mission Canyon Clean Up the Roadside Environment (CURE) project along 

Foothill Road (between Tye Road and Cheltenham Road). This was a safety project to eliminate 

roadside hazards, primarily the drainage ditches along the north and south sides of the road. 

The ditches were replaced with an underground storm drain. The project also added paved 

shoulders (4 to 5 feet in width) next to the existing travel lanes. Portions of the newly paved 

shoulders include designated parking areas. This project now allows vehicles to merge out of 

the general purpose travel lane to avoid conflict with emergency vehicles. 



Figure 4.10- 3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 



Figure 4.10-3 



Table 4.10- 5: Existing (2009) Intersection Operating Conditions 

Intersection 

Alamar Ave & Foothill Rd 

Jurisdiction [c] 

[a] City/Caltrans 

Control 

[d] 

Peak 

Hour 

Existing (2009) 

Conditions 

Delay or 

V/C LOS 

1. 

AM 0.574 A 

Signal PM 0.579 A 

2. 

Glen Albyn Dr & Foothill Rd 

[b] County/Caltrans OWSC AM 12.0 sec B 

PM 12.3 sec B 

3. Tye Rd & Foothill Rd 

County/Caltrans OWSC 

AM 

PM 

12.5 sec 

11.9 sec 

B 

B 

4. 

Cheltenham Rd & Foothill 

Rd [b] County/Caltrans OWSC AM 14.9 sec B 

5. Mission Canyon 

Rd(south)/Tornoe Rd & 

Foothill Rd [b] [e] 

6. Mission Canyon Rd (south)/ 

E Los Olivos St & Mountain 

Dr [b] 

County/Caltrans AWSC 

City OWSC 

PM 14.7 sec B 

AM 12.9 sec B 

PM 13.4 sec B 

AM 20.4 sec C 

PM 20.3 sec C 

7. 

Tunnel Rd & Montrose Pl 

[b] County OWSC AM 8.7 sec A 

PM 8.6 sec A 

8. Mission Canyon Rd (north) 

& Las Canoas Rd [b] 

County OWSC 

AM 

PM 

9.0 sec 

8.9 sec 

A 

A 


Tunnel Rd [b] 

Rd & 

County TWSC 

AM 

PM 

2.1 sec 

2.1 sec 

A 

A 

10. Mission Canyon Rd(north) 

& Foothill Rd [b] 

County/Caltrans AWSC 

Notes: 

[a] Intersection is signalized. ICU methodology was used for analysis. 

AM 8.7 sec A 

PM 8.7 sec A 

[b] Intersection is controlled by stop signs and uses HCM unsignalized methodology. Average vehicular delay in seconds 

is reported rather than V/C ratio. For one-way or two-way stop-controlled intersections, the average vehicle delay is 

reported for the worst-case approach. For an all-way stop-controlled intersection, the vehicle delay was averaged by 

total vehicles from all four approaches. 

[c] County: County of Santa Barbara. City: City of Santa Barbara 

[d] OWSC: one approach is controlled by a stop sign. TWSC: two approaches are controlled by stop signs. AWSC: All 

approaches are controlled by stop signs. 

[e] A functional northbound right turn lane from Mission Canyon Road to Foothill Road eastbound was 

assumed in the analysis. 



Multi-Modal Transportation 

Transit Service 

Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) provides the general public with fixed route 

service. Route 22, the Old Mission line, serves as the only fixed-route transit line in Mission 

Canyon, linking the major commercial areas of downtown Santa Barbara and the historic and 

cultural destination points of Mission Santa Barbara and the Museum of Natural History. On 

weekends, Line 22 also provides an on-request bus service to the Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden. Bus riders traveling to and from the Botanic Garden and downtown on the weekend 

can use the MTD courtesy phones located at the bus stop or use the MTD bus request phone 

numbers to request service at the Botanic Garden. 

Carpool/ Ridesharing 

Based on the 2000 Census (US Census Bureau 2009) 28 , the average car ownership in the MCCP 

area is approximately 1.64 vehicles per household. Commute information gathered as part of 

the 2000 Census found that percentage of MCCP commuters that use carpools was 8.7%, lower 

than the Santa Barbara County average of 14.9%. 

In the study area, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (2559 Puesta del Sol) arranges 

shuttle services to and from the City of Santa Barbara downtown parking lots and coordinates 

off-site parking with local churches, local county clubs and school during special events. In 

addition, the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (1212 Mission Canyon Road) currently implements 

a transportation and parking management plan for all events anticipated to generate parking 

demand in excess of the Garden’s parking capacity. The Garden obtains off-site parking and 

provides free shuttle service when special events are expected to result in more than 130 

vehicles traveling to the Botanic Garden. 29 The off-site parking is often located at the Women’s 

Club (670 Mission Canyon Road), the Old Mission (2201 Laguna Street), St. Anthony’s (2300 

Garden Street), the Riviera Business Park (2020 Alameda Padre Serra), and/or the Church of 

Latter Day Saints (2107 Santa Barbara Street). 

Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities 

Because of Mission Canyon’s scenic views and hiking trails, the area attracts many outdoor 

enthusiasts including cyclists, horseback riders, and hikers. None of the roads in Mission 

Canyon are designated or signed/striped for bicycle or pedestrian use. As a result, bicyclists 

and pedestrians must share the road with motorists. In certain areas such as Tunnel and 

Mission Canyon Roads, narrow roadways and bridges and other constraints within the road 

shoulder right-of-way (ROW) make sharing the road difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

However, there are a few bike facilities located in the vicinity of the MCCP area in the adjacent 

City of Santa Barbara: 

28 The 2010 Census information will not be available until 2011. 

29 Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final EIR (July 2009). 



• Class II Bike Lane on Alamar Avenue just south of Foothill Road to Chapala Street in the 

City of Santa Barbara 

• Bike route on East Los Olivos Street, continuing along Laguna Street in the City of Santa 

Barbara 

• Bike route on Mountain Drive from Mission Canyon Road to Foothill Road. 

• Bike route on Puesta del Sol from Alamar Avenue to Mission Canyon Road 

• Bike route on Foothill Road west of Alamar Avenue in the City of Santa Barbara. 

Within the MCCP area, the County has previously designated Foothill Road, Tunnel Road, 

Mission Canyon Road (north) to Las Canoas, and Las Canoas Road as proposed on-road trails. 

The draft MCCP proposes extending the on-road trail to Mission Canyon Road north to the 

Botanic Garden and south from Foothill to Rocky Nook Park as a new proposed on-road trail. 

Foothill Road is in Caltrans jurisdiction and the functional classification of the road for bike 

movement would be determined by Caltrans. 

Parking and Emergency Access 

Many of the roadways and driveways serving Mission Canyon were built prior to current 

roadway and access standards. While data indicates the average right-of-way (ROW) widths 

range from 25 to 60 feet (as shown in Figure 4.10-4), the actual paved travel lanes for many 

roadways are 20 feet or less. This situation is due in part to irregular parcel surveys of the public 

ROW. Over time, incremental encroachment of landscaping, walls, fences, and utilities within 

the actual ROW occurred because the paved roadway was used incorrectly as a guide to 

establish property boundaries. Access to these areas can be further constrained by on-street 

parking. 

On-street parking constraints affect only certain areas of Mission Canyon. The majority of the 

on-street parking congestion is located in the western portion of Mission Canyon throughout 

neighborhoods in Mission Canyon Heights, as well as the upper reaches of Tunnel Road. In 

addition to resident and guest parking, the limited right-of-way is often used to park boats, 

motor homes/recreational vehicles, and trailers. On-street parking creates traffic flow 

problems by reducing the effective travel area, often down to a single lane width. Another 

concern is the heavily used public trail at the end of Tunnel Road. The upper reach of Tunnel 

Road becomes highly constrained as trail users park along the pavement edge to access this 

popular trail. The County installed “No Parking” signage and edge striping with “Park to the 

Edge of Right Stripe” signs to improve the situation, but the continued high trail use can often 

lead to a deficit of places to park on busy weekends and illegal parking along the road. 

Residential parking solutions are necessary not only to address residential parking needs, but 

more importantly to allow unconstrained emergency vehicle access and maintain vital egress 

routes out of the Canyon. 

Due to the importance of maintaining clear travel lanes for emergency access, the County 

worked with the Mission Canyon Planning Advisory Committee (MCPAC) to develop residential 

parking strategy options. In November 2009, the MCPAC recommended a set of new policies 



and policy revisions to implement the “Safer Streets Initiative” project, the most significant of 

which is a policy to paint white “fog lines” on public streets to demarcate parking areas outside 

of the travel lanes. 



Figure 4.10- 4 Average Road Right-of-Way Widths 




Santa Barbara County Land Use Element 

Land Use Element Policy 4 requires the County to make findings prior to issuance of a 

development permit that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer, 

roads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed development. The MCCP proposed Policy CIRC- 

MC-5 states that project consistency with the Mission Canyon Community Plan circulation 

section shall constitute a determination of project consistency with Land Use Element Policy 4 

with regard to roadway and intersection capacity. 

Circulation Element 

The Circulation Element identifies key roadway links throughout the County and guides 

decisions regarding new development. The Element also provides traffic capacity guidelines 

that are intended to maintain acceptable levels of service on the County’s roadways and 

intersections. The Element applies to all roadways and intersections within the unincorporated 

area of the County, with the exception of those roadways and intersections located within an 

adopted community or area plan. The MCCP proposes new roadway classifications which will 

supersede the Circulation Element standards when adopted. 

Congestion Management Program 

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) is the Congestion Management 

Agency for the County. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is prepared to address 

the problem of increasing congestion on regional highways and principal arterials. The street 

network established for the CMP includes all state freeways and highways. In Mission Canyon, 

this includes State Route 192 (Foothill Road). SBCAG and local agencies selected a minimum 

acceptable LOS “D” for intersections and roadways in the CMP network. If any facilities are 

found to be operating below this standard, a deficiency plan must be prepared. According to 

the CMP, the segment of State Route 192 through Mission Canyon currently operates at LOS D 

in the p.m. peak hour (SBCAG 2009). 

County Bicycle Master Plan 

The County’s Bicycle Master Plan (Santa Barbara County 2005) identifies transportation 

infrastructure improvements needed to enhance conditions for bicycling. The plan is also 

intended to complement SBCAG’s efforts to develop a Regional Bikeway Master Plan. The 

Bicycle Master Plan does not propose any new bikeway projects in Mission Canyon. 

1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan 

The 1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan acknowledges traffic and circulation problems due to 

line of sight, roadway width, steep grades and traffic safety. At the time, it was felt that 

circulation network capacities may or may not be adequate to handle major traffic increases in 

the area. No specific policies or development standards were developed for traffic and 

circulation although the plan did recommend the County initiate a road improvement fee 

program to be used for transportation improvements within Mission Canyon. The County 

collects off-site road improvement fees based on the number of peak hour traffic trips 



generated for discretionary projects but there are currently no transportation fees for new 

single family dwellings in Mission Canyon. 


CEQA guidelines state that a project will ordinarily have a significant effect on the environment 

if it will "cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load 

and capacity of the street system." The following thresholds assume that an increase in traffic 

that creates a need for road improvements is "substantial in relation to the existing traffic load 

and capacity of the street system." 

State Highway Significant Impact Criteria 

Foothill Road is part of SR 192 in the MCCP area between Andorra Road to east of Alamar 

Avenue and is included in the Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) 

system (June 2009). A significant traffic impact on a State Highway occurs if a project adds 100 

peak hour trips to an intersection at LOS D or 50 trips to an intersection currently operating at 

LOS E or F. 

County of Santa Barbara Roadway Significant Impact Criteria 

The MCCP updates the current adopted Circulation Element for the planning area. This 

Community Plan identifies a new system of roadway classifications and project levels of service 

standards applicable within the Mission Canyon area. These supersede the County’s Circulation 

Element (Adopted 1980, Republished May 2009) classifications and Santa Barbara County 

Public Works Department Roadway Design Capacities (June 2006) for purposes of impact 

significance. 

Based on the MCCP and County’s Circulation Element a significant traffic impact occurs on a 

roadway segment when the project’s daily volume exceeds the acceptable capacity or when a 

roadway does not meet the minimum LOS threshold. 

County of Santa Barbara Intersection Significant Impact Criteria 

The County of Santa Barbara has established threshold criteria that determine whether a 

project has a significant traffic impact at a specific intersection. Under the County’s Circulation 

Element guidelines, a significant traffic impact occurs when: 



a. The addition of project traffic to an intersection increases the V/C ratio by the 

value provided below or the number of trips listed below: 

Intersection Conditions Project-related 

with Project Traffic 

Increase 

A In V/C greater than 0.20 

B In V/C greater than 0.15 

C In V/C greater than 0.10 

Or the addition of: 

D 15 peak hour trips 

E 10 peak hour trips 

F 5 peak hour trips 

b. The project’s access to a major road or arterial road would require a driveway 

that would create an unsafe situation or a new traffic signal or major revisions to 

an existing traffic signal. 

c. The project adds traffic to a roadway that has design features (e.g., narrow 

width, road side ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement 

structure) or receives use that would be incompatible with substantial increase 

in traffic (e.g., rural roads with use by farm equipment, livestock, horseback 

riding, or residential roads) with heavy projected future peak hour traffic 

conditions for the related projects and construction at the peak of construction 

activity. 

d. Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersection’s capacity 

where the intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service, but 

with cumulative traffic would degrade to or approach LOS D (V/C 0.81 or lower). 

Substantial is defined as a minimum change of 0.03 for intersections that would 

operate from 0.80 to 0.85 and a change of 0.02 for intersections that would 

operate from 0.86 to 0.90, and 0.01 for intersections operating at a lower LOS. 

The County of Santa Barbara’s cumulative impact thresholds are determined based on 

increases in V/C ratios calculated for signalized intersections. However, the level of service for 

an unsignalized intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and not 

V/C ratios. Based on consultation with County staff, for purposes of determining cumulative 

impacts for the unsignalized study intersections, the same traffic impact thresholds indicated in 

[a] above (i.e., sends at least 5, 10, or 15 trips to intersections operating at LOS F, E or D, 

respectively) were used. 



City of Santa Barbara Intersection Significant Impact Criteria 

Two of the 10 analyzed intersections are located in the City of Santa Barbara. The intersection 

of Alamar Avenue & Foothill Road is also part of SR 192 and was analyzed applying the 

thresholds stated in the City of Santa Barbara General Plan Circulation Element (October 1998) 

and Caltrans standards. Another intersection under the City’s jurisdiction (Mission Canyon 

Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive) was analyzed using the City’s adopted 

thresholds. Based on the City of Santa Barbara Circulation Element, signalized intersections are 

considered impacted if they exceed the City’s LOS goal of C, with a V/C ratio of 0.80. However, 

for the purposes of CEQA in the City of Santa Barbara, a signalized intersection is considered 

impacted if a project results in the V/C ratio exceeding 0.77. The City also has a minimum 

acceptable LOS C threshold with less than 22 seconds of delay for unsignalized intersections. 

Therefore, under the City’s guidelines, a significant traffic impact occurs when: 

1. The addition of project traffic to a signalized intersection in any peak hours 

causes an signalized intersection to exceed a V/C ratio of 0.77 

2. Contributes traffic to a signalized intersection already exceeding a V/C ratio of 

0.77 

3. Contributes traffic to an unsignalized intersection already exceeding 22 seconds 

of delay. 

Congestion Management Significance Criteria 

The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) administers the Congestion 

Management Program (CMP). The CMP criteria apply to development projects, not long range 

plans such as the MCCP. Future developments within Mission Canyon would be required to 

address potential impacts to the CMP roadway network. 

Traffic Forecasting Methodology 

Traffic forecasts were developed for a 2030 horizon year. Future 2030 roadway and 

intersection volume forecasts were developed using the City of Santa Barbara’s Plan Santa 

Barbara Travel Demand Model. The City’s model, developed in the TransCAD Transportation 

Geographic Information System (GIS) software, was successfully calibrated and validated to 

existing conditions for the entire City of Santa Barbara and sphere of influence (including the 

MCCP area). 30 This development was based on County land use assumptions and the preferred 

Plan Santa Barbara development 31 in the City of Santa Barbara based on Santa Barbara County 

Association of Governments (SBCAG) forecasts. 

30 

For details regarding the model development, including calibration and validation statistics, please refer to Plan Santa 

Barbara Travel Demand Model Overview (Fehr & Peers, March 2009). 

31 For details regarding the Plan Santa Barbra Development, please refer to Plan Santa Barbara Program DEIR, City of Santa 

Barbara (March 2010 Draft). Based on the DEIR, Plan Santa Barbara is “a set of draft General Plan amendments to update 

goals, policies, and growth management tools to guide development in the city of Santa Barbara through the year 2030 ” . 

“Only a small increment of additional growth is projected to gradually occur over the next two decades under the proposed 

Plan Santa Barbara policies. This would include up to an estimated 2,795 additional residential units and a limitation of no more 

than 2.0 million square feet of non-residential growth”. The DEIR also evaluates full build-out of the proposed Plan Santa 



The MCCP area currently includes 1,014 housing units and serves a population of approximately 

2,610 residents according to year 2000 Census data. Related residential and non-residential 

development projects in the study area and immediate vicinity were identified by County staff 

and included in the 2030 model forecasts. These related projects consist of previously 

approved five single-family residences (in the study area), two single-family residences adjacent 

to the study area, a proposed 71,000 square foot commercial office project on SR 192 just east 

of SR 154, and the proposed addition of 8 residential dwelling units and expansion of the 

current Botanic Garden Facility in the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. 32 A detailed description of 

each cumulative project is contained in the appendices to the traffic study prepared by Fehr & 

Peers, available on file in Planning and Development and online. 

Mission Canyon Community Plan Trip Generation 

According to the County’s 2030 Buildout Analysis under the Existing Land Use and Zoning codes, 

the MCCP area could include an additional development potential of 157 residential units, 

resulting in a total of 1,171 dwelling units in the MCCP area. No land uses or zone designation 

changes are proposed in the MCCP. As shown in Table 4.10-6, the additional residential units 

would result in a net increase of 1,531 daily trips over the existing conditions, of which 120 trips 

would occur in the AM peak hour and 162 trips would occur in the PM peak hour. 33 

The City’s travel model was used to estimate the distribution of the potential new trips 

generated by the 158 residences. This distribution was then used in conjunction with Institute 

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates of trip generation for 158 single-family units to 

estimate the daily and peak hour traffic contribution of the MCCP, as shown in Figures 4.10-5 

and 4.10-6. 

Barbara General Plan and analyzes commercial/institutional growth of up to three million square feet and residential growth of 

up to 8,620 units over the next 40 years. 

32 Source: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final EIR (July 2009) 

33 One extra unit was erroneously calculated in buildout. This does not significantly change the calculation. 



Table 4.10- 6: Trip Generation Rates and Estimates 

TRIP GENERATION RATES [a] 

A.M. Peak P.M. Peak 

Land Use ITE# Rate Daily 

Out 

In % Out % Total In % % Total 

Single-Family 

Detached 

Housing 

Residential 

210 per Dwelling Unit 9.57 25% 75% 0.75 63% 37% 1.01 

Secondary 

Units 

220 per Dwelling Unit 6.65 20% 80% 0.51 65% 35% 0.62 

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES 

Total Residential 

A.M. Peak P.M. Peak 

Scenarios ITE# Units within MCCP Daily 

Area 

In Out Total In Out Total 

Existing 

Conditions 

210 1,012 Dwelling 

Future with 

Units 

9,685 190 569 759 256 766 

1,022 

Project 

(MCCP) 

Conditions [c] 

210 1,172 Dwelling 

Units 

11,197 220 658 878 296 888 1,182 

Change from Existing to 2030 with MCCP 1,512 30 89 119 40 120 160 

[a] Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition (ITE, 2008). 

[b] The County of Santa Barbara Office of Long Range Planning estimated buildout of the currently approved Mission Canyon Community 

Plan could add an additional development potential of 158 Single-Family Detached Housing Units and 36 Secondary Residential Units 

over existing conditions in the MCCP area. 

[c] With the proposed MCCP, the County of Santa Barbara Office of Long Range Planning estimated additional development potential of 

158 Single-Family Detached Housing Units in the MCCP area. 



Figure 4.10- 5 Buildout Average Daily Traffic Volumes 



Figure 4.10- 6 Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 



Figure 4.10-6 

Continued 



Draft MCCP Traffic and Circulation Policies and Development Standards 

The draft MCCP’s policies for traffic and circulation focus mainly on improving existing 

roadways for safety and multi-modal access. The community prefers to retain the semi-rural 

character of the roads which includes the narrow widths and mature landscaping as well as 

existing stone bridges and sandstone culverts and no traffic signals. The main goals of the 

traffic and circulation section in the Mission Canyon Community Plan are 1) achieve safe 

roadways and improve pedestrian and bicycle passage, while maintaining community character 

and aesthetic qualities, 2) provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and safe emergency 

egress for residents and visitors and 3) reduce on-street parking to the maximum extent 

feasible. 

Future (2030) with Buildout of MCCP Conditions 

The potential new trips associated with the theoretical maximum development of additional 

160 units 34 were assigned to the roadway network within the plan area and were added to 

future without MCCP traffic volumes to represent future with MCCP traffic conditions, as 

illustrated in Figures 4.10-7 for daily traffic conditions and 4.10-8 for intersection peak hour 

turning movements. 

Segments 

As shown in Table 4.10-7, due to potential new residential traffic to and from the MCCP area, 

two study segments on Mission Canyon Road (south) are projected to exceed the County’s 

minimum LOS C threshold under 2030 with Buildout of MCCP conditions: 

• #4. Mission Canyon Road (south) south of Foothill Road (LOS E) to Las Encinas Road 

• #5. Mission Canyon Road (south) Las Encinas Road to Mountain Drive (LOS F) 

The study segments on Foothill Road, as shown in Table 4.10-8, would continue operating at 

LOS C or better, meeting the Caltrans minimum threshold of LOS D. 

Intersections 

Table 4.10-9 summarizes the peak hour intersection LOS analysis. With potential new 

residential traffic related to the MCCP area, nine of the ten study intersections are projected to 

operate at LOS C or better during the peak hour, meeting the LOS standards of the County and 

Caltrans. The one exception is: 

• #6. Mission Canyon Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive: LOS D in both peak 

hours (City of Santa Barbara intersection). 

34 The number of theoretical units at buildout has since been refined to 157 units; however, three fewer units do 

not significantly change the results. 



It should be noted that this intersection is stop-controlled on the minor approach (Mountain 

Drive). The potential new residential development in MCCP would create additional delay for 

the motorists along Mission Canyon Road that intend to enter and exit Mountain Drive. 

Non-Motorized Circulation and Transit 

It is unknown how many trips from buildout would be made using non-motorized circulation 

and transit. Both the County and City of Santa Barbara encourage employees to reduce drive 

alone commuting by offering various incentives. It is assumed more residents in the plan area 

may increase demand for safe pedestrian and bicyclist passage and transit; however, the steep 

topography of Mission Canyon, particularly above Foothill, may preclude many residents and 

visitors from using non-motorized circulation other than for recreational purposes. It is 

unknown if there is enough demand to increase transit use in the plan area. 



Figure 4.10- 7 Cumulative Average Daily Traffic Volumes 



Figure 4.10- 8 Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 



Figure 4.10-8 Continued 



Table 4.10- 7: Future (2030) Roadway Segment Impact Analysis 

1 

Roadway 

Mission Canyon Rd 

north of Las Canoas 

Rd 

2 Mission Canyon Rd 

between Andante 

3 

Rd and Las Canoas 

Rd 


between Foothill Rd 

and Tunnel Rd 


south of Foothill Rd 


north of Mountain 

Dr 

6 Cheltenham Rd 

7 

north of Foothill Rd 

Tunnel Rd north of 

Montrose Pl 

8 Tye Rd north of 

9 

Foothill Rd 

Las Canoas Rd east 

of Mission Canyon 

Rd 

Existing (2009) Conditions Future (2030) with Buildout of MCCP Conditions 

Volume 

Volume 

Daily Traffic 

Proposed 

over 

over 

Change from 

Roadway Design Acceptable Daily Design 

Design 

Existing to 

Classification Capacity Capacity Volumes Capacity 

Daily Capacity 

2030 with Adverse 

[a] 

[a] (LOS) [a] [b] ratio LOS Volumes ratio LOS MCCP Impact? 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 728 0.092 A 1,380 0.175 A 652 NO 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 1,477 0.187 A 2,523 0.319 A 1,046 NO 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 3,324 0.421 A 4,724 0.598 B 1,400 NO 

S-1 11,600 9,280 C 8,762 0.755 C 10,998 0.948 E 2,236 YES 

S-1 11,600 9,280 C 8,983 0.774 C 11,690 1.008 F 2,707 YES 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 1,000 0.127 A 1,223 0.155 A 223 NO 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 844 0.107 A 1,139 0.144 A 295 NO 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 1,959 0.248 A 2,119 0.268 A 160 NO 

S-3 7,900 5,530 B 850 0.108 A 1,258 0.159 A 408 NO 



Roadway 

10 Glen Albyn Dr north 

of Foothill Rd 

11 Tornoe Rd north of 

Foothill Rd 

Roadway 

Classification 

[a] 

Unclassified 

[c] 

Unclassified 

[c] 

Design 

Capacity 

[a] 

TABLE 4.10-7 (Continued) 

Future (2030) Roadway Segment Impact Analysis 

Acceptable 

Capacity 

(LOS) [a] 

Existing (2009) Conditions Future (2030) with Buildout of MCCP Conditions 

Daily 

Volumes 

[b] 

Volume 

over 

Design 

Capacity 

ratio LOS 

Daily 

Volume 

s 

Volume 

over 

Design 

Capacity 

ratio LOS 

Daily Traffic 

Change from 

Existing to 

2030 with 

MCCP 


Adverse 

Impact? 

[c] 210 [c] 249 [c] 39 [c] 

[c] 227 [c] 303 [c] 76 [c] 

Notes: 

[a] Source: Roadway classification, Design Capacity and Acceptable Capacity were determined based on the Initiation Draft Mission Canyon Community Plan (May 2009) and 

consultation with the County of Santa Barbara Planning Department and Public Works, Transportation Division (February 2010). Acceptable Capacity is expresses as a percent of Design 

Capacity to reflect the special roadway conditions in the study area (such as narrow pavement, roadway grade, slopes, presence of curves, sight distance, and prevalence of driveways 

and intersections which produce substantial turning movement conflicts in the study area, etc.). 

[b] Daily traffic volume data was obtained from traffic counts conducted in December 2009, except that traffic counts for Mission Canyon Road (north) between Foothill Road and 

Tunnel Road and Foothill Road between Mission Canyon Road (north) and Mission Canyon Road (south) were obtained from the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden Vital Mission Plan 

Final EIR (July 2009). 

[c] Glen Albyn Drive and Tornoe Road are unclassified roadways in the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive General Plan Circulation Element (May 2009) and are not required for the 

CEQA impact analysis. Both streets carry relatively low volumes to the Mission Canyon Height neighborhood. Traffic volumes were presented in the table for information only.


Table 4.10- 8: Future (2030) State Route 192 Segment Impact Analysis 

State Highway Segment [a] 

12 

13 

14 

Foothill Rd east of 

Mission Oaks Ln 

Foothill Rd between 


(north) and Mission 

Canyon Rd (south) 

Foothill Rd west of 


(south) 

Period 


Conditions 

Volume V/C LOS 

Future (2030) with 

Buildout of MCCP 

Conditions 

Volume V/C LOS 

Daily Traffic Volume 

Change from 

Existing to 2030 

with MCCP 

Significant 

Impact? [b] 

AM 235 0.11 A 291 0.14 A 56 NO 

PM 279 0.14 A 334 0.17 A 55 NO 

ADT 2,780 - - 4,349 - - 1,569 - 

AM 481 0.18 A 651 0.24 B 170 NO 

PM 500 0.19 B 717 0.28 B 217 NO 

ADT 6,359 - - 8,757 - - 2,398 - 

AM 779 0.29 B 925 0.34 C 146 NO 

PM 790 0.30 C 1,016 0.36 C 226 NO 

ADT 7,100 - - 10,398 - - 3,298 - 

Notes: 

[a] Foothill Road (SR 192) is a Caltrans jurisdiction highway. The levels of service for SR 192 were computed based on the Highway Capacity 

Manual two-lane highway operations method. This method focuses on peak hour volumes, along with average speeds and the ability to pass, 

to determine levels of service for the roadway segment. Detailed peak hour LOS worksheet is included in the Technical Appendix. 

[b] Foothill Road in the MCCP area is part of the State Route 192 and State 192 between Andorra Rd to East of Alamar Road is included in the 

Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) system (June 2009). The significant traffic impacts for a State Highway occurs if 

a project adds 100 peak hours to a LOS D intersection or 50 trips to a LOS E/F intersection. 



Table 4.10- 9: Future (2030) with Project Intersection Impact Analysis 

Intersection 

1. Alamar Ave & Foothill 

Rd [a] 

2. Glen Albyn Dr & 

Foothill Rd [b] 

3. Tye Rd & Foothill Rd 

[b] 

4. Cheltenham Rd & 



Rd(south)/Tornoe Rd 

& Foothill Rd [b] [g] 

6. Mission Canyon Rd 

(south)/ E Los Olivos 

St & Mountain Dr [b] 

Jurisdiction 

[c] 


Conditions 



Conditions 

Control Peak 

[d] Hour Delay or V/C* LOS Delay or V/C* LOS 

MCCPrelated 

Increase in 

V/C over 

Existing 

Significance 

Threshold [e] 


Significant 

Impact? 

Caltrans Signal AM 0.574 A 0.669 B 0.095 LOS D NO 

PM 0.579 A 0.781 C 0.202 LOS D NO 

Caltrans OWSC AM 12.0 sec B 14.1 sec B 

PM 12.3 sec B 16.4 sec C 

AM 0.421 0.434 0.013 LOS D NO 

PM 0.397 0.467 0.070 LOS D NO 

Caltrans OWSC AM 12.5 sec B 14.5 sec B 

PM 11.9 sec B 14.1 sec B 

AM 0.468 0.519 0.051 LOS D NO 

PM 0.411 0.496 0.085 LOS D NO 

Caltrans OWSC AM 14.9 sec B 17.7 sec C 


AM 0.406 0.458 0.052 LOS D NO 

PM 0.372 0.456 0.084 LOS D NO 

Caltrans AWSC AM 12.9 sec B 20.1 sec C 


AM 0.620 0.713 0.093 LOS D NO 

PM 0.590 0.740 0.150 LOS D 

Final Delay > 

NO 

City OWSC AM 20.4 sec C 27.8 sec D 7.4 sec 22 sec 

Final Delay > 

YES 

PM 20.3 sec C 37.1 sec E 16.8 sec 22 sec YES


Intersection 

7. Tunnel Rd & 

Montrose Pl [b] 


Rd (north) & Las 

Canoas Rd [b] 


Rd (north) & 

Tunnel Rd [b] 


Rd(north) & 


TABLE 4.10-9 (Continued) 

Future (2030) With Project Intersection Impact Analysis 


Jurisdiction Control Peak 


Conditions 

Delay or 


Conditions 

Delay or 

MCCP-related 

Increase in V/C 

over Existing 

Significance 

Threshold 

[e] 

Significant 

Impact? 

[c] 

[d] Hour V/C [b] LOS V/C [b] LOS 

County OWSC AM 8.7 sec A 9.1 sec A 

PM 8.6 sec A 9.1 sec A 

AM 0.219 0.224 0.005 > 0.2 NO 

PM 0.164 0.196 0.032 > 0.2 NO 

County OWSC AM 9.0 sec A 9.6 sec A 


AM 0.188 0.221 0.033 > 0.2 NO 

PM 0.152 0.238 0.086 > 0.2 NO 

County TWSC AM 2.1 sec A 3.1 sec A 


AM 0.234 0.289 0.055 > 0.2 NO 

PM 0.218 0.331 0.113 > 0.2 NO 

Caltrans AWSC AM 8.7 sec A 9.8 sec A 

PM 8.7 sec A 10.6 sec B 

AM 0.372 0.434 0.062 LOS D NO 

PM 0.347 0.459 0.112 LOS D NO 

Notes: 

[a] Intersection is signalized. ICU methodology was used for analysis. 

[b] Intersection is controlled by stop signs and uses HCM unsignalized methodology. Average vehicular delay in seconds is reported to determine the LOS. For one-way or two-way stop-controlled 

intersections, the average vehicle delay is reported for the worst-case approach to determine the LOS for the minor approach. For an all-way stop-controlled intersection, the vehicle delay was 

averaged by total vehicles from all four approaches. For the purpose of the impact analysis, a V/C ratio was calculated for stop-controlled intersections as if two-phase signal operation were 

implemented. 

[c] County: County of Santa Barbara. City: City of Santa Barbara. 

[d] OWSC: one approach is controlled by a stop sign. TWSC: two approaches are controlled by stop signs. AWSC: All approaches are controlled by stop signs. 

[e] 

County of Santa Barbara Significant Impact Criteria applied to County intersections based on County of Santa Barbara Planning and Department Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual 

(May 2009). City of Santa Barbara Intersection Significant Criteria was applied to Mission Canyon Road (West)/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive. Foothill Road in the MCCP area is part of 

the SR 192. The significant traffic impacts for a State Highway occurs if a project adds 100 peak hours to a LOS D intersection or 50 trips to a LOS E/F intersection. 

[f] Buildout of the MCCP may potentially increase peak hour volumes at this location by 5 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 trips in the PM peak hour. 

[g] A functional northbound right turn lane from Mission Canyon Road to Foothill Road eastbound was assumed in the analysis. 




IMPACT TC-1: Buildout of the plan area would contribute additional vehicle trips to roadway 

segments that could exceed circulation element capacities. 

Future (2030) with MCCP volumes (Figure 4.10-7) were analyzed to determine the LOS for the 

analyzed roadway segments as shown in Table 4.10-7 for County roadways and Table 4.10-8 for 

SR 192. The roadway impact analysis indicated that cumulative traffic levels and the potential 

traffic generated by the additional residential units would result in adverse project impacts on 

two of the study roadways segments: 

• #4. Mission Canyon Road south of Foothill Road to Las Encinas Road (LOS E) 

• #5. Mission Canyon Road from Las Encinas Road to Mountain Drive (LOS F) 

Both segments of Mission Canyon Road are projected to operate at LOS E or F in 2030 with 

buildout of the MCCP, exceeding the County’s policy thresholds on roadway operating 

conditions. Based on the project consistency standards set for the Secondary-1 and 

Secondary-3 facilities in the proposed MCCP, any future individual project development can be 

consistent with the proposed MCCP policy if it contributes a set number of trips to a roadway 

segment that is above acceptable capacity, but whose roadway segment has not reached the 

design capacity. Mitigation measures for individual projects would not be necessary until the 

segment reaches/approaches design capacity, which is 11,600 average daily trips. If a future 

development project results in a final daily traffic volumes exceeding the design capacity, that 

project is responsible to contribute to the County’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 

to offset the project impacts. 

According to a sensitivity test run by Fehr & Peers, the anticipated cumulative development in 

the plan area (including the Botanic Garden) and adjacent jurisdiction (City of Santa Barbara) 

triggers the impact before including Mission Canyon buildout. If there were no traffic growth 

generated either by current uses in the plan area or by an increase in area traffic, the analysis 

concludes that up to 73 of the buildout units could be built before triggering the impact. Thus, 

implementation of the plan at full buildout would result in a considerable contribution to the 

potentially significant Class I impact for this roadway segment. 

Mitigation Measure 

MM-TC-1: Monitor and plan for traffic flow improvements on Mission Canyon Rd south of 

Foothill Road. 

To mitigate the significant project and cumulative traffic impact on Mission Canyon Road 

between Foothill and Mountain Drive, a partial widening from a two-lane road to a three-lane 

roadway (one northbound and two southbound lanes) should be considered. In order for this 

measure to be implemented, a combination of new roadway width, with ROW acquisition, 



signage, and space for on-road trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, and lane restriping would be 

required. 

Implementation of this partial widening project is expected to improve the roadway segment 

from LOS E to acceptable LOS C or better, meeting both the County and the City’s thresholds. 

However, the recommendation may not be feasible because it would require the widening of 

the segment, thus necessitating further exploration with the County’s Engineering Design 

Team. In addition, widening would conflict with draft MCCP policies for this roadway which 

include preservation of gateway roads, stone walls and other scenic portions of the plan area 

roadways (GOAL VIS-MC-2) and the designation of this segment of Mission Canyon Road as a 

Scenic Corridor (Policy VIS-MC-3). Thus, initiating a program to monitor and survey the road 

segment and develop a traffic flow improvement plan is proposed as the mitigation measure. 

The following new action is proposed for the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan (additions 

underlined): 

Action CIRC-MC-6.1: The County shall regularly monitor traffic on Mission Canyon Road 

between Foothill Road and Mountain Drive. If average daily traffic 

volumes approach Level of Service D (defined as 90% of Design 

Capacity) for this segment, the County shall prepare a plan for design 

changes, spot widening, intersection improvements or other measures 

to improve traffic flow. Improvement plans for this roadway shall 

consider the historic and scenic value of this roadway and incorporate 

traffic patterns generated by special events at the Santa Barbara 

Museum of Natural History and the Woman’s Club. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The new action would be included in the final Mission Canyon 



Implementation of the above action, as required by the proposed Community Plan, would 

require the County to monitor and respond to projected roadway segment congestion. 

However, it is unknown if the mitigation strategy would be effective in reducing impacts to the 

identified segment given the potential policy conflicts between roadway improvements and 

preservation of historic and scenic resources. Therefore, the Plan’s contribution to the roadway 

impact would remain significant (Class I). 

IMPACT TC-2: Buildout would contribute additional vehicle trips that would increase V/C 

ratios at one intersection adjacent to the plan area. 

Future (2030) with MCCP peak hour traffic volumes, illustrated in Figure 4.10-8, were analyzed 

to determine the LOS for the study intersections in 2030 with the buildout of the proposed 

MCCP. These are summarized in Table 4.10-9. 



Application of the County’s, the City’s and Caltrans traffic impact assessment thresholds to 

buildout of the proposed MCCP may result in significant impacts at one intersection during the 

peak hour: 

• #6. Mission Canyon Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive: AM and PM impacts, 

with LOS D (28 seconds) in the AM peak hour and LOS E (37 seconds) in the PM peak 

hour 

The plan’s contribution to the impact at this location is considered to be potentially significant 

but mitigable (Class II). 

MM-TC-2: Consider signal control at Intersection #6 Mission Canyon Road (south)/E Los 

Olivos Street & Mountain Drive. 

Monitoring the intersection to determine the need for a signal control is proposed as the 

mitigation measure. According to a sensitivity test run by Fehr & Peers, the anticipated 

cumulative development in the plan area (the Botanic Garden) and adjacent jurisdiction (City of 

Santa Barbara) triggers the impact before including Mission Canyon buildout. If there were no 

traffic growth generated either by current uses in the plan area or by an increase in area traffic, 

the analysis concludes that up to 73 of the buildout units could be built before triggering the 

impact. This location is currently operating as a side-street stop-controlled intersection under 

the City of Santa Barbara’s jurisdiction. Existing lane geometry would be maintained. 

In order for this mitigation measure to be implemented, a combination of signal installation, 

detectors, and signage would be required. Installation of a traffic signal would allow access to 

and from Mountain Drive and improve the current horizontal sight distance issues for traffic 

turning from Mountain Drive to Mission Canyon Road (south). This signal, if implemented, can 

provide priority to the traffic on Mission Canyon Drive and provide actuated green time for 

Mountain Drive depending on the vehicular demand. If there is no vehicle waiting on Mountain 

Drive, this signal would not stop the north/south traffic on Mission Canyon Road. A signal 

warrant analysis was conducted for this location and the traffic to and from Mountain Drive 

resulted in satisfying the warrant under Future 2030 with MCCP conditions during both the AM 

and PM peak hours. 35 Due to the proximity of this location to the proposed Mission Canyon 

Scenic Corridor and the City’s El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, a proposed traffic signal should 

35 

The signal warrant analysis was intended to examine the general correlation between the planned level of future buildout 

of MCCP conditions and the need to install new traffic signals. It estimates future traffic related to the MCCP development 

compared against a sub-set of the standard traffic signal warrants recommended in the Federal Highway Administration 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and associated State guidelines. This analysis should not serve as the only basis for 

deciding whether and when to install a signal. To reach such a decision, the full set of warrants should be investigated based on 

field-measured, rather than forecast, traffic data and a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions by an experienced 

engineer. Furthermore, the decision to install a signal should not be based solely upon the warrants, since the installation of 

signals can lead to certain types of collisions. The County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Barbara should undertake 

regular monitoring of actual traffic conditions and accident data, and timely re-evaluation of the full set of warrants in order to 

prioritize and program intersections for signalization. 



be reviewed by the County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission and City Historic 

Landmarks Commission. 

The following new action is proposed for the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan to 

effectuate this measure (additions underlined) 

Action CIRC-MC-2.1: The County shall coordinate with the City to actively monitor the 

intersection on the southern border of the plan area at Mission 

Canyon Road (south)/E. Los Olivos Street and Mountain Drive. If a 

determination is made that a traffic signal is warranted and required, 

the County shall enter into an agreement with the City to fund its fair 

share cost of the intersection signal design and installation. Due to 

the proximity of this location to the proposed Mission Canyon Scenic 

Corridor and the City’s El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, a proposed 

traffic signal should be reviewed by the County Historic Landmarks 

Advisory Commission and City Historic Landmarks Commission. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The new action would be included in the final Mission Canyon 



Table 4.10-10 summarizes the effectiveness of the proposed traffic signal mitigation measures 

according to the jurisdictions’ impact criteria and indicates that the plan’s contribution to this 

impact can be mitigated to less than significant (Class II). 

IMPACT TC-3: Buildout of the MCCP may result in an increased parking demand that could 

impact the capacity of the street system. 

Buildout of the potential 157 resident dwelling units could generate additional parking demand 

in the MCCP area, affecting both on-street and off-street parking conditions and potentially the 

traffic flow and emergency access to and from the study area. This is a potentially significant 

but mitigable impact (Class II). 

MM-TC-3: Incorporate proposed residential parking action (or functional equivalent) from 

the draft Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

The maximum theoretical Mission Community Plan buildout could result in an increased onstreet 

parking demand that may impact the available parking supply. To mitigate the on-street 

parking impacts, the Community Plan has proposed an amendment to the Land Use and 

Development Code for the Mission Canyon plan area to require three off-street parking spaces 

be provided for most new residential use constructed in the plan area. This is aimed at 

accommodating the parking demand for both residents and visitors. 




Action CIRC-MC-3.5: Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code shall be 

amended to increase the required parking spaces per dwelling unit in 

the R-1\E-1 zone districts from 2 to 3 spaces in Mission Canyon. 

Further measures have been developed to reduce on-street parking on public roads as detailed 

in the Fire Protection Section 4.6, mitigation measures MM-FIRE-2.2. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The action would be included in the final Mission Canyon 



Implementation of the above action, as required by the proposed Community Plan, would 

ensure that parking impacts are less than significant (Class II). 



Table 4.10- 10: Intersection Mitigation Analysis 

Intersection 

6. Mission Canyon Rd 

(south)/E Los Olivos 

St & Mountain Dr 

Future (2030) with Future (2030) with Buildout 

Existing (2009) Buildout of MCCP 

of MCCP 

Conditions 

Conditions plus Mitigation Conditions 

Jurisdiction Control 

Peak 

Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Measures V/C LOS 

City OWSC AM 20.4 sec C 27.8 sec D 

Residual 

Impact? 

0.525 A NO (If Implemented) 

PM 20.3 sec C 37.1 sec E Signalization 0.503 A NO (If Implemented) 



IMPACT TC-4: Cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation. 

According to the County’s 2030 Buildout Analysis under the existing Land Use and Zoning codes, 

application of the proposed Mission Canyon Community Plan could include an additional 

development potential of 157 residential units, resulting in a total of 1,171 dwelling units in the 

MCCP area. The proposed MCCP would reduce the residential development intensity over 

2030 No Project Conditions by 36 secondary attached residential units. 

The analysis of traffic impacts of the 20-year buildout of the MCCP considers the effects of both 

background growth in the region as well as the projected growth in traffic under the No Project 

alternative (i.e., continuation of the policies and circulation elements of the currently adopted 

Specific Plan). Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth are already incorporated into the 

analysis and are equivalent to those indicated for Future with MCCP conditions, as shown in 

Table 4.10-7 and Table 4.10-8 for the analyzed roadway segments and in Table 4.10-10 for 

analyzed intersections. 

As shown in Tables 4.10-7 through 4.10-9, projected cumulative traffic could result in 

potentially significant impacts at two roadway segments and one intersection where increases 

in traffic would cause levels of service to exceed the acceptable levels of service required by the 

County of Santa Barbara and the adjacent jurisdictions. These identified roadway segment 

impacts and intersection impacts are the same as the ones identified under 2030 with MCCP 

conditions. 

Based on Table 4.10-7 and 4.10-8, cumulative segment impacts were identified at these two 

locations: 

• #4. Mission Canyon Road south of Foothill Road to Las Encinas Road 

• #5. Mission Canyon Road at Las Encinas Road to north of Mountain Drive 

Based on Table 4.10-9, cumulative intersection impacts could occur at one intersection: 

• #6. Mission Canyon Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive: AM and PM impacts, 

with LOS D (28 seconds) in the AM peak hour and LOS E (37 seconds) in the PM peak 

hour 

The majority of the three impacted facilities currently carry significant amounts of regional and 

local traffic and currently operate at acceptable levels of service. The projected future traffic 

demand increase associated with future growth and pass-through traffic generated by the 

cumulative developments from neighboring jurisdictions may significantly deteriorate the LOS 

at these locations. 




As discussed in this impact discussion, impacts of cumulative growth are already incorporated 

into the analysis and are equivalent to those indicated for Future with MCCP conditions. The 

identified roadway segment impacts and intersection impacts are the same as the ones 

identified under 2030 with MCCP conditions 


The plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation are Class I, significant 

for roadway segments and Class II, potentially significant and mitigable for intersections. 



THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 4.11 – WATER RESOURCES 

4.11 Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding 

This section discusses the effects of the Mission Canyon Community Plan on surface drainage, 

surface and groundwater quality, flooding and water supply. It is a summary of information 

provided by the County Public Works Department Water Resources Division and the Hydraulic 

Evaluation of the Mission Canyon Area prepared by RBF Consulting and is intended to provide 

sufficient background material to allow consideration of the potential impacts to hydrology and 

water quality of anticipated plan buildout. 


Watershed and Surface Drainage 

The Mission Canyon plan area includes two main watersheds: Mission Creek for the majority of 

the plan area and Arroyo Burro Creek at the upper northwest portion. Mission Creek 

watershed encompasses about 7,786 acres and extends from the ridge of the Santa Ynez 

Mountains to the ocean. The two main tributaries are Mission Creek and Rattlesnake Creek. 

There is also a small tributary called Las Canoas Creek branching out from Rattlesnake Creek. 

Rattlesnake Canyon, a major sub-watershed within Mission Creek watershed, feeds into 

Mission Creek just north of Foothill Road and receives drainage from Rattlesnake Creek and the 

smaller Las Canoas drainage. Arroyo Burro Creek watershed encompasses about 6,217 acres 

and extends about seven miles from the ridge of the Santa Ynez Mountains to the ocean. Lauro 

Canyon Creek is located within the Arroyo Burro Creek Watershed and occupies a relatively 

small area in the westerly portion of the plan area south of Spy Glass Ridge (Figure 4.11-1). 

Mission Creek, originating at the crest of the Santa Ynez Mountains, drains the Mission Creek 

watershed to the Pacific Ocean by way of East Beach and is capable of producing between 

5,800 and 7,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a 100-year flow event. The upper portions of 

the drainage have very to moderately steep slopes. The Mission Creek drainage area includes 

other secondary and tertiary drainage and small watersheds that drain north to south. Las 

Canoas Creek drains an area of approximately 0.36 square miles or 230 acres. To the south of 

Las Canoas Creek an unnamed swale (0.036 square miles or 22.73 acres) drains towards 

Rattlesnake Creek. These three drainages (Las Canoas Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, and the 

unnamed ephemeral drainage) empty into Mission Creek (Envicom 2009). There are no 

significant areas of creek channelization or hard bank stabilization of the creeks within the 

Mission Canyon plan area. 

Groundwater Occurrence and Quality 

Groundwater is present in the younger and older alluvium formations under and near the 

project area and to a lesser degree within bedrock formations. The project area is within Santa 

Barbara (Storage Unit I, below Foothill Road) and the Foothill Groundwater Basins. 

Groundwater flow is generally towards the south, following the topography, and locally is 

controlled by channel deposits within Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks (Envicom 2009). The City 

of Santa Barbara maintains a water well system and pumping occurs in Storage Unit I and the 

Foothill Basin. Project conditions of the State Water Project (SWP) require the City to use SWP 



water to offset any demonstrated groundwater basin overdraft. Under the City’s Long-Term 

Water Supply Program, the City uses groundwater conjunctively with surface supplies, such that 

significant groundwater use only occurs when surface supplies are reduced. Basins are rested 

following periods of heavy pumping to allow water levels to recover. The perennial yield 

exceeds average annual pumping and groundwater basins are in long-term balance with no 

overdraft projected (City of Santa Barbara 2009). 

Santa Barbara County Water Agency (SBCWA 2005) cited the total dissolved solid (TDS) 

concentrations as ranging from 610 to 1,000 ppm in seven wells in the Foothill Basin. Analyses 

of data from seven public supply wells show an average TDS of 828 mg/L in the basin with a 

range from 554 to 1,118 mg/L. Chloride concentrations in this basin are relatively low (44 to 

130 ppm) in the seven wells. An eighth well sampled produced poor quality water; however 

this well is known to produce water from bedrock aquifers below the sediments that comprise 

the Foothill Basin. Two of the wells monitored by United States Geological Survey in the basin 

exceeded the primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L for nitrate-nitrogen. 

Nitrate-nitrogen concentration ranged from less than 0.1 to 12 mg/L in wells. High sulfate 

levels were also found in six wells (California’s Department of Water Resources Groundwater 

Bulletin 118 last update 2/27/04). Analytical results reflect TDS concentrations (610 to 1,000 

mg/L) and chloride concentrations (44 to 130 mg/L) in seven alluvial wells and one bedrock well 

(TDS 1,900 mg/L, chloride 360 mg/L). These concentrations represent fair to poor 

characteristics for drinking water. 

Other than an existing on-site well in the Botanic Garden, private use of groundwater is not 

known or anticipated in the plan area. Per County Land Use and Development Code, within 

urban areas, new development other than for agricultural purposes shall be served by the 

appropriate water district if such service is available, and no private wells would be allowed for 

residential use. Private water wells for agricultural purposes require a permit from 

Environmental Health Services, the suitability of which is determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Due to steep slopes and generally poor soil, no additional agricultural use beyond what 

currently exists is anticipated and therefore, no new wells are expected in the plan area. 



Figure 4.11- 1 Watersheds 

Flooding 

Two major indicators of potential flooding are the presence of a floodplain as defined by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and a Flood Hazard Area as defined in the 

Environmental Resources Management Element (ERME) of the Santa Barbara County 

Comprehensive Plan. FEMA defines a floodplain as the area of land adjacent to the water 

course that may be submerged by flood water during a 100-year storm. Flood Hazard Areas are 

coincident with the FEMA 100-year flood plain and indicate areas where flooding could 

adversely affect urban development. 

Rattlesnake Creek and the lower portion of Mission Creek are the only water courses within the 

plan area that have an associated 100-year floodplain and Flood Hazard Area Overlay (Figure 

4.11-2). These creeks generally experience periodic floods only during heavy storms, especially 

those that follow in close succession once the ground has been saturated. Storm water runoff 

passes through existing storm drainage facilities before discharging in the City of Santa Barbara, 

east of State Street and Strearns Wharf at East Beach. 

The County’s Public Works Department maintains public street inlets and road gutters to 

prevent unnecessary flooding and drainage related problems. A Mission Canyon debris basin is 

maintained on Mission Creek approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the Botanic Garden. The 

basin was built in 1964 after the Coyote Fire burned a large percentage of the watershed. The 



basin is designed to trap 15,000 cubic yards of flood debris and is maintained by the Santa 

Barbara Flood Control District. 

Local drainage problems exist in some isolated areas of the canyon; notably within the Tye 

Road and Cheltenham Road neighborhoods north of Foothill Road. The very small residential 

lots throughout Mission Canyon Heights were developed in the 1950s and 1960s on very steep 

slopes and without the benefit of a master drainage plan for the entire sub-watershed. In fall 

2009, the County approved plans and specifications for the Cheltenham Storm Drain project to 

install new storm drain pipe along Cheltenham Road and tie into a newly constructed Caltrans 

storm drain on Foothill Road. This project should improve the existing drainage system in the 

area. 

The May 2009 Jesusita Fire burned 69% of the Mission Creek and 67% of the Rattlesnake 

watersheds, which could exacerbate the potential for flooding during the rainy season as debris 

and sediment will more likely be washed into local creek channels due to the absence of 

vegetation that reduces runoff and other erosive forces. In response, the Jesusita Fire 

Emergency Watershed Response Plan (Santa Barbara County Public Works 2009) identified a 

number of measures to reduce the adverse impacts of the fire including: 

• Aerial mulching; 

• Preparation of downstream creek channels and cleaning of existing debris basins; 

• Installation of debris racks; and 

• Coordination of efforts and information among responding and responsible agencies. 



Figure 4.11- 2 Flood Hazard Overlay 



Erosion and Sedimentation 

Estimated annual sediment yield from Mission Creek watershed is provided in a study from 

University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB). The study indicates that 8,700 kilograms of 

sediment per hectare are generated (approximately 5,670 pounds of sediment per acre) for just 

the Mission Creek drainage. The UCSB study (2000) suggests that natural geologic and 

topographic conditions within Mission Creek are less conducive to sheet, rill, gulley, stream 

bank, and channel erosion than for other creeks in neighboring portions of the south slope of 

the Santa Ynez Mountains (Envicom 2009). 

In Spring 2009, just prior to the Jesusita Fire, Masters students from the UCSB Bren School of 

Environmental Science and Management prepared a study of post-fire sedimentation and flood 

risk potential in the Mission Creek watershed. The study found that every storm and fire 

scenario would create flooding in some part of Mission Creek, some potentially causing 

discharges larger than any in recorded history. Sediment delivery estimates were calculated 

and the results suggest a serious risk of sediment accumulation and enhanced overbank 

flooding along lower Mission Creek in post-fire floods (UCSB 2009). The County’s Jesusita Fire 

Emergency Watershed Response Plan (June 2009) implements many of the recommendations 

from the UCSB study to reduce the risk of flooding including clearing of stream channels, 

excavating and preparing existing debris basins to full capacity, and stabilizing hill slopes with 

hydromulching. Thus far, no significant post-fire flooding problems have emerged despite 

record high rainfall totals in December 2010. 

Surface Water Quality 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified urban surface runoff as a 

significant cause of water pollution in the United States. Two main impacts result from 

development: changes in surface water runoff patterns and changes in water quality. 

When the channel forming process of streams are constrained or when a watershed contains 

highly modified drainage patterns and/or significant amount of impervious surfaces, 

hydromodification occurs. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines 

hydromodification as the “alteration of the hydrologic characteristic of coastal and non-coastal 

waters, which in turn could cause degradation of water resources”. Hydromodification is a 

leading source of water quality impairment for water bodies in the United States (USEPA 2009). 

According to the State Water Resources Control Board nonpoint source encyclopedia, 

hydromodification effectively reduces base-flow (groundwater flow into streams) and increases 

overland or storm-flow which causes reduced groundwater recharge and increased peak 

discharge rates into streams and rivers. Hydromodification may result in stream channel 

instability and streambank or shoreline erosion which in turn modifies the streams natural 

water temperatures and flow. 

Changes in water quality result from those pollutants most frequently associated with urban 

storm water runoff, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen-demanding substances, oil 

and grease, heavy metals, other toxic chemicals, and floatables. The primary sources of the 



pollutants include automobiles and automobile use, poor housekeeping and landscaping 

practices, construction sites, accidental spills, illegal dumping and illegal connections to the 

storm drain system. 

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, states are required to develop a list of 

impaired water bodies such as creeks. A water body is listed as “impaired” when it does not 

meet water quality standards. The law requires that states establish a priority ranking for 

waters on the list, calculate Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs) to achieve water quality 

standards and develop action plans to improve water quality. Each state must submit an 

updated list, called the 303(d) list, to the US EPA every two years. The State Water Resources 

Control Board initiates the process to update the list by soliciting data and information from the 

public. In 2009, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board approved updates to 

the list, which must be finalized by the EPA before becoming effective. Therefore, until the 

2010 report is approved by the EPA, the 2006 303(d) list is the current and active list. 

Based on the 2006 303(d) list, Mission Creek is identified as an impaired water body for 

“pathogens” and “toxicity” from unknown sources (Table 4.11-1). Also, the Pacific Ocean at the 

mouth of Mission Creek is listed for “fecal coliform” and “total coliform,” which are two 

common indicators of the presence of pathogens. The proposed updates to the list, shown in 

Table 4.11-1, approved at the State level and likely to be approved by the EPA, indicate an 

expanded list of pollutants and water quality problems for Mission Creek. Mission Creek is the 

only impaired water body in the plan area listed on the current and proposed 303(d) list. 



Table 4.11- 1: Mission Creek and Outlet Pollutants (303(d) list) 

Water Body 

Name 

Pollutant Potential Pollution Source Proposed 

TMDL 

Completion 

Date 

2006 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies 

Mission Creek Pathogens • Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 

• Transient encampments 

2015 

Unknown 

Toxicity 

• Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 2019 

Pacific Ocean at Fecal Coliform • Source Unknown 2013 

East Beach Total Coliform • Agriculture 

2013 

(mouth of 

• Nonpoint Source 

Mission Creek) 

• Unknown Nonpoint Source 

• Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 

2008 Updates to the 303(d) list 

Mission Creek E. Coli • Habitat Modification 

• Hydromodification 



2013 

Fecal Coliform • Habitat Modification 

• Hydromodification 



2013 

Low Dissolved • Habitat Modification 

2021 

Oxygen • Hydromodification 

• Removal of Riparian Vegetation 

• Source Unknown 

Unknown 

Toxicity 

• Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 2021 

Pacific Ocean at Entercoccus • Source Unknown 2013 

East Beach 

(mouth of 

Mission Creek) 

Source: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, EPA approved June 2007. Central Coast Regional 

Water Quality Control Board, Recommended Changes to the List of Impaired Waterbodies, 2008. 



Water Quality Testing and Results 

The Mission Creek watershed has a “water contact recreation (REC-1)” beneficial use 

designation in the Basin Plan. It is defined as recreational uses involving water contact, such as 

swimming, surfing, fishing etc. where ingestion of water is possible. The Basin Plan includes a 

numeric water quality standard for fecal coliform for waters for waters with a REC-1 

designation as follows: 

The concentration [of fecal coliform], based on a minimum of not less than 5 

samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a long mean of 200/100 ml, nor 

shall more than 10% of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 

ml. 

Mission Creek is one of the South Coast’s most urban creeks and has the highest bacteria levels 

of any creeks in the City of Santa Barbara. The South Coast Watershed Characterization Study 

(URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde 1999) was initiated by the Santa Barbara County Public Health 

Department to characterize the water quality of several South Coast streams within four 

watersheds, including Mission Creek. The study collected water samples from the minimum of 

ten locations along each creek during four sampling events: August and October 1998 (dry 

weather sampling), November 1998, after first rainfall, and January and March 1999 during the 

middle and end of the winter runoff period. 

In general, the study found that water quality for minerals, nutrients, or physical conditions 

generally exhibited low to very low levels in all four watersheds and overall water quality 

appears to be representative of coastal streams in Southern California. All watersheds exhibit 

elevated levels of bacteria that exceed state health standards for water contact beaches and 

the concentration of bacteria varies considerable due to site-specific variability in bacteria 

sources, creek conditions and possible sampling errors. Mission Creek exhibits increasing 

bacteria concentrations from top to bottom of the watershed. 

Related water quality investigations conducted by Santa Barbara County, City of Carpinteria and 

City of Santa Barbara, called Project Clean Water, included an intensive field investigation of 

seven South Coast Creeks in October – December 1998 to identify sources of bacterial 

contamination and actions that can be implemented to reduce beach closures. Project Clean 

Water collected water samples along each creek, four times a week for 4 to 5 weeks and tested 

them for coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus. Subsequent Project Clean Water sampling 

efforts did not include Mission Creek sample sites. A summary of the Project Clean Water 

conclusions about bacterial pollution in Mission Creek from 1998 are presented below: 

• Bacteria are the principal pollutants of concern; 

• Much of the uppermost watershed (above State Street and throughout the plan area) 

has acceptable levels of bacteria; 

• Storm drains and homeless encampments by the creek are probable sources of high 

bacteria levels in the middle portions of the watershed; 



• Storm drains and lagoon fauna (such as birds) are probable sources of high bacteria 

levels in the lower watershed; 

• There is no established direct link between septic systems and beach closures; and 

• Storm water carries several times the low flow levels of bacteria. 

Surface water quality data for physical conditions and general/mineral constituents in Mission 

Creek were also measured in 1998/99 during the same sampling events mentioned above for 

the South Coast Watershed Characterization Study. These data include the mean, median and 

maximum values for all constituents except bacteria, shown in Table 4.11-2. In general, the 

data did not indicate any water quality problems. Metals were either not detected or were 

measured at very low levels. Nutrient levels were also very low, particularly ammonia-nitrogen. 

No water quality objectives with a numeric value were exceeded along Mission Creek. 

Table 4.11- 2: Water Quality Data (Entire Length of Mission Creek) 

Constituents Concentrations 

Mean Value (mg/l) Median Value (mg/l) Maximum Value 

(mg/l) 

BOD (Biochemical 

Oxygen Demand) 

6.36 5.60 20 

COD (Chemical 48.23 41.00 140 

Oxygen Demand) 

Total Cadmium 0 0 0 

Total Lead 0 0 0 

Total Copper 0.01 0 0.02 

Total Zinc 0.04 0.04 0.09 

TKN (Total Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen) 

0.92 0.80 2.1 

NO2, N, NO3, N 

(Nitrates/Nitrites) 

0.97 0 5.7 

Total Phosphorous 0.50 0.43 2.50 

Dissolved 

Phosphorous 

0.11 0.14 0.80 

Source: URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde, South Coast Watershed Characterization Study, 1999. 

Mission Creek has been further studied by the City of Santa Barbara Creeks Division with results 

presented in five year and annual Water Quality Monitoring Program Reports. The Creeks 

Division monitoring program began in May 2001 and since then has collected extensive data on 

indicator bacteria and water quality parameters. The Mission Creek watershed is sampled from 

the outlet lagoon at the Pacific Ocean up to the upper watershed at Mission Canyon Road and 

Rattlesnake Creek near Skofield Park. The Creeks Division tracks indicator bacteria problems 

with the goal to reduce beach warnings and decrease the risk to human health from swimming 

at the beach. 



Key findings from the 2001 – 2006 report include that Mission Creek has persistently higher 

indicator bacteria values than Arroyo Burro, Laguna Channel and Sycamore Creek. Indicator 

values typically increase from the upper watershed to the urban corridor, and then decrease in 

the lowermost reaches and/or lagoons. Analysis of physicochemical parameters in Mission 

Creek show that dissolved oxygen and temperature are within guidelines for cold aquatic 

habitats, with the exception of the lower reaches of Mission Creek. Storm monitoring has led 

to identifying pollutants of concern including dissolved copper, Methylene-Blue active 

Substances (MBAS [a class of surfactants]), oil and grease, sediment, and indicator bacteria. 

The most recent Water Quality Monitoring Report (Fiscal Year July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010) 

found that during the first flush rainfall, the following pollutants of concern exceeded water 

quality criteria, total copper at Mission Creek at Montecito Street (downstream of the plan 

area), MBAS, and total sodium. Levels of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides were also found in 

Mission Creek at Montecito Street, however there are no official criteria at this time. East 

Beach at Mission Creek exhibited high frequencies of beach warnings based on indicator 

bacteria levels. High indicator bacteria levels are likely due to increased sediment runoff from 

the Jesusita Fire and the continuous status of the lagoon being open. 

The pollutants of concern can be problematic for water quality and present significant 

environmental pollution problems. Copper is a micronutrient for both plants and animals at 

low concentrations; however, it may become toxic to some forms of aquatic life at elevated 

concentrations. MBAS surfactants, originating from soap products and detergents, may form a 

surface film in aquatic environments and reduce oxygen transfer at the water surface. Some 

surfactants may be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms. Pyrethroids are primarily used to 

control termites and are highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, this is an emerging pollutant of 

concern. Salts and other substances affect the quality of water and also have a critical 

influence on aquatic biota, and every organism has a typical salinity range it can tolerate. 

These pollutants are transported by rain, over-watering and irrigation, and other types of runoff 

that carry the contaminants to local streams. Examples include lawn and garden chemicals 

transported by storm water or irrigation runoff; household and automotive care products 

dumped onto streets and into gutters; fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment transported from 

agricultural lands and residential lots; sediment transported from construction and 

undeveloped or disturbed land; and various air particulates that are deposited from the 

atmosphere. 

Septic System Sanitary Survey 

In 2001, the County conducted a Septic System Sanitary Survey (Questa Engineering 

Corporation 2003) to collect and consolidate pertinent data regarding onsite sewage disposal 

systems, assess the associated impact on public health and water quality and develop 

recommendations. The study covered the entire county and also focused on identified Special 

Problem Areas including Mission Canyon. At time of the study, there were 253 septic systems 

in Mission Canyon. Septic systems in this area pose a potential hazard for pollution to Mission 

Creek, which is listed as an impaired water body. Water quality sampling was initiated for the 



Sanitary Survey over a 14-week period in winter and spring of 2002, starting in January and 

extending into May. Six full sampling runs were conducted during the study period. Four 

sample locations were established on Mission and Rattlesnake Creeks, all north of Foothill 

Road. In contrast with Project Clean Water, the sampling program was designed to avoid 

sampling during rainfall-runoff periods, in order to avoid collection of storm water runoff 

pollutants from other sources. The study found no exceedance of E. coli criteria at any time but 

there were three exceedances of the single value criterion for enterococcus. Overall, Mission 

Creek was assigned a “low” rating for bacteriological impacts during the study period. 

Water Supply 

Public water is supplied to Mission Canyon by the City of Santa Barbara under a 1912 water 

services agreement, whereby the City of Santa Barbara is obligated to supply to the Mission 

Canyon Area an amount of water commensurate with their continuing demand for such 

water. 36 The City of Santa Barbara has developed five different sources for water supply: local 

surface water, local groundwater, State Water, desalinated seawater, and recycled water. 

Typically, the City’s demand is met by local surface water reservoirs and recycled water, 

augmented as necessary by local groundwater and State Water. The desalination facility is 

currently off-line. 

The City’s local surface water comes from Gibraltar Reservoir and Lake Cachuma, both of which 

are located in the upper Santa Ynez River watershed. The inflow to these reservoirs is 

rainwater, so rainfall data is important for water supply management purposes. 

According to the City of Santa Barbara’s Long Term Water Supply Program (LTWSP) adopted in 

1994, 37 the City’s long term available supply is 18,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) including a 10% 

safety margin to account for unanticipated changes in supply or demand. The City’s General 

Plan Update report (2005) examined existing conditions associated with water supply and 

determined that there were no existing anticipated deficiencies for the next 20-year planning 

period based on a growth rate of 0.7% per year. The assumptions and projections contained in 

the LTWSP were updated for the Plan Santa Barbara draft EIR (March 2010) based on new 

studies and currently available data. According to recent updates, the City’s typical nondrought 

water supply is 17,064 AFY including the 10% safety margin. The estimated current 

demand is 14,000 AFY. The Plan Santa Barbara draft EIR estimates that potential future 

development and population growth could increase citywide water demand to 14,971 AFY, 

below the City’s conservatively estimated 15,358 AFY average for existing supplies available 

during a normal water year, after adjusting downward to provide a 10% safety margin. 

Water supply has been impacted by recent events including a statewide drought declared by 

Governor Schwarzenegger in 2009 in response to below average rainfall and very low snowmelt 

runoff, and significant court-ordered restrictions on water transfers that affected all of 

36 Santa Barbara County Planning & Development, Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan (1984). 

37 Currently being updated in conjunction with the Plan Santa Barbara process. 



California. The City’s water supply only depends on State Water to a limited extent. The 2009 

Water Year (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009) was the third consecutive year of 

below average precipitation for the state. Statewide precipitation improved in 2010 and an 

above average precipitation for the month of January helped bring the 2010 water year average 

total above normal (Department of Water Resources 2010). The City’s water supply is planned 

to meet 100% of demand in most years and no less than 90% of demand during a 5-year period 

of below average rainfall that defines a “critical drought period” (City of Santa Barbara 2009). 

In the long-term, climate change is identified as a key consideration in planning for the state’s 

future water management. For the State Water Project, climate change has the potential to 

affect the availability of source water and the ability to convey water. Climate change experts 

believe that the timing and quantity of available water supplies in the coming decades may be 

less predictable due to changing climatic conditions (California Department of Water Resources 

2008). 

Another important development is the 2009 adoption of Senate Bill 7 that modifies the State 

Water Code to require reductions in urban water use in compliance with the Governor’s goal of 

20% reduction by the year 2020. Comprehensive implementation of all feasible conservation 

measures by water customers will be necessary to meet this target. 

Other significant supply issues are discussed briefly below (summarized from the City of Santa 

Barbara Water Supply Management Report 2008 - 2009 Water Year): 

Cachuma Project Water Rights Hearing: Members of the Cachuma Project are awaiting a 

decision by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) following a major hearing on the 

Cachuma Project’s water rights completed in 2003. The issue has been made more complex by 

the endangered species listing of the steelhead trout and the hearings considered the 

incorporation of protective management actions for steelhead trout including downstream flow 

requirements and water releases to maintain the improve the habitat. The eventual ruling has 

the potential for significant impacts on the water rights for the Cachuma Project, the largest 

single source of supply for the City. The SWRCB ruling has been repeatedly delayed pending 

completion of the necessary environmental documents, with a decision possible by 2010. 

Gibraltar Reservoir Pass Through Operations: The Zaca Fire burned approximately 60% of the 

Gibraltar Reservoir watershed, normally the source of about 35% of the City’s water supply. In 

addition to historic siltation, the reservoir’s storage capacity has now been reduced by an 

additional 1,500 acre feet (AF), leaving a storage volume of 5,303 AF. In 1989, the City entered 

into the Upper Santa Ynez River Operations Agreement (the “Pass Through Agreement”) with 

other members of the Cachuma Project. The City agreed to defer its planned enlargement of 

Gibraltar Reservoir in exchange for provisions that would allow the City to “pass through” a 

portion of its Gibraltar water to Lake Cachuma for delivery through Cachuma Project facilities. 

The City has elected to commence this phase of operations and is working with the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation to negotiate a “Warren Act” contract, as required by federal law to allow such 



use of the Cachuma Project. The Pass Through option will allow the City to maintain its 

historical deliveries as the reservoir continues to silt in. 

State Water Project/Delta Smelt Decision. In August 2007, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger 

ordered a major decrease in the amount of water pumped out of the Sacramento/San Joaquin 

Delta. The ruling came in a suit involving the endangered Delta smelt. The decision has resulted 

in a 30% reduction (and potentially as much as 50% in some dry years) in SWP deliveries to 

entities south of the Delta until improvements are in place. 

Persistent 2010 spring storms will allow the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to increase 

its 2010/2011 allocation of State Water Project deliveries to 40% from the originally estimated 

5%. 38 In 2009, the State Water Project actual delivery was 40% of customer requests. The 

average of State Water project deliveries over the past 10 years is 68% of the amount 

requested by the 29 public agencies with long-term contracts to buy SWP water. 39 The City 

relies on State Water to a limited extent and does not expect significant impacts on the coming 

year based on the reduced allocation. . 

Mission Canyon Water Demand and Supply 

In 2009, the City of Santa Barbara and the County contracted with RBF Consulting to conduct a 

hydraulic evaluation of the Mission Canyon area. The study, which evaluated existing 

conditions and buildout, considered water demand, fire hydrant flow, reservoir storage 

capacity, pump station capacity, and pipelines internal pressure, velocity and headloss criteria. 

The following summarizes the report data, the full report in contained in Appendix F. 

Water Demand 

RBF Consulting developed water demand factors based on actual Mission Canyon water usage 

data from June 2008 – May 2009. From this data, Mission Canyon was found to have 1,032 

metered connections and an average water consumption of 17,487 hundred cubic feet (hcf) per 

month, which translates to about 480 acre feet per year (AFY) in total. This equates to an 

average consumption of 417 gallons per metered connection per day. It should be noted that 

this value is per metered connection, not per dwelling unit, and the data includes all user types 

(single family, multi-family and commercial), although a majority of the users are single family 

residences. To project the demand of additional units at buildout, RBF Consulting used a 

slightly more conservative average day demand factor of 430 gallons per day per dwelling unit 

(gpd/DU). A summary of the demand factors used for the hydraulic calculations, as well as 

demand allocation within the hydraulic model is found in Table 4.11-3. 

38 

California Department of Water Resources 

(http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2010/04012010allocationupdate.pdf) 

39 

California Department of Water Resources 




Table 4.11- 3: Water Demand Factors for Additional Units 

Demand Condition Demand 

gpd/DU Factor 

Average Day 430 1.00 

Maximum Day 774 1.80 

Peak Hour 1,912 2.47 

Additional Water Demand 

City water demand is expected to increase with the construction of the additional single-family 

units. The locations of these units are spread throughout the Mission Canyon area and span six 

pressure zones (Figure 4.11-4). Note that since RBF completed the analysis, the number of 

additional units was refined downward from 179 to 157 units. Table 4.11-4 summarizes the 

additional demand updated for 157 additional units. 

Table 4.11- 4: Mission Canyon Maximum Day Demand Projections 

Pressure 

Zone 

Existing 

Maximum 

Day 

Demand 

(MDD) 

(gpm) 

Number of 

Additional 

Units 

MDD Water 

Demand 

Factor 

(gpm/DU) 

Additional 

MDD (gpm) 

Buildout 

MDD (gpm) 

Tunnel/El 

Cielito 

846.28 35 0.54 18.9 865.18 

Lauro 2145.16 2 0.54 1.08 2146.24 


Canyon 

Heights 

187 37 0.54 19.98 206.98 


Ranchos 

18.73 4 0.54 2.16 20.89 

Sheffield 1538.59 56 0.54 30.24 1568.83 

Upper 

Tunnel Road 

47.08 23 0.54 12.42 59.5 

TOTALS 4782.84 157 84.78 4867.62 

1 

Based on existing hydraulic model data. 

2 

MDD Water Demand Factor = Average Day Demand (ADD) Water Demand Factor (0.30 gpm/DU) x 1.8. 

3 

Additional MDD = No. Additional Units x MDD Water Demand Factor. 

4 Build-out MDD = Existing MDD + Additional MDD. 

The total projected average day demand of the 157 additional units is 47 gpm, 68,256 gpd and 

76.4 acre foot per year (AFY). The total projected maximum day demand is 85 gpm, 122,861 



gpd and 137.5 AFY. The projected maximum day projected corresponds to approximately 1.8% 

of the total demand for all Mission Canyon pressure zones. 

Figure 4.11- 3 Water Pressure Zones 



Hydraulic Model Evaluation 

A hydraulic model evaluation was conducted to identify impacts to the existing distribution 

system cause by the increase in demands, identify any system deficiencies, and to evaluate 

recommended improvements. Model simulations were performed under existing and buildout 

maximum day demand conditions for 24-hour periods. In order to document systems impacts 

from buildout, a baseline run of results was established under existing maximum day demand 

conditions. Focus was placed on pipeline velocities and headlosses, reservoir water levels and 

cycling, pump operating points, and flows from critical pressure reducing valves (PRV). Table 

4.11-5 summarizes the results of the hydraulic model. 

Table 4.11- 5: Hydraulic Evaluation of Mission Canyon Area 

Area of Analysis Baseline Results Buildout Results Conclusion 

Pressure Ranges Upper Tunnel Road 

zone below desired 

pressure level. 

Reservoir Levels No critical reservoir 

issues identified 

Pump Stations Flows at Sheffield 

pumps exceed listed 

runout flows but not 

a concern. 

Pressure 

Operating at a flow 

Reducing Stations rate less than 

intermittent capacity. 

Pipelines Tunnel/El Cielito and 

Sheffield Zones 

headloss deficiency. 

Fire Flow Fire flows less than 

750 gpm identified at 

2 nodes in Tunnel/El 

Cielito Zone. 

Pump Station 

Capacity 

Deficiencies identified 

at Sheffield and 

Upper Tunnel Road 

Zones: 

Sheffield zone supply 

Same Upper Tunnel Road zone 

reading likely due to hilly 

terrain. No 

improvements identified. 

Negligible impact on No impact on reservoir 

reservoir operation 

operation 

Same No significant impact on 

pump operation. 

Same No deficiencies identified. 

Same Existing pipeline 

deficiencies were found 

not to be excessive and 

additional demands have 

little impact. No pipeline 

improvements are 

Available fire flow 

decreases slightly at 

the 2 nodes. 

Same with slightly 

higher deficiencies 

needed at this time. 

Perform immediate fire 

flow tests at 9:00 am to 

confirm fire flow. 

Perform identical test at 

9:00 am during summer 

months. 

• Conduct assessment 

of the condition of the 

Tunnel Road Pump 

Station 

• Increase pumping 



Area of Analysis Baseline Results Buildout Results Conclusion 

Reservoir 

Capacity 


is redundant due to 

other sources 

available. 

Upper Tunnel Road is 

deficient when the 

fire pump is out of 

service. 

Surplus in storage 

capacity. 

capacity by 500 gpm 

or increase fire pump 

capacity by 200 gpm 

• Evaluate emergency 

back-up power in 

conjunction with 

pump improvements. 

Same No improvements 

identified. 

Federal and State Regulations 

The Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the Clean Water Act or CWA) 

requires that discharges do not substantially degrade the physical, chemical or biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters. Specifically, Section 402 established the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations for wastewater and other pollutant 

discharges. Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to require the implementation of a twophased 

program to address storm water discharges. Phase I, promulgated by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in November 1990, requires NPDES permits for storm 

water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving populations of 

100,000 or greater, construction sites disturbing greater than 5 acres of land, and ten 

categories of industrial activities. 

Despite the comprehensiveness of the NPDES Phase I program, the EPA recognized that smaller 

construction projects (disturbing less than 5 acres) and small municipal separate storm sewers 

(MS4s) 40 were also contributing substantially to pollutant discharges nationwide. Therefore, in 

order to further improve storm water quality, the EPA promulgated the NPDES Phase II 

program. The Phase II regulations became effective on February 7, 2000, and require NPDES 

permits for storm water discharges from regulated small MS4s and for construction sites 

disturbing more than 1 acre of land. The Phase II regulations published by the EPA designated 

the urbanized areas 41 of Santa Barbara County as a regulated small MS4. 

In California, implementation of the NPDES Phase II program falls under the jurisdiction of the 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), a state regulatory agency whose purpose is to 

protect surface and ground water for beneficial uses. The SWRCB issued a Construction 

General Permit and a Municipal General Permit to regulate discharges of both storm water and 

non-storm water runoff. 

40 Those generally serving less than 100,000 people and located in an urbanized area as defined by the Bureau of the Census. 

41 An urbanized area is a land area comprising one or more places (central place(s)) and the adjacent densely settled 

surrounding area (the urban fringe) that together have a residential population of at least 50,000 and an overall population 

density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. 



All construction projects disturbing one or more acres are subject to NPDES Phase II permit 

regulations (2009-0009 DWQ Construction General Permit, effective July 1, 2010), which 

require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control the 

discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into local surface water drainages. Implementation 

of a SWPPP minimizes water quality degradation through established BMPs, sets erosion and 

sediment control measures, and effects spill prevention and containment measures. 

Performance is tracked through monitoring. 

All municipalities that own and operate a separate storm sewer system are subject to the 

NPDES Phase II permit regulations (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ Municipal 

General Permit), which require implementation of a Storm Water Management Program 

(SWMP) to control the discharge of pollutants into local surface water drainages. The SWMP is 

to be implemented over the five-year permit term. Santa Barbara County falls within the 

jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Board, which approved the County’s Storm Water 

Management Program in July 2006. In addition, the Regional Board develops water quality 

objectives through the Water Quality Control Plan for the local basin (Basin Plan), based on the 

designated beneficial uses for a particular surface water or groundwater basin. 

County Water Quality Protection Policies 

Policies regarding the protection of water quality in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara 

County are provided in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, various Community Plans, 

and the Local Coastal Plan. The overarching policy which applies to both construction and postconstruction 

is Land Use Element Hillside and Watershed Protection Policy 7, which states: 

Degradation of the water quality of groundwater basins, nearby streams, or 

wetlands shall not result from development of the site. Pollutants, such as 

chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, and other harmful waste shall not be 

discharged into or alongside coastal streams or wetlands either during or after 

construction. 

Project approvals require a finding of consistency with this and all other applicable water 

quality policies in the Comprehensive and Community Plans. 

County Storm Water Management Program 

Since March 2003, Santa Barbara County has been subject to federal National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II storm water regulations. As per Attachment 4 

of the Municipal General Permit, applicable types of projects, listed below, require controls to 

be in place to prevent or minimize water quality impacts. Development standards and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) have been adopted by the County, and incorporated in the 

development review process for discretionary projects through Standard Conditions of 

Approval and Standard Mitigation Measures. 



As required by the County’s Storm Water Management Program, the following types of 

development and redevelopment would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water 

Quality Management Plan (SWQMP): 

1. Residential subdivisions with 10 or more dwelling units. 

2. Commercial development of 0.5 acres or greater. 

3. Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more or that have 25 or more parking spaces 

and are potentially exposed to storm water runoff. 

4. Automobile repair shops. 

5. Retail gasoline outlets. 

6. Restaurants. 

7. Single-family residences located on slopes of 20 percent or greater. 

8. Any new development or redevelopment exceeding one acre. 

The County requires that each SWQMP include the following: 

• Identification of potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of the 

discharges to storm water; 

• The proposed design and placement of structural and non-structural BMPs to 

address identified pollutants. 

• A proposed inspection and maintenance program; and 

• A method of ensuring maintenance of all BMPs over the life of the project. 

When applicable, Best Management Practices (BMPs) are applied in the following order of 

preference to minimize water quality impacts associated with new development in urban and 

rural areas: 

• Site planning to avoid, protect, and restore sensitive area (e.g. wetlands and riparian 

corridors); 

• Minimizing impervious surfaces and directed connected impervious surfaces, using 

existing natural features to allow for on-site infiltration of water; 

• Vegetative treatment (e.g., bioswale, vegetation buffers, constructed or artificial 

wetlands); and 

• Mechanical or structural treatment (e.g., storm drain filters and inserts). 

As noted above, the County-adopted Standard Conditions of Approval and Standard Mitigation 

Measures include both non-structural and structural BMPs. Non-structural, site-based BMPs 

may include buffer strip and riparian zone preservation, minimization of disturbance and 

imperviousness, and maximization of open space. Structural BMPs may include storm water 

retention/detention (including gathering runoff in wet ponds, dry basins, or multi-chamber 

catch basins), infiltration (including basins/trenches, dry wells, and porous pavement), and 

vegetative BMPs (landscaping features such as grassy swales, filter strips, artificial wetlands, 

and rain gardens). 



Currently, the County is participating in a regional joint effort with the Central Coast Water 

Quality Control Board (Water Board) to develop hydromodification control criteria for storm 

water flow rate, duration, and volume. Participation in the joint effort, combined with 

concurrent Low Impact Development (LID) implementation, is an alternative to the current 

Phase II Municipal Permit requirement for developing interim criteria. The regional approach 

will address the physical, chemical, and biological function of watersheds with the goal to 

protect and restore those functions that have been subject to degradation. As required by 

participation, the County commits to requiring BMPs which advance implementation of LID, 

and application of the hydromodification municipality-specific criteria using Water Board 

approved methodology once the regional approach is completed, scheduled for fall/winter 

2012. 

Grading 

The Grading Code (Santa Barbara County Code Chapter 14) addresses drainage, erosion and 

sediment control for projects equal to and often smaller in disturbance than the SWQMP 

disturbance threshold of one acre. The Grading Code, administered under the Building and 

Safety Division of Planning and Development, requires a grading permit and an Erosion and 

Sediment Control Plan for all new grading, excavations, fills, cuts, borrow pits, stockpiling, 

compaction of fill, and land reclamation projects where the transported amount of materials 

exceeds 50 cubic yards or the cut or fill exceeds three feet in vertical distance to the natural 

contour of the land. For example, grading six inches of earth over an area of 2,700 square feet 

(0.06 acres) would result in a project that would require a grading permit and Erosion and 

Sediment Control Plan. In addition, a master drainage plan is required as part of the grading 

plan for all grading permit applications. 

Every Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must address the following goals: 

• Fit development to the terrain; 

• Time grading and construction to minimize soil exposure; 

• Retain existing vegetation wherever feasible; 

• Vegetate and mulch denuded areas; 

• Divert runoff away from denuded areas; 

• Minimize length and steepness of slopes; 

• Keep runoff velocities low; 

• Prepare drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff; 

• Trap sediment on site; and 

• Inspect and maintain erosion control measures during construction. 

In accordance with grading permit requirements, the erosion and sediment control plan would 

describe BMPs to be implemented during grading and construction to minimize water quality 

degradation. Planning and Development recognizes the following documents as appropriate 

guidance for use, installation and maintenance of BMPs: 



1. Caltrans Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual and the 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Program 

(WPCP) Preparation Manual. 

2. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control Field 

Manual. 

3. California Stormwater Quality Association, California Stormwater Best Management 

Practice Handbooks – Construction. 

The manuals offer a wide range of choices for selection and implementation of BMPs for 

varying project types. 

Flood Control 

The Flood Control District operates under the regulatory authority of County Ordinance No. 

3095 and Ordinance No. 3898. 42 Ordinance No. 3095 does not allow any development within 

50 feet of the top of bank of any watercourse and 200 feet from the top of bank of any of the 

County’s four major rivers. Ordinance No. 3898 requires the finished floor elevation of all 

habitable structures to be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. 

Ordinance No. 3898 regulates proposed development in the floodplain and in the floodway. 

Flood Control District maintenance activities are implemented according to the Santa Barbara 

County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Annual Maintenance Plan (Annual 

Maintenance Plan). District maintenance activities are typically designed to remove obstructive 

vegetation and/or sediment deposits that could either cause flooding, significant erosion, or 

plugging of downstream culverts and bridges. 

Illegal Dumping/Discharges 

The Solid Waste Division of the Public Works Department enforces dumping violation under the 

authority of County Code Chapter 17, Ordinance No. 4188, which prohibits unauthorized 

dumping of solid waste. The Solid Waste Division relies heavily on local residents to report any 

illegal dumping in rivers, streams, and creeks. The Water Resources Division of Public Works 

Department enforces County Code Chapter 29 which prohibits the discharge of pollutants to 

the storm drain system. This code requires violators to clean up and abate any discharges 

promptly, or risk administrative fines. And finally, Environmental Health Services of Public 

Health Department enforces the State Health and Safety Code, which prohibits the discharge of 

liquid wastes, including septage. 

Roads 

In addition to the Flood Control District and the Solid Waste Division, the Public Works Roads 

Division is charged with maintaining public street inlets and road gutters to prevent 

unnecessary flooding and drainage related problems. The roads division also monitors culverts 

and drainage ditches along public roads for debris and blockages. 

42 Codified as chapters 15A and 15B of the County Code. 




The Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan did not include development regulations for flooding 

and drainage as it was determined that the existing County Flood Control and Water 

Conservation District’s regulations were sufficient. The regulations for water supply requires 

project applicants seeking City water service to submit certified title information to the City as 

proof that the property proposed for development is included under agreements whereby the 

City provides water service. When applying for a Land Use Permit, the applicant shall submit a 

“Can and Will Serve” letter from the City Public Works Department. 

County Service Area Number 12, Mission Canyon Area Water Conservation Plan. 

State and Federal Clean Water Grants Program funds that were used to construct the sewer 

project in Mission Canyon required a Water Conservation Plan for the area served by the 

project. Adopted in 1985 and updated in 1998, the Water Conservation Plan for County Service 

Area Number 12 - Mission Canyon area includes support of water conservation education, 

water bill rebates for installing low flow shower heads and toilet tanks, agency support of water 

conservation and requirements for installation of water saving devices. 


Water Quality 

The County’s Environmental Thresholds Manual contains guidelines for assessing projectspecific 

and cumulative water quality impacts. The assessment of impacts must account for 

construction-related impacts (i.e., vegetation removal, erosion, use of construction materials on 

the site, and staging of construction activities) and post-construction (or post-development) 

impacts (i.e., increases in impervious surfaces and increased runoff, entrainment of pollutants, 

and effects of discharges on aquatic habitats and biota). 

A significant water quality impact is presumed to occur on a project-level if the project: 

• Is located within an urbanized area of the County and the project construction or 

redevelopment individually or as a part of a larger common plan of development or sale 

would disturb one (1) or more acres of land. 

• Increases the amount of impervious surfaces on a site by 25 percent or more; 

• Results in channelization or relocation of a natural drainage channel; 

• Results in removal or reduction of riparian vegetation or other vegetation 

(excluding non-native vegetation removed for restoration projects) from the 

buffer zone of any streams, creeks, or wetlands; 

• Is an industrial facility that falls under one or more of categories of industrial 

activity regulated under the NPDES Phase I industrial storm water regulations 

(facilities with effluent limitation; manufacturing; mineral, metal, oil and gas, 

hazardous waste, treatment or disposal facilities; landfills; recycling facilities; 

steam electric plants; transportation facilities; treatment works; and light 

industrial activity); 



• Discharges pollutants that exceed the water quality standards set forth in the 

applicable NPDES permit, the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) 

Basin Plan or otherwise impairs the beneficial uses of a receiving waterbody; 

• Results in a discharge of pollutants into an “impaired” waterbody that has been 

designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the RWQCB 

under Section 303 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act 

(i.e., the Clean Water Act); or 

• Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern to a receiving waterbody, as 

identified in by the RWQCB. 

The following land uses and projects are generally presumed to have a less than significant 

project-specific water quality impact. These include; 

• Redevelopment projects that do not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the 

site nor change the land use or potential pollutants; 

• New development and redevelopment projects that incorporate into the project design 

construction BMPs for erosion, sediment and construction waste control and 

incorporate post-construction BMPs to protect sensitive riparian or wetland resources, 

reduce the quantity of runoff, and treat runoff generated by the project to pre-project 

levels; 

• Lot line adjustments that do not alter the development potential of the lots involved; 

and 

• Development of a single family dwelling (and associated accessory uses including but 

not limited to roads and driveways, septic systems, guesthouse, pool, etc.) disturbing 

less than one acre on existing legal lot. 

Cumulative Impact: All discretionary projects (except those that do not result in a physical 

change to the environment) within the urbanized area whose contributions are cumulatively 

considerable must implement one or more best management practices to reduce their 

contribution to the cumulative impact. 

The County’s Thresholds Manual does not include significance criteria to assess water quality 

impacts on a plan level. The following threshold from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, 

Environmental Checklist is used to provide the basis for determining the significant of water 

quality impacts from plan area buildout. 

The project would have a significant impact on water quality if it would result in the following: 

• A violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise 

substantially degrade water quality; 

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which 

would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; or 

• Create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of 

polluted runoff. 



Drainage and Flooding 

The County’s Thresholds Manual does not include significance criteria to assess drainage and 

flooding impacts. The following thresholds are from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, 

Environmental Checklist, used provide the basis for determining the significance of 

draining/flooding impacts from plan area buildout. 

The project would have a significant impact on drainage/flooding if it would result in the 

following: 

• Placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood 

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map; 

• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood 

flow; 

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount 

of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site; or 

• Create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm 

water drainage systems or increase runoff into naturally drained areas without storm 

drains. 

Groundwater 

According to the Environmental Thresholds Manual, the groundwater threshold of significance 

is the point at which a project’s estimated contribution to the overuse of groundwater in an 

alluvial basin or other aquifer is considered significantly adverse. The thresholds apply to all 

discretionary projects in the County. 

Because the above threshold is specific to individual discretionary projects, the following 

threshold from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, is used provide the 

basis for determining the significance of groundwater impacts from plan area buildout. 

The project would have a significant impact on groundwater if it would result in the following: 

• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater 

recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the 

local groundwater table level. 

Water System Infrastructure 

The following significance criteria are based on CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental 

Checklist Form. The project would have a significant impact on water system infrastructure if it 

would: 

• Require or result in the construction of a new or expanded water infrastructure or water 

treatment facility. 



• Result in a substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public 

water supplies. 


The impact analysis evaluates programmatic impacts associated with Plan buildout as well as 

cumulative impacts. Project-specific analysis would be required for any individual future 

projects. 

IMPACT WR-1: Replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with the Mission Canyon Community 


In general, the proposed Community Plan includes more policies to protect water resources 

than the Specific Plan and impacts are beneficial (Class IV). The process for project applicants 

requesting City water service is not outlined in the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan as it is 

in the Specific Plan but it is outlined in the Mission Canyon Area Supplement, which must 

accompany all Planning & Development applications for projects within this area. It is 

recommended that as the supplement is updated when the Community Plan is adopted, the 

City water service process continue to be outlined in the application supplement (see 

Recommended Measures at the end of this section). 

IMPACT WR-2: Buildout of the plan area could potentially expose some properties to flood 

hazards. 

As shown on Figure 4.11-2, approximately 27 parcels are partially or wholly within the flood 

hazard overlay, several of which are currently undeveloped. Impacts associated with 100-year 

flooding within the floodplain could include inundation of structures not constructed above the 

100-year flood elevation, heavy siltation, destruction of landscaping, restriction of access, and 

other water damage. Placing residential structures within the 100-year flood hazard area is 

considered a potentially significant impact and could pose a threat to inhabitants of the 

structures. Flood hazard impacts are therefore, Class II, potentially significant but mitigable. 

MM-WR-1.1: Incorporate proposed flood hazard policy (or functional equivalent) from the 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

Existing flood hazard area policies require that finished floor elevations be established two feet 

above the 100-year flood elevation and construction within the floodway is subject to strict 

criteria in the County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance. 43 In addition, the following policy 

from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan is designed to avoid exposing new 

development to flood hazards: 

43 Chapter 15A Floodplain Management, Sec. 15A-16. Standards of construction. 




Policy FLD-MC-1: Flood risks shall be minimized through appropriate design and land use 

controls. 

MM-WR-1.2: Add additional Development Standard for flood hazards. 

The following mitigation measure is proposed to further reduce the risks of flood damage for 

new development (additions underlined): 

DevStd FLD-MC-1.1: Development shall not be allowed within floodways except in 

conformance with Chapters 15A and 15B of the County Code, any 

other applicable statutes or ordinances, and all applicable policies of 

the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to policies 

regarding biological resources and safety. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The policy and new development standard would be included 

in the final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 


Implementation of the above policy and development standard, as required by the proposed 

Community Plan, would insure that flood hazard impacts are less than significant (Class II). 

IMPACT WR-3: Buildout of the plan area could potentially cause temporary water quality 

impacts due to erosion and sedimentation from construction activities. 

Buildout under the plan would result in 157 new residential units. Construction activity that 

would occur over time could cause temporary, short-term impacts to water quality. As 

discussed previously, Mission Creek is an impaired water body. If uncontrolled construction 

grading occurred during the rainy season or in heavy storms, soils from the site could be 

eroded, and transported to drainages within and adjacent to the site, and eventually enter 

Mission Creek or other drainages and could be considered a significant impact to water quality. 

These impacts could be compounded by the Jesusita Fire, which resulted in exposed slopes 

more prone to erosion and associated water quality impacts. The effects from the Jesusita Fire 

will, however, be a short-term problem until vegetation reestablishes itself, thereby providing a 

natural erosion control measure. 

While an individual development or redevelopment project of one acre or greater would be 

subject to preparation of a SWQMP and associated erosion control measures, most projects 

would not be of this size in Mission Canyon and the location and size of individual new 

development projects cannot be predicted with any certainty. Projects disturbing less than one 

acre but with greater than 50 cubic yards of disturbance would be subject to the Grading Code 



erosion control measures (i.e., Erosion and Sediment Control Plan). However, the potential 

exists for new residential projects to contribute to construction-related erosion and on- and offsite 

sedimentation of creeks if they are not required by County Code to prepare a SWQMP 

and/or Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 

The Mission Canyon Community Plan proposes new development standards applicable to most 

projects regardless of size or type, described below as programmatic mitigation, to reduce this 

impact. However, further mitigation is required to update and clarify Community Plan policy 

and development standards to ensure consistency with County objectives and further reduce 

potential temporary water quality impacts (MM-WR-2.2). Impacts would therefore be Class II, 

potentially significant but mitigable. 

MM-WR-2.1: Incorporate proposed erosion control policy and development standards (or 



The following policies and development standards are included in the proposed Community 

Plan and would minimize temporary impacts to water quality from construction associated with 

buildout of the plan area to the extent feasible 


Policy FLD-MC-2: Erosion associated with construction and the resulting development 

shall be minimized. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.1: Development shall incorporate sedimentation traps or other effective 

measures to minimize the erosion of soils into natural and man-made 

drainages, where feasible. Development adjacent to stream channels 

shall be required to install check dams or other erosion control 

measures deemed appropriate by Flood Control and Planning and 

Development to minimize channel down-cutting and erosion. To the 

maximum extent feasible, all such structures shall be designed to avoid 

impacts to riparian vegetation. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.2: Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted with any application for 

development that would potentially increase total runoff from the site 

and/or substantially alter drainage patterns on the site or in its 

vicinity. The purpose of such plan(s) shall be to avoid or minimize 

hazards including but not limited to flooding, erosion, landslides, and 

soil creep. Appropriate temporary and permanent measures such as 

energy dissipaters, silt fencing, straw bales, sand bags, and sediment 

basins shall be used in conjunction with other basic design methods to 

prevent erosion on slopes and siltation of creek channels. Such plan(s) 



shall be reviewed and approved by both County Flood Control and 

Planning & Development. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.4: Excavation and grading for development shall be limited to the dry 

season of the year (i.e., April 15th to November 1st), unless an 

approved erosion control plan is in place and all measures therein are 

in effect, in accordance with the County Grading Ordinance. 

DevStd GEO-MC-2.4: Revegetation and/or landscaping of project sites shall be accomplished 

as soon as is feasible following grading/vegetation clearing in order to 

hold soils in place. 

The policy and development standard presented above and contained in the draft plan will help 

minimize temporary water quality impacts from construction activities. However, certain 

standards should be revised to reduce redundancy, add clarity for applicants and planners, and 

ensure consistency with best practices. 

MM-WR-2.2: Revise flooding and drainage Policy and Development Standards. Proposed 

MCCP Policy FLD-MC-2 shall be revised and Development Standards FLD-MC-2.1 and FLD-MC- 

2.2 in the draft plan shall be combined and revised as follows (additions underlined, deletions 

struck through): 

Policy FLD-MC-2: Erosion associated with construction and the resulting development 

shall be minimized. Erosion of soils and movement of sediment into 

natural and man-made drainages shall be minimized during 

construction activities until the site is stabilized. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.1: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be submitted with 

any application for development that increases runoff rates and 

volumes on the site or substantially alters drainage patterns in the 

vicinity. The ESCP shall show best management practices designed to 

avoid or minimize hazards including but not limited to erosion, 

landslides, and soil creep. 

Appropriate erosion control measures include: 

• Offsite diversion of storm water around disturbed areas; 

• Velocity dissipation devices to protect erosion at the outlet of pipe 

or channel; 

• Mulching and hydroseeding, geotextile and mats; and 

• On steeper slopes, temporary pipe drains to direct surface runoff 

or groundwater into a stabilized watercourse or stabilized area 

away from slope areas to protect cut or fill slopes. and streambank 

stabilization. 



Appropriate sediment control measures include: 

• Silt fencing (installed per spec); 

• Sediment basin or trap; 

• Check dams, fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, or sandbag barriers. 

Straw bales shall only be used as a linear sediment control structure to 

pond sheet flow runoff from slopes less than 10%, to allow sediment 

to settle out, and shall not be used for an extended time. 

Other non-structural measures such as scheduling of operations, 

protected staging, preservation of existing vegetation, daily street 

sweeping/vacuuming, will also be shown in the plans. Additional nonstorm 

water and material management best management practices 

will be identified to prevent impacts associated with dewatering, 

paving, cutting and grinding, concrete, plaster, paint, etc. Such plan(s) 

shall be reviewed and approved by Planning and Development. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.1: Development shall incorporate sedimentation traps or other effective 

measures to minimize the erosion of soils into natural and man-made 

drainages, where feasible. Development adjacent to stream channels 

shall be required to install check dams or other erosion control 

measures deemed appropriate by Flood Control and Planning and 

Development to minimize channel down-cutting and erosion. To the 

maximum extent feasible, all such structures shall be designed to 

avoid impacts to riparian vegetation. 

DevStd FLD-MC-2.2: Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted with any application for 

development that would potentially increase total runoff from the site 

and/or substantially alter drainage patterns on the site or in its 

vicinity. The purpose of such plan(s) shall be to avoid or minimize 

hazards including but not limited to flooding, erosion, landslides, and 

soil creep. Appropriate temporary and permanent measures such as 

energy dissipaters, silt fencing, straw bales, sand bags, and sediment 

basins shall be used in conjunction with other basic design methods to 

prevent erosion on slopes and siltation of creek channels. Such plan(s) 

shall be reviewed and approved by both County Flood Control and 

Planning & Development. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The revised policy and development standard would be 

included in the Final Mission Canyon Community Plan. 




Compliance with existing County requirements and implementation of the above policy and 

development standard would reduce short term water quality impacts to less than significant 

levels (Class II). 

IMPACT WR-4: Buildout of the plan area could potentially cause long-term water quality and 

storm water runoff impacts to the Mission Creek watershed. 

Buildout under the proposed Community Plan could result in 157 new residential units. 

Development increases pollutant concentrations under post-construction conditions as 

compared to existing conditions. Storm water runoff picks up pollutants as it flows over 

rooftops, driveways, roads, and parking areas, which are then carried to receiving waters. A 

potentially significant impact would result if storm water pollutants are not properly managed. 

As noted earlier, applicable projects determined to have a potentially significant impact on 

long-term water quality would be required to prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan 

(SWQMP), including Low Impact Development measures. This requirement however would not 

apply to most new single family homes in Mission Canyon. 

Septic systems pose a potential hazard for water pollution of Mission Creek and other 

environmentally sensitive drainage areas, although studies have found no direct link between 

septic systems and bacterial pollution in Mission Creek. Buildout under the proposed 

Community Plan includes about 44% of potential new units in the “Maintenance” area served 

by septic systems. Overall, Mission Canyon received a Medium-High problem rating in the 

Sanitary Survey due to the combination of very difficult soil-geologic conditions in most areas, 

the large number of older systems, the moderate number of failures and problems reported, 

and proximity to Mission Creek. Two studies have assessed the feasibility of extending public 

wastewater collection service into upper Mission Canyon (detailed in the Public Facilities 

section) but due to prohibitive costs, potential rate payers were unwilling to proceed with 

further public agency coordination. In accordance with general recommendations based on the 

Sanitary Survey and in order to mitigate potential impacts to water quality, the proposed 

Community Plan seeks to address long-term wastewater treatment needs by imposing 

additional septic system standards which focus on dual disposal areas and advance treatment 

for drywells. The plan also recommends mandatory inspection and maintenance of septic 

systems. 

The proposed Community Plan contains policies and programs which seek to minimize storm 

water runoff impacts that could result from anticipated single family home development. 

Although most individual new single family homes would not meet the County’s existing criteria 

for requiring Low Impact Development (LID) measures, due to unique conditions in Mission 

Canyon (i.e., slope, small lot sizes, erosion potential, downstream impacts to Mission Creek), a 

new policy and development standard is proposed to minimize potential impacts to the Mission 

Creek watershed from increased storm water runoff. A follow up new action item is also 

proposed to ensure quantitative runoff controls are developed for the Mission Canyon water 



basin area. The new policy and development standard would apply to projects that would 

increase storm water runoff rates, volumes and flow duration as compared to existing predevelopment 

conditions. Potential impacts are therefore Class II, significant but mitigable. 


MM-WR-3.1: Incorporate proposed wastewater policy and development standards (or 



The following policy and development standards are included in the proposed Community Plan 

and would minimize potential water quality impacts from septic systems associated with 

buildout of the plan area to the extent feasible. 


Policy WW-MC-1: Development and infrastructure shall achieve a high level of 

wastewater treatment in order to best serve the public health and 

welfare. 

DevStd WW-MC-1.1: Development requiring private sewage disposal shall use gravity flow 

of wastewater to the septic tank and disposal field to minimize 

mechanical failure, which may cause surfacing of effluent. For new or 

expanded systems where gravity flow of effluent is unavailable, 

pumping may be allowed. For new subdivisions where gravity flow to 

the septic tank and disposal field is unavailable, pumping may be 

allowed only if lift stations and grinder pumps are maintained and 

operated by a public agency. 

DevStd WW-MC-1.2: To reduce the possibility of prolonged effluent daylighting, two 

disposal fields shall be built to serve each septic system, as required by 

Environmental Health Services, so the additional field can immediately 

be put into use when one field begins to fail. An additional disposal 

field shall be installed when an existing septic system must be enlarged 

or when septic system repairs are required due to failure. An 

additional third expansion area shall be set aside where no 

development can occur, except for driveways on constrained sites as 

provided in DevStd WW-MC-1.3 (1). If either of the developed disposal 

fields fails, the third expansion area shall be developed with a disposal 

field approved by Environmental Health Services. 

DevStd WW-MC-1.3: Where feasible, measures to decrease the amount of nitrates filtering 

through soil to groundwater shall be included as required by 

Environmental Health Services: 



1. Shallow-rooted non-invasive plants (maximum root depth of four 

feet) shall be planted above all leach fields to encourage 

evapotranspiration of effluent and uptake of nitrates. Impervious 

surfaces, such as paved driveways, shall not be constructed above 

leach fields. Turf block or other suitable pervious surface shall be 

used if site constraints require a driveway to be located above a 

leach field. 

2. Advanced treatment for the removal of nitrates shall be required 

for new septic systems using drywells as the disposal field. Existing 

septic systems that use drywells that have failed, or that need to be 

modified, shall also install advanced treatment. 

DevStd WW-MC-1.4: Septic systems shall be setback from streams and other bodies of 

water in accordance with the State Regional Water Quality Control 

Board Prohibitions. Required modifications to existing septic systems 

shall meet current setbacks to the maximum extent feasible. 

DevStd WW-MC-1.5: Development shall not be approved where individual or cumulative 

impacts of septic systems for new development would cause pollution 

of impaired water bodies unless this would preclude development of a 

parcel to such an extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of 

property occurs. 

Action WW-MC-1.6: The County shall require that each septic system be inspected at least 

every four years by a registered septic tank pumper. Property owners 

shall be notified by Environmental Health Services to complete any 

repairs or other maintenance identified in the service report and shall 

be given a specified length of time to complete any needed 

maintenance and submit a clearance report. 

MM-WR-3.2: Add a new policy and development standard to establish Low Impact 

Development measures for all new development in Mission Canyon and a new action to 

apply quantitative runoff controls as the County adopts hydromodification criteria. 

The following mitigation measure is proposed to add a new policy and development standard 

from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan to improve site design and onsite management 

of storm water to the maximum extent practicable (additions underlined): 

Policy FLD-MC-3: Impacts to the Mission Creek watershed from development shall be 

minimized through site design and onsite management of storm water 

to the maximum extent practicable. 



DevStd FLD-MC-3.1: New development shall ensure that post-development runoff rates, 

volumes, and flow duration do not exceed pre-development runoff 

rates, volumes, and flow duration through the application of Low 

Impact Development (LID) measures. Development shall be 

conditioned to require implementation of a minimum of one measure 

from each LID group listed below, identified on site plans or otherwise 

described in the application. If a geotechnical or civil engineering 

hydraulic report determines significant site specific risks that could 

render individual LID measures technically infeasible, then the report 

shall develop feasible alternatives to reduce, capture and/or treat 

storm water runoff. 

• Group 1: Site Layout / Setting. Reduce overall disturbance by 

conserving and protecting natural areas, drainages, topsoils, and 

vegetation and minimizing overall impervious area. Measures include: 

roadway / sidewalk / driveway design, lot layout, parking, clustering 

units, onsite storm water reuse, vegetated roof, permeable paving, 

etc. Development within the established development envelope is 

also an acceptable measure for Group 1. 

• Group 2: Disconnect Impervious. Safely distribute runoff from 

impervious surfaces (e.g. roof downspouts, driveways, roads, etc.) to a 

variety of onsite pervious areas (e.g. open space, landscape, 

permeable pavement with base, etc.) Measures include: roof 

downspout to swale or landscaping , filter strips, curb-cuts, planter 

box / foundation planting, driveways / roadways with runoff directed 

to landscape, etc. 

• Group 3: Rate/Volume/Duration. Slow and reduce runoff using 

infiltration, evapotranspiration, detention, and/or rainwater reuse. 

Measures include: infiltration trench, infiltration basin, drywell, 

vegetated swales, bioretention (rain garden), buffer strips, landscape 

planter box, amended soils, deep-rooted large trees, permeable 

paving with storage, cisterns, rain barrels, dry wells, detention basins, 

etc. 

Action FLD-MC-3.2: The County shall continue to participate with the Central Coast Water 

Quality Control Board (Water Board) in the regional joint effort to 

develop hydromodification control criteria for storm water flow rate, 

duration and volume to meet the Water Board’s storm water 

regulations for new development and redevelopment. Local 

landscape conditions shall be considered in the development of 

resulting criteria for the South Coast, including Mission Canyon. 

Mission Canyon development standards and ordinances shall be 



revised as necessary to implement the County’s hydromodification 

criteria when adopted. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The new policy, development standard and action would be 



Compliance with proposed the Community Plan policy and development standards for septic 

systems would address long-term wastewater treatment requirements and potential water 

quality impacts to impaired water bodies. The new policy and development standard described 

above would require all development to implement measures to reduce and/or manage storm 

water runoff on site to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed new action would 

implement the criteria needed to quantify and capture or treat storm water runoff as new 

hydromodification control criteria is development on a regional basis. This would reduce 

potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level (Class II). 

IMPACT WR-5: Buildout of the plan area would increase demand from existing water 

sources. 

The City of Santa Barbara supplies domestic water service to Mission Canyon residents. The 

City’s Long-Term Water Supply Program (LTWSP) was adopted in 1994. While it is the current 

strategic plan for the City’s water supply, the City will be updating the LTWSP in conjunction 

with an ongoing Plan Santa Barbara update of the General Plan. The Mission Canyon 

Community Plan proposes no new land use or primary zone district changes and thus the 

buildout used to project the amount of water to be supplied to the Mission Canyon plan area is 

the same for the prior LTWSP projections. 

As noted earlier, the total projected maximum day demand of 157 units is 137 AFY which 

equates to about 0.86 AFY per dwelling unit. The projected additional demand corresponds to 

approximately 1.8 % of the total demand for all Mission Canyon pressure zones. In projecting 

water supply and demand including water service agreements with unincorporated areas such 

as Mission Canyon, the City of Santa Barbara’s Plan Santa Barbara draft EIR used a weighted 

average demand of 0.19 acre-feet per year (AFY) per dwelling unit but this includes a mix of 

approximately 13% single family units and 87% multi-family units (AMEC 2010). The City also 

prepared updated (2009) values for indoor and outdoor water use based on water use during 

2006 and 2007 and further broken down by lot size. This provided a demand factor that is 

intended as an indicator of typical water use by various land use categories. Using the average 

aggregate factor of 0.40 AFY for single family residential use, the 157 additional units would use 



approximately 63 AFY, or 0.4% of conservatively estimated 15,358 AFY 44 average for existing 

supplies that are available during a normal water year, after adjusting downward to provide a 

10% safety margin (1,706 AFY). 

Deliveries from the available surface water sources is already accounted for and limited by 

existing regulations and agreements. The increase in water demand associated with buildout 

would not significantly impact the supply of surface water to serve the area. The impact is 

therefore considered adverse but not significant (Class III). 

Although mitigation is not required, the City of Santa Barbara, as the water purveyor to this 

area, has requested that the Mission Canyon Community Plan include policies and development 

standards that correspond to measures the City requires to reduce water use. The proposed 

Community Plan contains water efficiency policy and action, shown as programmatic mitigation 

below, that serve to mitigate impacts. Additional mitigation is recommended to ensure that 

similar water conservation standards are required for Mission Canyon project applicants 

requesting City services. 

Recommended Mitigation Measures 

RM-WR-1: Incorporate proposed water efficiency policy and action (or functional equivalent) 

from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan into the final Mission Canyon Community 


Although mitigation is not required, the following policy and action are included in the 

proposed Community Plan and would reduce buildout impacts to existing water sources. 


Policy PS-MC-2: Development in Mission Canyon shall incorporate water efficient 

design, technology, and landscaping. 

Action PS-MC-2.1: The County Water Agency shall work with the City of Santa Barbara to 

promote educational programs that encourage efficient water use in 

Mission Canyon. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The proposed policy and action would be included in the final 

Mission Canyon Community Plan. 

44 Actual water supplies are approximately 17,000 AFY in a typical water year. The reduced figure of 15,358 AFY accounts for 

the 10% of total supply safety margin that is mandated by City policy. If sedimentation reduces the City’s Cachuma entitlement 

by 300 AFY, conservation water supply estimates would still substantially exceed demand. 



RM-WR-2.1: Revise action and proposed Mission Canyon Overlay Ordinance for Landscape 

Plan Water Conservation Development Standards from the draft Mission Canyon Community 

Plan to comply with the State Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. 

In 2006 California adopted the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) for the 

purpose of implementing landscape maintenance practices that foster long-term landscape 

water conservation that include initial landscape plan design, performing routine irrigation 

system repair and adjustment, conducting water audits and prescribing the amount of water 

applied per landscape acre. In adopting the Act, the policy of the state is to promote the 

conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of this valuable resource. To 

implement this policy, in 2009 the Department of Water Resources developed a model water 

efficient landscape ordinance for use by local agencies throughout the state. As of January 1, 

2010, the model ordinance became effective in each local agency unless that agency had 

adopted their own water efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving 

water as the model ordinance and had documented their action with the Department of Water 

Resources. 

The draft Land Use and Development Code amendments for Mission Canyon referencing 

Landscape Plan Water Conservation Development Standards was proposed prior to the 

effective date of the model ordinance. As of January 2010, the state model ordinance is 

effective in Santa Barbara County for new and rehabilitated landscape projects associated with 

certain development proposals as defined under the model ordinance. The County is currently 

tracking projects and conditioning, where appropriate, for completion of the landscape plan, 

irrigation schedule and monitoring provisions of the model ordinance, including filing the 

appropriate documentation with local water purveyors. However, the County is also drafting a 

new County ordinance to tailor the model ordinance to local rules and development review 

processes for both coastal and inland areas, including applicability to all Community Plans. The 

ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission(s) before adoption by the Board of 

Supervisors, anticipated in 2011. Therefore, the following amendments are proposed for 

consistency with AB 1881 and the County’s proposed action (deletions struck through, 

additions underlined). 

DevStd PS-MC-2.2: Landscape plans shall include appropriate water-conserving features 

in compliance with the State model water efficient landscape 

ordinance and County adoption of local ordinance amendments 

tailored to local conditions. 

Action PS-MC-2.3: Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code Section 

35.28.210 shall be amended to require water conservation 

development standards for development requiring a landscape plan in 

the Mission Canyon Community Plan area. 



RM-WR-2.2: Include a new development standard in the Mission Canyon Community Plan to 

require applications for Land Use Permits to include conditions for interior water 

conservation. 

In addition, the following new development standard is recommended to ensure that the City 

of Santa Barbara, as the water purveyor for Mission Canyon, can impose interior water saving 

measures, equivalent to City customers, in Mission Canyon (additions underlined). 

DevStd PS-MC-2.3: Development shall be required to include standard interior water 

conservation conditions set by the City of Santa Barbara in the intent 

to serve letter. 

Plan Requirements and Timing: The new development standards would be included in the 


IMPACT WR-6: Cumulative water resources impacts. 

Short Term 

Temporary water quality impacts to Rattlesnake, Las Canoas and Mission Creeks from 

construction activities would include projects contemplated under plan area buildout and the 

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan proposal combined with cumulative 

downstream impacts resulting from development contemplated in the Santa Barbara General 

Plan. No significant development is anticipated upstream in the Los Padres National Forest. 

General Plan buildout in the City of Santa Barbara would result in approximately 2,800 

additional residential units and 2 million sf. of new commercial development. However, for 

both the Community Plan and Santa Barbara General Plan, the location and size of individual 

new development projects cannot be predicted with certainty. The Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden Vital Mission Plan would result in 16 new structures, disturbing approximately 4 acres 

of land associated with project development. The impact of this development in the watershed 

would be compounded by the Jesusita Fire, which resulted in exposed slopes more prone to 

erosion and associated water quality impacts. This however is a short-term problem until 

vegetation reestablishes itself, thereby providing a natural erosion control measure. 

If construction grading occurs during the rainy season or in the event of heavy storms, soils 

from development sites could be entrained, eroded, and transported to drainage within and 

adjacent to the site, or eventually enter Mission Creek. Grading operations not subject to an 

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (i.e., less than 50 cubic yards of disturbance) could 

potentially increase erosion and sedimentation to drainages. Uncontrolled discharges of 

sediment are considered a significant impact to water quality. The Plan’s contribution to 

cumulative temporary water quality impacts in the Mission Canyon area would therefore be 

Class II, potentially significant but mitigable. 



Long Term 

To determine the potential increase in impermeable surfaces due to incremental buildout 

development of the plan area, the existing amount of impermeable surface in the plan area was 

compared to assumed new impermeable surfaces. The existing amount was estimated by 

assuming 2,300 square feet 45 for the average size home multiplied by 1,014 existing singlefamily 

dwelling units totaling approximately 53 acres. Including roads 46 and the Santa Barbara 

Botanic Garden in the estimate, existing impermeable surfaces cover at least 80 acres, or 7% of 

the 1,120 acre plan area. The 157 new residences at full plan area buildout could add about 13 

additional acres of impermeable surfaces, or 1.2% of additional impermeable surface area 

throughout the plan area. 47 

Development of each new residential unit in and adjacent to the plan area would cumulatively 

contribute to increased impermeable surfaces and associated peak storm water discharge, 

volumes of runoff, and changes in drainage characteristics to the Mission Creek watershed. 

This could impact watercourses on and adjacent to development sites by increasing 

erosion/sedimentation and the quantity of flood water to Mission Creek, which eventually 

could impact downstream areas in the City of Santa Barbara. At this time the County does not 

have quantitative criteria for runoff control. The upcoming County adoption of 

hydromodification criteria noted earlier will provide the methodology for assessing site-specific 

criteria for storm water flow rate, duration, and volume, tailored to specific conditions of the 

receiving water basin. In the absence of measures to control peak storm runoff volumes, the 

project’s contribution to cumulative long-term hydrologic impacts is considerable. 

Residential development would also result in an increase in pollutant concentrations under 

post-construction conditions as compared to existing conditions. Storm water runoff picks up 

pollutants as it flows over rooftops, driveways, and roads, which are carried to receiving waters. 

A potentially significant impact would result if storm water pollutant concentrations are not 

properly controlled and/or filtered. However, Santa Barbara County requires preparation of a 

Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for discretionary projects determined to 

have a potentially significant impact on long-term water quality. Septic systems also have the 

potential to increase bacterial pollutants in streams and creeks if not properly sited and 

maintained. However, existing programs by Environmental Health Services and proposed new 

septic system siting, design and maintenance development standards and actions contained in 

the draft Community Plan should reduce the potential for significant impacts. 

45 

This assumes 1,900 sf. average house size in Mission Canyon based on the Assessor parcel system database plus 400 sf. of 

driveway and other impermeable surfaces. 

46 

The length of all public roads in Mission Canyon is 50,407 feet and 21.5 feet is the average road width. The length of private 

roads is unknown and not included in this calculation. 

47 

For the buildout calculation, new homes are assumed to be approximately 3,285 sf. based on average house size of new 

home permit applications in Mission Canyon between 2001-2008 plus 400 sf. of driveway and other impermeable surfaces. 



For those projects not captured by the County’s Storm Water Management Program, which 

would include most new single family homes in Mission Canyon, proposed mitigation MM-WR- 

3 proposes new policy and development standard for Low Impact Development measures to 

ensure that post-development runoff rates, volumes, and flow duration do not exceed predevelopment 

runoff rates, volumes, and flow duration. A new action is also proposed to ensure 

that as hydromodification control criteria is developed, it is implemented as appropriate in 

Mission Canyon. Due to the slow rate of development in Mission Canyon (approximately three 

permit applications for new homes per year) and the anticipated adoption of hydromodification 

control criteria in late 2012, the control criteria should be in place for most new home 

development in Mission Canyon. Therefore, the project’s contribution to long-term impacts 

would be Class II, potentially significant but mitigable. 

Water Supply 

Cumulative impacts on water supply would result from buildout of the plan area in conjunction 

with buildout in the City of Santa Barbara. According to the City’s Plan Santa Barbara draft EIR 

(March 2010), various growth scenarios account for between 510 – 958 additional acre feet per 

year (AFY) in water use. Given that the City is the water purveyor for Mission Canyon, 

cumulative water demand should be accounted for in the long-range water supply plan. Future 

growth within the region together with potential substantial variability in the reliability of local 

and State water sources, which other regional users depend on, could result in increased 

regional demand for potable water supply. Future demand under Mission Canyon buildout 

would incrementally contribute to a cumulative demand for water from the Santa Ynez river 

system. However, existing County policies and City water management practices and proposed 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan policies would address new water demand associated 

with growth. In addition, water conservation is expected to get an added emphasis from recent 

State legislation establishing a 20% reduction in per capita water use statewide by 2020. 

Therefore, Mission Canyon’s contribution to regional water supply impacts would not be 

cumulatively considerable. Pursuant to compliance with existing requirements and the 

proposed policies, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. 


The proposed policies and development standards included in the Community Plan, along with 

mitigation measures WR-2.2 and 3, would reduce impacts for projects that are otherwise not 

currently required to prepare a SWQMP and/or Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The plan’s 

contribution to short- and long-term cumulative impacts are less than significant with 

mitigation and no additional mitigation is required. 


The plan’s contribution to cumulative water resources impacts are Class II, potentially 

significant and mitigable. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 5.0 – POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 

5.1 Introduction 

5.0 POLICY CONSISTENCY AN A L Y S I S 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15125(d) requires that a project 

be evaluated to determine potential inconsistencies with applicable adopted general plans, 

policies and goals of the community where it is located, as well as any regional plans that may 

apply (e.g., habitat conservation plans, air quality attainment plans, etc.). Since the Community 

Plan applies to a certain geographic area within the County and serves as an implementing 

component of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the policies, programs, development 

standards and actions in the Community Plan must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 

In addition, the Community Plan incorporates by reference the relevant policies of the 

Comprehensive Plan. The Community Plan’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is 

analyzed in this section; however, it is recognized that many of the policies in the Community 

Plan are refinements of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the plan area and set forth 

specifically targeted objectives that help implement the Comprehensive Plan. 

5.2 Policy Consistency Analysis 

The following section provides a preliminary evaluation of the proposed Community Plan’s 

consistency with applicable County policies. The final determination of the proposed 

Community Plan’s consistency will be made by the Board of Supervisors, with 

recommendations from staff. 

This evaluation is done at the programmatic level. A finding of consistency with County policies 

for the program as a whole does not ensure that individual projects developed in conformance 

with the proposed Community Plan will necessarily be found consistent as well. Such 

determinations will be made on a project-specific basis. Table 5-1 below presents the policy 

consistency evaluation. 

Table 5- 1: Policy Consistency Analysis 

POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 

Land Use Element 

Land Use Development Policy 3: No 

urban development shall be permitted 

beyond boundaries of land designated for 

urban uses except in neighborhoods in 

rural areas. 

Land Use Development Policy 4: Prior to 

issuance of a development permit, the 

County shall make the finding, based on 

County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan 

Potentially Consistent. The Land Use Element 

designated the Mission Canyon plan area as an 

urban area. The draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan maintains the existing urban 

boundary line location and focuses buildout as 

urban infill. 

Potentially Consistent. Buildout of land uses 

proposed in the draft Community Plan could 

result in the need for public services such as 




information provided by environmental 

documents, staff analysis, and the 

applicant, that adequate public or private 

services and resources (i.e., water, sewer, 

roads, etc.) are available to serve the 

proposed development. The applicant 

shall assume full responsibility for costs 

incurred in service extensions or 

improvements that are required as a result 

of the proposed project. Lack of available 

public or private services or resources shall 

be grounds for denial of the project or 

reduction in the density otherwise 

indicated in the land use plan. Affordable 

housing projects proposed pursuant to the 

Affordable Housing Overlay regulations, 

special needs housing projects or other 

affordable housing projects which include 

at least 50% of the total number of units 

for affordable housing or 30% of the total 

number of units affordable at the very low 

income level shall be presumed to be 

consistent with this policy if the project 

has, or is conditioned to obtain all 

necessary can and will serve letters at the 

time of final map recordation, or if no 

map, prior to issuance of land use permits. 

Land Use Development Policy 5: Within 

designated urban areas, new development 

other than that for agricultural purposes 

shall be serviced by the appropriate public 

sewer and water district or an existing 

mutual water company, if such service is 

available. 

Hillside and Watershed Protection 

Policies: 

Policy 1: Plans for development shall 

minimize cut and fill operations. Plans 

requiring excessive cutting and filling may 

water line or sewer extensions or new private 

roads and driveways. Individual development 

projects would be processed through the 

appropriate permit established under the zoning 

ordinance, which would necessitate consistency 

with these policies prior to approval of the 

permit. 

Potentially Consistent. Water service to the 

entire Mission Canyon plan area is provided by 

the City of Santa Barbara. Public sewer service is 

provided to the Mission Canyon Service Area to 

768 parcels in the lower canyon south of Foothill 

Road, the Tornoe Road and Mission Canyon Lane 

area extending northeast to Tunnel Road and 

Mission Canyon Heights. Upper Mission Canyon 

remains on septic systems. 

Potentially Consistent with Policies 1 thru 8. The 

County-wide Hillside and Watershed Protection 

policies would apply to any development within 

the plan area. The draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan includes numerous standards 

protective of hillsides and watersheds including 




be denied if it is determined that the 

development could be carried out with 

less alteration of the natural terrain. 

Policy 2: All development shall be 

designed to fit the site topography, soils, 

geology, hydrology, and any other existing 

conditions and be oriented so that grading 

and other site preparation is kept to an 

absolute minimum. Natural features, 

landforms, and native vegetation, such as 

trees, shall be preserved to the maximum 

extent feasible. Areas of the site which are 

not suited to development because of 

known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or 

other hazards shall remain in open space. 

Policy 3: For necessary grading operations 

on hillsides, the smallest practical area of 

land shall be exposed at any one time 

during development, and the length of 

exposure shall be kept to the shortest 

practicable amount of time. The clearing of 

land should be avoided during the winter 

rainy season and all measures for 

removing sediments and stabilizing slopes 

should be in place before the beginning of 

the rainy season. 

Policy 4: Sediment basins (including debris 

basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall 

be installed on the project site in 

conjunction with the initial grading 

operations and maintained through the 

development process to remove sediment 

from runoff waters. All sediment shall be 

retained on-site unless removed to an 

appropriate dumping location. 

Policy 5: Temporary vegetation, seeding, 

mulching, or other suitable stabilization 

methods shall be used to protect soils 

GEO-MC-1.1 which prohibits development and 

grading on slopes greater than 30% (unless it 

would preclude development to an extent that 

an unconstitutional deprivation of property 

occurs) and requires professional evaluation for 

development on slopes between 20-30%, 

consistent with Environmental Resource 

Management Element (ERME) factors 

recommending prohibition of urbanization on 

slopes 30% or greater and prohibition except in 

relatively few special instances on slopes 20- 

30%. Proposed policy GEO-MC-2.1 is consistent 

with hillside protection policies 1 and 2 because 

it requires cut and fill slopes to be developed to 

blend with existing contours and the scale of the 

natural terrain. 

Furthermore, standards for grading require 

design of erosion control measures and 

maintenance of existing drainage ways. A 

number of measures in the Biological Resources 

section of the plan provide for protection of 

native vegetation and the Flooding and Drainage 

section addresses runoff and water quality. 




subject to erosion that have been 

distributed during grading or 

development. All cut and fill slopes shall be 

stabilized as rapidly as possible with 

planting of native grasses and shrubs, 

appropriate non-native plants, or with 

accepted landscaping practices. 

Policy 6: Provisions shall be made to 

conduct surface water to storm drains or 

suitable watercourse to prevent erosion. 

Drainage devices shall be designed to 

accommodate increased runoff resulting 

from modified soil and surface conditions 

as a result of development. Water runoff 

shall be retained onsite whenever possible 

to facilitate groundwater recharge. 

Policy 7: Degradation of the water quality 

of groundwater basins, nearby streams, or 

wetlands shall not result from 

development of the site. Pollutants, such 

as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, 

and other harmful waste, shall not be 

discharged into or alongside coastal 

streams or wetlands either during or after 

construction. 

Policy 8: On any lands not Comprehensive 

Planned and zoned for agriculture, grading 

and “brushing” shall require a permit. 

Exceptions shall be grading of 50 cubic 

yards or less and “brushing” within a 

radius of 100 yards of a residential 

structure for fire purposes. 

Stream and Creeks Policy 1: All permitted 

construction and grading within stream 

corridors shall be carried out in such a 

manner as to minimize impacts from 

increased runoff, sedimentation, 

biochemical degradation, or thermal 

pollution. 

Potentially Consistent. The draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan includes specific 

policies and development standards, including 

Goal FLD-MC-2, DevStd FLD-MC-3.1 and DevStd 

BIO-MC-6.3 that would limit development within 

stream corridors and otherwise incorporate best 

management practices to reduce pollutants in 




Flood Hazard Area Policy 1: All 

development, including construction, 

excavation, and grading, except for flood 

control projects and non-structural 

agricultural uses, shall be prohibited in the 

floodway unless off-setting improvements 

in accordance with HUD regulations are 

provided. If the proposed development 

falls within the floodway fringe, 

development may be permitted, provide 

creek setback requirements are met and 

finish floor elevations are above the 

projected 100-year flood elevation, as 

specified in the Flood Plain Management 

Ordinance. 

Flood Hazard Area Policy 2: Permitted 

development shall not cause or contribute 

to flood hazards or lead to expenditure of 

public funds for flood control works, i.e., 

dams, stream channelization, etc. 

Historic and Archaeological Sites Policy 1: 

All available measures, including purchase, 

tax relief, purchase of development rights, 

etc., shall be explored to avoid 

development on significant historic, 

prehistoric, archaeological, and other 

classes of cultural sites. 


When developments are proposed for 

parcels where archaeological or other 

cultural sites are located, project design 

shall be required which avoids impacts to 

such cultural sites if possible. 


When sufficient planning flexibility does 

not permit avoiding construction on 

archaeological or other types of cultural 

water runoff. These measures would ensure 

consistency with this policy. 

Potentially Consistent with Policies 1 and 2. 

Several existing undeveloped parcels lie within 

the 100-year flood zone mapped on the FEMA 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The County’s Flood 

Control Ordinance requires mitigation and finish 

floor elevations in accordance with the Flood 

Hazard Area Policy. In addition, draft Mission 

Canyon Community Plan Policy FLD-MC-1 

requires minimization of flood risks and an 

additional development standard is proposed as 

Mitigation Measure MM-WR-1.1 to further 

reduce the risks of flood damage for new 

development. 

Potentially Consistent with Policies 1 thru 5. The 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan contains 

Policy HA-MC-1 to protect and preserve 

archaeological resources to the maximum extent 

feasible. Additional EIR measures MM-CR-1.1 

and MM-CR-1.2 clarify development standards 

and add new policies to protect cultural 

resources. 

All other existing archaeological site policies 

would continue to apply to the plan area. 




sites, adequate mitigation shall be 

required. Mitigation shall be designed to 

accord with guidelines of the State Office 

of Historic Preservation and the State of 

California Native American Heritage 

Commission. 


Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized 

collection of artifacts, and other activities 

other than development which could 

destroy or damage archaeological or 

cultural sites shall be prohibited. 


Native Americans shall be consulted when 

development proposals are submitted 

which impact significant archaeological or 

cultural sites. 

Parks/Recreation Policy 1: Bikeways shall 

be provided where appropriate for 

recreational and commuting use. 

Parks/Recreation Policy 4: Opportunities 

for hiking and equestrian trails should be 

preserved, improved, and expanded 

wherever compatible with surrounding 

uses. 

Visual Resource Policy 3: In areas 

designated as urban on the land use plan 

maps and in designated rural 

neighborhoods, new structures shall be in 

conformance with the scale and character 

of the existing community. Clustered 

development, varied circulation patterns, 

and diverse housing types shall be 

Potentially Consistent with Policies 1 and 4 The 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan includes 

specific policies, development standards and 

action items (Action CIRC-MC-1.2, DevStd CIRC- 

MC-1.3, Action CIRC-MC-1.4, Action CIRC-MC-1.5 

Action PRT-MC-1.4 and Action PRT-MC-1.5) that 

would require protection of pedestrian pathways 

and widen the right-of-way area useable by the 

public for pedestrian and bicycle passage when 

the County grants encroachment permits and 

directs the County to actively pursue pedestrian 

on- and off- road trails on Mission Canyon Road 

and Tunnel Road. The plan area has sufficient 

park facilities to accommodate residential 

buildout. 

Potentially Consistent with Policies 3 and 5. The 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan includes 

new policies, development standards and actions 

in the Visual and Aesthetic Resources section to 

protect the character and natural features of 

Mission Canyon including a new Mission Canyon 

Scenic Corridor Overlay (Policy VIS-MC-3 and 

Action VIS-MC-3.1), the development and 



encouraged. 


Visual Resource Policy 5: Utilities, 

including television, shall be placed 

underground in new developments in 

accordance with the rules and regulations 

of the California Public Utilities 

Commission, except where cost of 

undergrounding would be so high as to 

deny service. 

Air Quality Supplement To Land Use 

Element 

Air Quality Policy A: Direct new urban 

development to areas within existing 

urbanized areas without endangering 

environmentally sensitive areas or open 

space resources. 

Measure A-3: Within each Housing Market 

Area, the County should encourage infill 

and an equitable balance between the 

production of housing and jobs generated 

by the economic sector consistent with 

population growth policies, the availability 

of services, and environmental concerns. 

Air Quality Policy C: Increase the 

attractiveness of bicycling, walking, transit, 

and ridesharing. 

Circulation Element 

Policy A. The roadway classifications, 

intersection levels of service, and capacity 

levels adopted in this Element shall apply 

to all roadways and intersections within 

the unincorporated area of the County, 

with the exception of those roadways and 

intersections located within an area 

included in an adopted community or area 

plan. Roadway classifications, intersection 

levels of service, and capacity levels 

adoption of Residential Design Guidelines 

(Action-LU-MC-2.1), and Action VIS-MC-3.3 to 

investigate the feasibility of establishing a utility 

undergrounding program along scenic roads. 

Additionally, Development Standard VIS-MC-2.1 

proposes that all new development and 

redevelopment shall be subject to an outdoor 

lighting ordinance in order to preserve the night 

sky. 

Potentially Consistent with Policies A and C and 

Measure A-3. The draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan does not include extending the 

existing urban/rural boundary line, and instead 

continues infill within a designated urban area. 

As noted in the Land Use Element 

Parks/Recreation Policy consistency analysis, the 

Community Plan contains policies to ensure that 

encroachments do not obstruct the public’s 

ability to walk safely in the right-of-way. 

Potentially Consistent with Policies A, B, and E. 

The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan would 

update the roadway classifications and project 

consistency standards of the Santa Barbara 

County Circulation Element for the 

unincorporated community of Mission Canyon. 

As a result, the draft Mission Canyon Community 

Plan would include a new system of roadway 

classifications and project consistency standards 

that would replace the classifications and 




adopted as part of any community or area 

plan subsequent to the adoption of this 

Element shall supersede any standards 

included as part of this Element. 

Policy B. Individual community and area 

plans adopted subsequent to this Element 

shall strive to achieve a balance between 

designated land uses and roadway and 

intersection capacity. These community 

and area plans shall identify areas where 

increased traffic may create noise levels 

that could potentially exceed the policies 

and standards of the Noise Element of the 

Comprehensive Plan and to the extent 

feasible, include policies, land use changes 

and other mitigations to reduce these 

impacts to insignificance. 

Policy E. A determination of project 

consistency with the standards and 

policies of this Element shall constitute a 

determination of project consistency with 

the Land Use Element’s Land Use 

Development Policy #4 with regard to 

roadway and intersection capacity. 

Noise Element 

Recommended Noise Policy 1: In the 

planning of land use, 65 dB Day-Night 

Average Sound Level should be regarded 

as the maximum exterior noise exposure 

compatible with noise-sensitive uses 

unless noise mitigation features are 

included in project designs. 

standards used in the current Circulation 

Element. The new classifications would maintain 

a balance between designated land uses and 

roadway and intersection capacity. 

Potentially Consistent. The County’s Noise 

Element Map shows a Community Noise 

Equivalent Level of 65-69 dB approximately 50 

feet from road centerline on both sides of 

Foothill Road. The rest of Mission Canyon is 

considered relatively quiet. An interior CNEL of 

45 dB is mandated for residential dwellings and 

noise mitigation features are included in project 

designs. In addition, Development Standard LU- 

MC-3.1. requires shielding of stationary 

equipment that could generate noise exceeding 

65 DB(A) at property boundaries. 




2003 – 2008 Housing Element 

Policy 1.9: The county shall promote 

moderate to higher density residential or 

mixed use development on in-fill sites 

within the urban boundaries of the county 

to encourage efficient use of land and 

existing infrastructure. 

Policy 5.1: The county shall encourage 

compatibility of new construction, 

rehabilitation or renovation of existing 

housing units with surrounding structures 

and their setting in an effort to maintain or 

enhance harmony and balance in the 

community. 

Policy 5.2: The county shall promote 

quality residential design standards to 

guide residential development 

countywide. 

Policy 5.3: The county shall encourage 

well-designed, energy efficient units in 

new residential development that will 

minimize maintenance costs over time. All 

projects shall comply with the 

Development Standard at right [see 

below]. 

Development Standard 5.3.1: All fixtures, 

mechanical components, roofing, and 

siding utilized in all newly constructed 

units shall meet the standards of the 

Uniform Building Code as adopted by the 

county and shall meet the standards of 

Title 24 for energy conservation. 

Policy 5.5: The county shall continue to 

encourage development within existing 

urban boundaries of the county and the 

preservation and/or protection of rural 

land uses outside the urban boundaries. 

Potentially Consistent. The Mission Canyon 

plan area is a mostly built out community of 

single family homes. The remaining buildout 

potential is infill development of single family 

homes on vacant and underdeveloped lots. Due 

to the Special Problems Area and extreme high 

fire hazard area designations, Housing Element 

Policies encouraging higher density and multifamily 

developments cannot be applied to 

Mission Canyon. The Mission Canyon 

Community Plan is however potentially 

consistent with Housing Element Policies 1.9, 

5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 because it maintains in-fill 

development within the urban boundary and 

includes Residential Design Guidelines and 

energy efficiency standards (Action LU-MC-2.1, 

Policy PS-MC-1 and Development Standard PS- 

MC-1.1). 




Open Space Element 

The Open Space Element addresses open 

space for public health and safety, the 

managed production of resources, outdoor 

recreation and the preservation of natural 

resources. This Element relates closely to 

the Seismic/Safety Element and the 

Conservation Element, and they are all 

synthesized in the Environmental 

Resources Management Element. 

Consistency with these elements is 

discussed elsewhere in this section. 

The Open Space Element discusses Mission 

Canyon in the context of active faults, 

severe geologic problems, steep slopes 

and flooding and recommends limiting 

development in the upper reaches of the 

canyon. It also notes high fire hazards 

north of Foothill Road. 

2007 Clean Air Plan 

The 2007 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is prepared 

by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District and is a comprehensive 

planning document that is required by 

federal and state law to show how the 

county will reduce ozone air pollution to 

meet health standards. The 2007 CAP 

meets the three year update as required 

by the California Clean Air Act. The CAP 

contains a set of transportation control 

measures, including ridesharing, 

employee-based transportation systems 

management programs, bicycling, motor 

vehicle improvements, and alternative 

work schedules. 

Potentially Consistent. The draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan includes specific policies and 

development standards that would provide 

protection for open space areas. The draft 

Mission Canyon Community Plan does not 

propose to extend the existing urban/rural 

boundary, and would include measures including 

Dev Std GEO-MC-1.1, Policy GEO-MC-4, Dev Std 

GEO-MC-3.1 and Dev Std GEO-MC-3.2 to address 

development on steep slopes and geologic 

hazards. 

Potentially Consistent. Consistency between the 

2007 Clean Air Plan and the 2010 Plan Update 

means that stationary and vehicle emissions 

associated with the existing and future land use 

development and resulting population and traffic 

increases are accounted for in the 2007 Clean Air 

Plan's emissions growth assumptions. The 2007 

Clean Air Plan relies on the land use and 

population projections provided in the 2002 

Santa Barbara County Association of 

Governments' Regional Growth Forecast (RGF). 

The Regional Growth Forecast is generally 

consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 

2007 Plan is generally consistent with local 

general plans. No land use and zoning changes 

are proposed for the plan area and therefore the 

draft Mission Canyon Community Plan is 

potentially consistent with the 2007 CAP. 




Congestion Management Plan 

The Santa Barbara County Association of 

Governments (SBCAG) is responsible for 

the development and implementation of 

the county-wide CMP required in all urban 

counties. The CMP is a comprehensive 

program designed to reduce auto-related 

congestion through capital improvements, 

travel demand management, and 

coordinated land use planning among all 

jurisdictions. The Congestion Management 

Plan provides a regional planning 

document that identifies and addresses 

congestion on designated roadways in the 

County. The Congestion Management Plan 

sets level of service standards for 

designated roadways in the County, and 

identifies the responsibilities of local 

jurisdictions in implementing the policies 

in the Congestion Management Plan. 

Potentially Consistent. Consistency is examined 

as part of development projects, not long range 

plans such as the draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan. Future discretionary 

development projects within Mission Canyon 

would be assessed relative to the CMP roadway 

network capacities and policies. 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 6.0 – ALTERNATIVES 

6.0 ALTERNATIVES 

As required by Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly achieve similar objectives. 

Section 15126.6(a) states: 

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the 

location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of 

the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of 

the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need 

not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a 

reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed 

decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider 

alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a 

range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its 

reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the 

nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. 

If there is an “environmentally superior” alternative to the proposed project, it must be 

identified. Analysis of the “No Project” alternative, assuming the reasonable future use of the 

project area if the Mission Canyon Community Plan was not approved, is also required. If the 

environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must identify an 

additional “environmentally superior” choice among the other project alternatives. 

The alternatives evaluated below address this reasonable range of alternatives that strive to 

minimize potentially significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the 

Mission Canyon Community Plan. In addition to the required No Project Alternative, one other 

alternative is evaluated in this EIR to minimize potentially significant environmental effects 

associated with the Mission Canyon Community Plan. The Mission Canyon Community Plan 

objectives are listed below: 















The draft Mission Canyon Community Plan goals reflect the community’s desire to enhance fire 

safe practices, improve pedestrian and bicyclist circulation, and assure the compatibility of new, 

remodeled, or rebuilt structures with existing development. The Mission Canyon Planning 

Advisory Committee articulated key goals for the plan as follows: 

• Maintain and enhance existing community qualities, including Mission Canyon’s natural 

scenic beauty and charm; 

• Improve fire safe practices including vegetation management, defensible space, 

hydrants and water supply, road safety, and emergency ingress and egress; 


• Provide for the reasonable use of property and limited buildout of existing lots, 

compatible with the natural terrain and with the scale and character of existing 

structures in the area; 

• Assure that development does not exceed availability of adequate services and 

infrastructure to provide for public health and safety; 

• Develop plans for possible post-disaster recovery and reconstruction that balances the 

likely conflict between the desire for rapid recovery and the competing desire to rebuild 

a community more resistant to future disaster; 


• Protect watershed function, groundwater and surface water quality, and prevent 

flooding and erosion; 

• Provide safe and efficient circulation systems and improve pedestrian and bicyclist 

access and safety; 

• Promote water conservation, resource recovery, green building practices, and energy 

conservation and generation; 




Recent court cases have upheld a lead agency’s reliance on project objectives both to narrow 

the scope of alternatives analyzed in an EIR and, ultimately, to reject those alternatives as 

infeasible if there is substantial evidence that an alternative will inhibit the agency’s ability to 

achieve most of the basic objectives of the project. Any alternatives considered in the Mission 

Canyon Community Plan EIR would, therefore, need to be consistent with the objectives listed 

above. 

6.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected 

The primary purpose of alternatives analysis in EIRs is to consider alternatives that reduce or 

eliminate the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of a project, while attaining 



most of the key project objectives. The following additional alternatives were considered, but 

were rejected from further consideration because they do not meet the basic project 

objectives. 

Adopt the new Community Plan and retain the 1984 Specific Plan. This alternative would 

essentially retain the Specific Plan adopted by County Ordinance and City of Santa Barbara 

Resolution in October 1984 while also adopting a new Mission Canyon Community Plan. While 

this alternative would not change impact levels, it was rejected because it would add an extra 

layer of process that would be confusing for both applicants and planners to implement and it 

would retain outdated Specific Plan development regulations that have been updated and 

restated in the new Community Plan. Also, this alternative fails to achieve the basic objective 

of replacing the Specific Plan with the new Community Plan. 

Expand the plan area Boundary. Early in the plan process, the Mission Canyon Planning 

Advisory Committee (MCPAC) considered expanding the plan area boundary to include 

approximately seven unincorporated parcels (to the north and east of the plan area boundary) 

that use public roads in Mission Canyon for access. All but one of the parcels considered for 

inclusion in the boundary are designated rural (and the current plan area is designated urban). 

This option was not recommended by the MCPAC because 1) they felt there was no compelling 

need to expand the urban boundary and 2) the affected landowners were opposed to the 

inclusion. This option is not considered a feasible alternative because there are no changes 

proposed to land use and primary zoning and if rural lands were included in the boundary, the 

proposed Community Plan goals, policies, development standards and actions would need to 

be reevaluated to ensure that those standard suitable for urban areas do not conflict with rural 

lands policies. Therefore, this alternative was removed from consideration from the range of 

project alternatives. 

Two alternatives were identified as feasible alternatives and evaluated, as follows: 

1. No Project (buildout under existing Policies and Development Standards in the 1984 

Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan and no new Parking Strategy Policies); and 

2. Reduced Buildout: 

a. Downzoning 

b. Slope Density 

For the purposes of comparative analysis, as was done for the environmental analysis of the 

proposed Plan, buildout under each alternative is analyzed in terms of the environmental 

impacts such buildout conditions would present. For each alternative, an evaluation of 

whether or not it achieves the basic objectives of the Community Plan is included. 

6.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: No Project Alternative 

Description 



This option assumes that the 1984 Mission Canyon Specific Plan is not updated and policy 

direction for the plan area is not changed. The projected buildout under the existing policies 

would result in a small increase in allowable residential second units, and none of the policies, 

development standards, and actions of the proposed plan would be implemented, including the 

policies drafted for the Residential Parking Strategy Safer Streets Initiative. 

Table 6.1-1 depicts a comparison between buildout of the plan area under the No Project 

Alternative and buildout under the proposed plan. The primary residential buildout is the same 

in both scenarios. Buildout under the No Project Alternative could result in additional 

residential second units (RSUs) because a proposal in the Community Plan would amend the 

Land Use and Development Code to significantly limit second units in Mission Canyon due to 

the very high and high fire hazard severity designation of Mission Canyon. Under the proposal, 

RSUs would only be approved in limited circumstances including a project application involving 

two contiguous legal lots under one ownership, at least one of which is vacant and other 

criteria as enumerated in the LUDC Chapter 35.42. There are approximately 14 known 

contiguous parcels under one ownership that also have the zoning and lot size that would allow 

for a residential second unit. These units however are not included in the buildout calculation 

because it was assumed that the vacant parcel would be built with a primary, rather than a 

secondary unit. Theoretically, without the limitation on RSUs, a total of 836 RSUs could be 

permitted based on zoning and lot size. However, for the purposes of a 20 year realistic 

planning horizon, it is assumed that for the No Project Alternative, 36 additional RSUs could be 

permitted in the plan area based on past (5 year) permit history of 1.8 permit applications for 

Residential Second Units per year. 48 

Table 6.1- 1: Buildout of the No Project Alternative in Comparison to the Proposed Plan 

Land Use No Project 

Alternative 

Proposed Plan Net Difference 

Additional Primary 

Residential Units 

157 157 0 

Additional Residential 36 Approximately 14 but 36 

Second Units 

already accounted for 

in buildout. 

The No Project Alternative also would not include the numerous policies, developments 

standards and actions proposed in the Community Plan and the Residential Design Guidelines. 

In particular, the Scenic Corridor and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Overlays would not be 

applied, an additional on-site parking space would not be required and the No Project 

Alternative would not explicitly include new County policy measures, development standards, 

and actions seeking improvements in water and wastewater supply and treatment, flooding 

and drainage, aesthetics, biological and cultural resources and emergency ingress and egress. 

48 Note: permit history for second units in Mission Canyon includes 2 applications to legalize as-built units. 



Impact Analysis 

Aesthetics/Visual Resources 

The goals, policies, development standards and actions in the proposed Community Plan serve 

to improve aesthetics and visual resources in and adjacent to the plan area. In particular, the 

proposed Residential Design Guidelines were prepared to ensure that development is sited, 

designed and scaled to be compatible with neighborhood character and to protect visual 

resources. Thus, potential impacts on aesthetics/visual resources from the No Project 

Alternative would be increased relative to those resulting from the project. 

Air Quality 

In terms of Air Quality, the No Project Alternative would increase emissions but not trigger the 

County significant impact thresholds for operational emissions as shown below in Table 6.1-1. 

Table 6.1- 1: No Project Alternative Emissions 

Estimated Emissions Associated with the No Project Alternative 

(lbs/day) 

Emission Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 

AREA 19.89 3.01 31.56 0.05 4.16 4.00 

MOBILE 16.11 21.37 183.56 0.11 23.45 4.49 

TOTAL lbs/yr 36.00 24.38 215.12 0.16 27.62 8.49 

Threshold (mobile) 25 25 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Threshold exceeded? No No n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Threshold (area + mobile) 55 55 n/a n/a 80 n/a 

Threshold exceeded? No No n/a n/a No n/a 

In terms of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), the additional development under the No Plan 

Alternative would slightly increase the projected overall CO2e emissions calculated under the 

project but would not exceed the applicable significance guidelines of 6.6 metric tons CO2e per 

service population per year. 


The No Project Alternative would include 36 additional RSUs than proposed in the Community 

Plan. If each RSU was built to the maximum size of 1,200 square feet (sf), potentially nearly 1 

additional acre of land could be disturbed. The No Project Alternative would also not include 

policies and actions to identify Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) and/or ESH buffers, as 

well as Mission Canyon ESH Overlay amendments to the LUDC to clarify procedures to qualify 

for a permit exemption for fuel modification for defensible space. Therefore, the No Project 

Alternative impacts on biological resources would be greater than the project. The No Project 

Alternative would not eliminate Class I impacts to biological resources. 



Cultural and Historic Resources 

As with biological resources, the No Project Alternative would include additional ground 

disturbance with the potential for impacts to cultural, historic and ethnic resources. Proposed 

new policies and development standards protective of cultural resources would not be 

adopted. Therefore, the No Project Alternative impacts on cultural and historic resources 

would be greater than the project. The No Project Alternative would not eliminate Class I 

impacts to archaeological resources. 

Energy 

Under the No Project Alternative, the beneficial impacts of proposed energy-conserving 

features from the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan and Residential Design Guidelines 

would not be adopted. The No Project Alternative energy demand would be slightly greater 

than the project. 

Fire Protection 

The No Project Alternative would include additional Residential Second Units in the high fire 

hazard area. This would increase the numbers of structures and vehicles in the plan area which 

increases impacts to Fire Protection and could result in slightly longer times to evacuate the 

plan area. The No Project Alternative would also increase on-street parking because it would 

delete an action to amend the LUDC to increase the required number of parking spaces per 

dwelling unit in the R-1/E-1 zone districts from 2 to 3 spaces. It would also not include other 

policies to improve ingress and egress such as establishing minimum 10 foot travel lanes in each 

direction, striping public roads with a fog line and discouraging encroachments in the public 

right-of-way. Without this action, public safety could be compromised by cars parking and 

encroachments such as walls, fences and landscaping in the public rights-of-way thus narrowing 

the available travel lanes. The No Project Alternative impact on Fire Protection would be 

greater than the project. The No Project Alternative would not eliminate Class I impacts to fire 

protection. 

Geologic Processes 

The No Project Alternative would have greater impacts to geologic processes because it would 

not include the programmatic mitigation measures from the draft Community Plan to reduce 

impacts related to grading, erosion, seismic, soil and slope hazards. 

Land Use 

As stated above, the No Project Alternative would not amend the LUDC to significantly limit 

residential second units. It would also not include an action to adopt Residential Design 

Guidelines, which could impact neighborhood compatibility, residential privacy and public 

views. The No Project Alternative would have greater impacts on land use relative to the 

proposed Plan. 



Noise 

With additional second units, the No Project Alternative would have slightly greater impacts on 

Noise. The overall incremental impacts on noise are considered to be similar to the project. 

Public Facilities 

With the additional second units, at 1.5 persons per unit, approximately 54 more people would 

reside in the plan area with slightly greater but not significant impacts to police and health care 

services and schools. Long-term solid waste would increase from 136 tons/year to 155 

tons/year (assuming a 63% diversion rate), an increase of 14%. In terms of sewer service, 300 

gallons per day per household of effluent was estimated for Community Plan buildout. 

Assuming half that amount for a second unit, an additional 5,400 gallons per day of effluent 

would be generated, an increase of 20%. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in 

similar impacts to public facilities as the project. 

Transportation and Circulation 

The No Project Alternative would continue roadway classifications from the County’s 

Circulation Element and not apply the proposed new roadway classifications and traffic impact 

thresholds within the plan area. Generally, the No Project Alternative would generate more 

vehicle trips and traffic congestion than under the proposed Plan. The studies prepared for the 

Traffic and Circulation section analyzed future conditions under the No Project Alternative. The 

full information about this alternative is available in the Traffic and Circulation study prepared 

by Fehr & Peers, on file in Planning and Development. Following is a summary of the findings: 

With the addition of 160 new residential units 49 and 36 second units, development under the 

No Project Alternative would result in a net increase of 1,771 daily trips, of which 138 would 

occur in the AM peak hour and 194 in the pm peak hour when compared to existing conditions. 

The intersection operating conditions and roadway segment impact analyses show that two 

study segments on Mission Canyon Road (south) are projected to exceed the County’s 

minimum LOS C threshold: 

• #4 Mission Canyon Road south of Foothill Road (LOS E) 

• #5 Mission Canyon Road north of Mountain Drive (LOS F) 

The stop-controlled intersection of Mission Canyon Road at Los Olivos Street and Mountain 

Drive (located in the City of Santa Barbara) is projected to exceed the City’s thresholds for LOS 

and delay for an unsignalized intersection. The resulting LOS is as follows: 

• #6 Mission Canyon Road/East Los Olivos Street & Mountain Drive: LOS D (28 seconds) in 

the AM peak hour and LOS E (38 seconds) in the PM peak hour. 

49 Theoretical buildout has since been reduced to 157 units; however, three fewer units do not significantly change 

the results. 



It should be noted that this intersection is stop-controlled on the minor approach (Mountain 

Drive). The increased cumulative development traffic along Mission Canyon Road would create 

additional delay for the motorists entering and exiting Mountain Drive. 

The impacts listed above were also found to result from the project. Thus, the No Project 

Alternative would represent similar impacts to transportation and circulation as the project. 

Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding 

The No Project Alternative would theoretically include 36 additional residential second units 

than proposed under the Community Plan. If the units were built to the maximum size of 1,200 

square feet, an additional one acre of land could be covered in impermeable surfaces thus 

increasing the risk of flooding and drainage problems. Also, the No Project Alternative would 

not include a development standard to ensure that post-development runoff volumes do not 

exceed pre-development runoff volumes through the application of low impact development 

measure and development standards for best management practices. The No Project 

Alternative is estimated to increase overall water demand by about 8% due to the addition of 

36 residential second units. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in greater 

impacts on water resources. 

Achievement of Proposed Objectives 

The No Project Alternative fails to achieve the basic objectives because it would not replace the 

1984 Mission Canyon Area Specific Plan with a Community Plan, it would not adopt Residential 

Design Guidelines and it would not amend the Land Use and Development Code. It would also 

not achieve the key goals articulated for the Community Plan to maintain community qualities, 

improve fire safe practices, protect sensitive habitats and watershed function and provide a 

safe and efficient circulation system. The No Project Alternative would not eliminate any Class I 

impacts nor reduce Class II or III impacts. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is considered 

less environmentally superior relative to the project. 

6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: Reduced Buildout 

Description 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative analyzes the reduction of buildout potential through the use 

of two methods: A) downzoning or B) slope density formulas to increase minimum lot size. 

A. The option for downzoning was analyzed for zone districts where it was determined that 

parcel sizes were large enough to support a potential lot split and additional build out 

potential was identified. The zone districts not included in the downzone analysis (shown in 

Table 6.2-1 below) had no lot split potential based on existing zoning and lot size. The 1-E-1 

(1-acre gross minimum lot area) to 5-E-1 (5 acres gross minimum lot area) analysis was done 

only north of Foothill Road because a lot size increase in this area would be compatible with 



surrounding zoning, which includes 5 and 10-acre lot size minimums and recreation parcels, 

rather than south of Foothill, which is zoned for smaller lot sizes. Table 6.2-1 summarizes 

the data analysis. 

Table 6.2- 1: Potential Zone Districts for Downzoning 

Existing Zone 

District 


Potential 

Alternative 2 A. 

Proposed New 

Zone District 

(Downzone) 

RMZ-100 1 N/A 1 

REC 2 N/A 2 

AG-1-40 2 N/A 2 

AG-1-10 4 N/A 4 

RR-10 2 N/A 2 

RR-5 15 RR-10 12 

1-E-1 (north of 

Foothill) 

46 5-E-1 26 

1-E-1 (south of 

Foothill) 

3 N/A 3 

20-R-1, 10-R-1 

and 7-R-1 

82 

1-E-1 30 

TOTALS 157 82 


New Zone 

District Buildout 

Potential 

B. The slope density option would consider adopting a new slope density formula in 

Mission Canyon to increase minimum lot size and therefore reduce building density in 

highly sloped areas. The City of Santa Barbara Zoning Ordinance includes a factor to 

increase minimum lot areas as follows in Table 6.2-2 (with the exception of parcels 

having frontage on the Pacific Ocean): 

Table 6.2- 2: Slope Density Formula 

Average Slope of the Parcel Increase in Minimum Lot Size 

0.0 – 9.9% No increase in minimum lot size 

10 – 20% 1.5 times minimum lot size 

20 – 30% 2 times minimum lot size 

30+ % 3 times minimum lot size 

Source: City of Santa Barbara Zoning Ordinance Section 28.15.080 Lot Area and Frontage Requirements. 

To determine if the slope density formula given above would result in an appreciable difference 

in building density, a list was generated of parcels with buildout potential of at least one 

additional unit with a lot split. Note as described in Section 2 - Project Buildout Assumptions, 

the project buildout calculation eliminated the potential for additional units (other than a 



primary unit) on parcels with mostly 30% or greater slopes. Vacant parcels with buildout 

potential of one unit were not included in the calculation because it is assumed that at least 

one unit could be built, regardless of slope, in order to avoid precluding development potential 

to an extent that an unconstitutional deprivation of property would occur. 

To calculate average slope, a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was generated from the contour 

data in Flood Control topographic maps created in 1997. From the DEM, a slope grid was 

generated and each parcel’s average slope was calculated by computing the average slope 

value that falls within each parcel. The results of applying the slope density formula are shown 

in Table 6.2-3. Note that the results obtained in Table 6.2-3 are for illustrative purposes and 

actual slope density calculations for individual parcels may provide different outcomes. 

Existing Zone 

District 

Table 6.2- 3: Slope Density Formula Results 


Potential 

RMZ-100 1 1 

REC 2 2 

AG-1-40 2 2 

AG-1-10 4 4 

RR-10 2 2 

RR-5 15 12 

1-E-1 49 29 

20-R-1, 10-R-1 

and 7-R-1 

82 

51 

TOTALS 157 103 

Alternative 2 B. 

Buildout 

Potential 

Applying Slope 

Density Formula 

Table 6.2-4 shows a summary of the Reduced Buildout Alternative in comparison the plan area 

buildout. 

Table 6.2- 4: Reduced Buildout Alternative in Comparison to the Proposed Plan 

Buildout Method Total # of Buildout 

Units 

Proposed Project 157 


82 

Reduced Density via 

downzoning 

Alternative 2 B. 

103 

Reduced Density via 

slope density formula 



The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the estimated buildout number between 35- 

48%, depending on which method is used. It should be noted that the projected buildout of 

lots large enough for a lot split assumed for the project based on existing zoning is speculative 

and there are many limiting factors (e.g., septic system suitability, environmentally sensitive 

habitat, landowner preference for a larger lot etc.) not taken into account in the calculation 

that would limit the ultimate buildout of Mission Canyon and thus the percent reduction may 

not be as high as this estimate. 

Impact Analysis 

Aesthetics/Visual Resources 

The goals, policies, development standards and actions in the proposed Community Plan serve 

to improve aesthetics and visual resources in and adjacent to the plan area. In particular, the 

proposed Residential Design Guidelines were prepared to ensure that development is sited, 

designed and scaled to be compatible with neighborhood character and to protect visual 

resources. Thus, as this alternative would incorporate the protective policies, the Class II and III 

potential impacts on aesthetics/visual resources from the Reduced Buildout Alternative would 

be the same as those resulting from the project. 

Air Quality 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative would decrease emissions but as the County’s significant 

impact thresholds for operational emissions were not triggered by the project, the potential 

impact to Air Quality would be the same. In terms of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), the 

lower level of development under the Reduced Buildout Alternative decreases the projected 

overall CO2e emissions calculated under the project. As the significance guidelines for GHG 

emissions were not triggered by the project, the potential impact for GHG emissions would be 

the same. 


The Reduced Buildout Alternative would potentially reduce impacts to biological resources due 

to fewer buildings resulting in less land disturbance overall. In terms of Class I impacts 

identified for biological resources under the project, although the Reduced Buildout Alternative 

might lesson the potentially significant impacts, it unknown precisely how case-by-case siting 

and lot build-out would affect site specific impacts. Namely, depending on where the 

additional units are sited (i.e., within an already developed neighborhood or adjacent to 

environmentally sensitive habitat), the remaining units that could be built with the Reduced 

Buildout Alternative, particularly a primary unit on a vacant lot, may have similar impacts to 

biological resources as those under the project. Therefore it cannot be conclusively stated that 

the Reduced Buildout Alternative would substantially reduce or eliminate the Class I impacts. 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative would include less overall ground disturbance. However, as 

the location of sensitive resources prior to intensive archaeological resource surveys is 



unknown, it cannot be conclusively stated that the Reduced Buildout Alternative substantially 

reduces or eliminates Class I impacts to archaeological resources. 

Energy 

As with the proposed project, the impacts of the Reduced Buildout Alternative would be 

beneficial due to proposed energy-conserving features in the draft Community Plan and 

Residential Design Guidelines. 

Fire Protection 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative would decrease the numbers of structures and vehicles in the 

plan area which decreases the impact of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of 

wildland fire and could result in slightly shorter times to evacuate the plan area. With both the 

project and Alternative 2 A. and B., buildout units would be scattered throughout the plan area 

rather than concentrated in any one location, and therefore it is difficult to determine where a 

density reduction would improve evacuation times. Extrapolating from the fire evacuation 

analysis conducted for the Fire Protection Section, for the Reduced Density Alternative the 

number of vehicles remaining traveling in the plan area after 2 hours in the high intensity fire 

evacuation scenario would fall somewhere in between 730 (existing setting) and 785 (proposed 

project) vehicles. Because the existing setting has known wildland fire risks and existing 

emergency ingress and egress limitations, and there is no quantified significance level for 

wildland fires and evacuation impacts, it is not expected that the Reduced Buildout Alternative 

would eliminate Class I impacts to fire protection. 

Geologic Processes 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative would have similar less than significant impacts to geologic 

processes as the project due to the proposed programmatic mitigation measures from the draft 

Community Plan to reduce impacts related to grading, erosion, seismic, soil and slope hazards. 

Noise 

The overall incremental impacts on noise with the Reduced Buildout Alternative are considered 

to be similar to the project. 

Public Facilities 

Impacts to police services, schools, parks and wastewater services were determined to be less 

than significant for the project and thus the Reduced Buildout Alternative would also result in 

less than significant impacts. Impacts on long-term solid waste, which were less than significant 

with programmatic mitigation, would be similar to the project. Overall, the Reduced Buildout 

Alternative would result in slightly lower impacts to public facilities than the project. 

Transportation and Circulation 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips than under the proposed 

Plan. The traffic study conducted by Fehr & Peers concluded potentially significant but 

mitigable impacts with the project at one intersection and significant impacts in two roadway 

segments. A sensitivity test was conducted by Fehr & Peers to determine what level of buildout 



triggers both the adverse and the potentially significant impacts. The test found that the 

roadway segments and intersection impact is triggered by anticipated cumulative project 

development both in the plan area and in the City of Santa Barbara, before considering adding 

any of the buildout of the Mission Canyon plan area. Thus, the Reduced Buildout Alternatives 2 

A. and 2 B., at 82 and 103 units respectively, also trigger the impact. Overall, the Reduced 

Buildout Alternative would result in similar impacts as the project. 

Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding 

The Reduced Buildout Alternative would result in less land covered in impermeable surfaces 

thus reducing the risk of flooding and drainage problems. With fewer structures, there would 

also be a decreased water demand. As potential project impacts to water resources including 

flood hazards and water quality were determined less than significant with mitigation, and 

impacts to water supply is adverse but less than significant, the Reduced Buildout Alternative 

would also result in less than significant impacts. 

Achievement of Proposed Objectives 

Other than the change in residential buildout, no policy changes are presented by this 

alternative. Hence, the mitigative effect of the proposed policies, development standards, and 

actions of the proposed Community Plan would not be changed in this alternative. In general, 

given the reduction in residential development, some reduction in potentially significant 

impacts could occur in the Reduced Buildout Alternative. In terms of Class I impacts identified 

for biological resources, cultural resources, fire protection and traffic and circulation with the 

project, although the Reduced Buildout Alternative might somewhat lessen the potentially 

significant impacts, it is unknown precisely which level of development or where the impact is 

triggered and therefore it cannot be conclusively stated that the Reduced Buildout Alternative 

would reduce the impacts to less than significant level. 

The Reduced Density alternative does not meet the basic objective of the project to plan for the 


designations because it would require major zone district changes and zoning ordinance 

amendments for implementation. The proposed Community Plan, Residential Design 

Guidelines and Land Use and Development Code additions and amendments were crafted to 

accommodate buildout of the plan area per the stated goals, rather than change existing plan 

area density. 



6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative 

As discussed above, the No Project Alternative would generally have an increased number and 

severity of significant environmental impacts than the proposed Mission Canyon Community 

Plan largely in part due to protective policies that are provided in the draft Mission Canyon 

Community Plan. The No Project Alternative also assumes up to approximately 36 new 

residential second units in Mission Canyon. The higher number of units would increase impacts 

to biological resources, cultural and historic resources, transportation and circulation, fire 

protection, and water resources. The No Project Alternative fails to achieve several project 

objectives including replacement of the 1984 Specific Plan with a Community Plan, adoption of 

Residential Design Guidelines, and amending the Land Use and Development Code to 

implement new policies, actions and development standards from the Mission Canyon 


The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce buildout of underdeveloped lots by 

approximately 35 – 48% depending on whether the downzoning or slope density method was 

used. As a result, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the buildout 

could be somewhat reduced, but not eliminated, when compared to the project. The Reduced 

Buildout Alternative meets some, but not all, of the basic project objectives. Although the 

Reduced Buildout Alternative may somewhat reduce impacts, the impact reduction would not 

be substantial enough to eliminate Class I impacts. 

Procedurally, reduced density by the downzoning method would result in creating a large 

number of non-conforming parcels, for example rezoning entire zone districts such as 7-R-1, 10- 

R-1 and 20-R-1 to 1-E-1 could result in creating approximately 95% non-conforming parcels as 

to size (692 non-conforming parcels out of 721). Furthermore, although the slope density 

calculation results in a lower number of buildout units than under the project, there are 

proposed protective development standards for slopes in the Mission Canyon Community Plan 

that could result in the equivalent lower number in buildout units on slopes 20% or greater. For 

example, draft Community Plan development standard GEO-MC-1.1 requires any development 

on slopes 20% or greater to be evaluated by a qualified professional and established that the 

project would not cause geologic hazards. For potential subdivisions, it requires building site 

and access on less than 20% slopes. Although this alternative would result in reduced impacts 

for most resource areas, it fails to achieve a basic project objective to plan for the buildout of 

the plan area using existing Land Use densities and primary Zone District designations. 

In summary, the proposed project achieves all the stated objectives and provides case-by-case 

protections that could provide the functional equivalent of reducing buildout. Therefore, this 

analysis finds that the Project is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative and the 

Reduced Buildout Alternative. 


MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 7.0 – OTHER CEQA REQUIRED DISCUSSIONS 

7.0 OTHER C E Q A RE Q U I R E D DISCUSSIONS 

This section discusses other issues for which CEQA requires analysis in addition to the specific 

issue areas discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. These additional issues 

include: (1) the potential to induce growth, including the removal of obstacles to growth; (2) 

significant unavoidable impacts, and (3) irreversible impacts on the environment. 

In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this section includes a brief discussion 

of possible significant effects of a project that were determined not to be significant and were 

therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. 

7.1 Growth Inducing Effects 

CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of the ways in which a project could foster economic or 

population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the 

surrounding environment. Included in this is a discussion of project characteristics which 

encourage and/or facilitate other activities that, individually or cumulatively, could have 

significant environmental effects. 

Generally, a project may be considered growth inducing if it results in one of the following 

conditions identified below: 

• Induces population growth; 

• Induces economic growth; 

• Establishes a precedent setting action (e.g., an innovation, a radical change in zoning or 

general plan designation); 

• Results in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space 

(i.e., being distinct from “infill” development); 

• Removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public 

service or the provision of new access to an area). 

The impacts identified below are based on estimated buildout of the proposed Community 


Population Growth 

The proposed Community Plan maintains the current land use and base zoning district 

designations in the plan area. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, plan area 

buildout is estimated to generate a total of 157 additional primary residential units. Based on 

an average household size of 2.44 persons per dwelling unit, plan area buildout would result in 

383 new residents. There is no increase in population growth anticipated under the proposed 

plan and the potential population increase is not significant on a County-wide basis. The 

projected population is also consistent with the population estimate in Santa Barbara County 



Council of Governments Regional Growth Forecast which was based on buildout assumptions 

under current land use and zoning. 

Economic Growth 

No commercial or mixed-use development exists or is proposed in the plan area and there 

would be no significant impact on economic growth. 

Precedent Setting Action 

The proposed Community Plan maintains current land use and base zoning designations. 

Overall, the proposed Community Plan provides direction on the type and intensity of new 

development in the plan area, and includes a number of policies and standards to protect 

environmental resources. The intent of the Community Plan is to provide a framework of 

policies, standards, and actions that preserve the character and uniqueness of the plan area. 

Thus, the proposed Community Plan would not set any precedents for growth. 

Development of Open Space/Vacant Land 

Development of open space is considered growth-inducing when it occurs outside urban 

boundaries or in isolated locations instead of infill areas. The proposed Community Plan 

maintains the urban-rural boundary and does not include any development outside the urban 

area and there would be no significant impacts due to development of open space or vacant 

rural land. Because surrounding open space/vacant land (scattered individual lots in City of 

Santa Barbara to the east and west and Los Padres National Forest to the North) has similar 

zoning, high fire hazard designations and/or physical constraints as Mission Canyon, there is no 

anticipated growth inducing effect in the surrounding environment. 

Removal of an Impediment to Growth 

The primary impediments to growth in the plan area are due to existing physical constraints 

including slopes, high fire hazards, Special Problems Area overlay, septic system constraints, 

narrow roads and biological resources. The proposed Community Plan does not include any 

policies or development standards that would remove the existing impediments to growth in 

the area. 

7.2 Significant Unavoidable Effects 

Pursuant to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA guidelines, an EIR must identify those significant 

impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated with the application of mitigation measures. 

Implementation of the proposed Community Plan would result in significant, unavoidable 

impacts to the following resources: 


• Cultural Resources 

• Fire Protection 

• Traffic and Circulation 



These resources are examined in depth in Section 4 of this EIR and residual Class I impacts are 

summarized in the Executive Summary. 

Proposed mitigation measures that address impacts related to the Community Plan are 

identified in this EIR and would limit the extent of significant and unavoidable impacts on these 

resources. Existing regulations and requirements applied to individual development projects 

would also help to ensure that resource impacts are minimized. The Community Plan is 

proposed notwithstanding these potential impacts because it would update the 1984 Mission 

Canyon Area Specific Plan and provide a planning framework that maintains and preserves the 

area’s unique setting. Furthermore, neither the No Project Alternative nor any of the other 

alternatives discussed in Section 6.0 would be able to completely eliminate the above 

referenced unavoidable impacts. 

7.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible 

environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project. Such significant 

irreversible environmental changes may include the following: 

• Use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project 

which would be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes 

removal or non-use likely. 

• Primary impacts and, particularly secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that 

provides access to a previously inaccessible area), which generally commit future 

generations to similar uses. 

• Irreversible damage that may result from environmental accidents associated with the 

project. 

The buildout of the plan area would result in the commitment of nonrenewable resources (e.g., 

energy, water, construction materials) throughout the buildout period. Although single family 

home construction would not necessarily commit future generations to similar uses, it is 

anticipated that those uses would continue. No environmental accidents are expected as a 

result of the provisions of the proposed Community Plan. It should be noted that buildout 

under the proposed plan would not result in a substantially different environment than under 

buildout of the existing Specific Plan. Moreover, the proposed Community Plan includes 

several new policies that seek to protect environmental resources and limit impacts of buildout, 

such that irreversible changes would be reduced. However, irreversible environmental effects 

cannot be completely avoided. 

Construction activity that would be accommodated under buildout would involve the use of 

building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of 

these resources would occur with any development in the County and are not unique to the 

plan area. The addition of new residential development in the plan area under buildout 



conditions would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such 

as petroleum and natural gas. Increasingly efficient building fixtures and automobiles, as well 

as implementation of policies included in the proposed Plan, are expected to offset the demand 

to some degree. It is not anticipated that growth accommodated under the Community Plan 

would significantly affect local or regional energy supplies. 

Growth accommodated under any land use scenario would require an irreversible commitment 

of additional wastewater treatment capacity, water supply and solid waste disposal services. 

Impacts to cultural resources, biological resources and fire protection were similarly 

determined to be significant and unavoidable under buildout conditions. These also represent 

irreversible environmental effects. 

The additional vehicle trips associated with growth under the full buildout conditions would 

incrementally increase local traffic and noise levels and regional air pollutant emissions. As 

discussed in Section 4.8, Noise, continued implementation of MCCP policies could reduce noise 

impacts associated with future growth. As discussed in Section 4.10, Transportation and 

Circulation, proposed intersection and roadway segment level of service performance 

standards could be met with implementation of recommended circulation improvements and 

Community Plan policies and actions. These improvements, however, would represent 

irreversible changes to the built environment. 

7.4 Issues Found Not to be Significant 

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this section discusses those factors determined to 

be adverse but less than significant that do not require detailed analysis in this EIR. The reasons 

these issues were found not to be significant in the project Initial Study are briefly described 

below. 

Agricultural Resources 

Mission Canyon is not considered a productive agricultural region. The lands zoned for 

agriculture are on steep slopes and the soil is generally poor. No changes are proposed for the 

existing agricultural land use and zoning designations and there are no proposals to convert 

prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Impacts would be less than significant (Class 

III). 

Hazardous Materials/Risk of Upset 

The plan area is residential and does not contain industrial or agricultural uses that involve 

handling and storage of potentially hazardous materials. There are no designated 

transportation routes for hazardous materials in the plan area. The two identified leaking 

underground tanks in the plan area have completed cleanup operations. There are no known 

contamination sites in Mission Canyon. Impacts are less than significant (Class III). 

Land Use 



Existing land use is mostly residential with a few small areas of agriculture, several institutional 

facilities, recreation and undeveloped open space. The proposed Community Plan proposes no 

land use changes and no additional population growth is anticipated. Buildout of the plan area 

would be compatible with existing land use. Impacts are less than significant (Class III). 





MISSION CANYON COMMUNITY PLAN EIR SECTION 8.0 – REFERENCES 

8.0 REFERENCES 

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., 2010. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the 

Plan Santa Barbara General Plan Update. March 2010. 

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) January 2008. CEQA and Climate 

Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the 

California Environmental Quality Act. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A 

Community Health Perspective. http://www.arb.ca.gov/chlhandbook.pdf 

California Air Resources Board, California’s GHG Inventory 2000 – 2006 – by Category as 

Defined in the Scoping Plan. Online, last updated: March 13, 2009. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_2009-03-13.pdf 

California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate Assessing the Risks to California. 

California Department of Water Resources, 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change 

into Management of California’s Water Resources. July 2006 Technical Memorandum 

Report. 

California Department of Water Resources, 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future Climate 

Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water. October 2008. 

California Department of Water Resources, 2010. California’s Drought Update. Online March 

1, 2010. 


California Energy Commission, December 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2004. Staff Final Report. CEC-600-2006-013-SF. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 

California. Sixth edition. (Special Publication No. 1.) September. Rare Plant Scientific 

Advisory Committee, David Tibor, Convening Editor, Sacramento, California. 

CNPS. 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Sixth edition. Rare Plant 

Scientific Advisory Committee, David Tibor, Convening Editor, Sacramento, California. 

September. Changes to the Inventory as published on CNPS website 

(http://www.cnps.org/programs/Rare_Plant/inventory/changes/changes_accepted.htm). 

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. 2009. 



California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2005. Initial Statement of Reasons, 

Defensible Space, 2005. Published October 28, 2005. 

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, USEPA Approval Date June, 28, 2007. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r3 

_06_303d_reqtmdls.pdf 

Chepesiuk, R. 2009. Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution, Environmental Health 

Perspectives 117: A20-A27. Online January 2009 

http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/home.action. 

City of Goleta 2006. Final Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Report. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. September 2006. 

City of Santa Barbara. 2005. Mission Creek and Arroyo Burro Watersheds Existing Conditions 

Study, August 2005 Draft. 

City of Santa Barbara 2002. The Santa Barbara City Master Environmental Assessment, 

Guidelines for Archaeological Resources and Historic Structures and Sites. 

City of Santa Barbara 2004. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Wildland Fire Plan. 

February 2004. . 

City of Santa Barbara 2006. Water Quality Monitoring Program Report 2001-2006. City of 

Santa Barbara Creeks Restoration and Water Quality Improvement Division. 

City of Santa Barbara 2009. Water Supply Management Report 2009 Water Year, Draft 

December 2009. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Online 2009. http://www.allaboutbirds.org. 

Envicom. 2009. The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Vital Mission Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Report. Prepared for Santa Barbara County Planning and Development. Agoura 

Hills, California. July 2009. 

Gamble, Lynn H. 2008. The Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade and Feasting 

among Complex Hunter-Gatherers. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los 

Angeles, California. 

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 2007. Standardized Emergency Management System 

After Action Report. “Safe Canyon” Exercise – April 30, 2005. 



Hanes, T.L. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological 

Monographs: Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 27-52. doi: 10.2307/1942434. Ecological Monographs, 

Ecological Society of America. 

Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California 

Press, Berkeley. 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Working Group I. Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. 

Johnson, John R. 1986. The Chumash History of Mission Creek. Santa Barbara Historical Society 

Noticias, Vol. XXXii, No. 2. Summer 1986. 

Macko, Michael 1985. Final Technical Synthesis Report, Cultural Resource Survey Results, 

Proposed Mission Creek and Vicinity Flood Control Study Request No. DACW09-85-Q-0011. 

Document on File, Central Coast Information Center, University of California Santa Barbara 

(E-471). 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), September 2, 2005. Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units 

(ESUs) of Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in California. Federal Register 70: 52488 - 52627. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). July 2009. Draft Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

National Park Service National Register Travel Itineraries. Online, n.d. 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/ca/ca20.htm). 

Nellis, Michel. 2009. Historical Survey of the Lower Mission Canyon. 

Questa Engineering Corporation. Septic System Sanitary Survey for Santa Barbara County. 

March 2003. 

Rincon Consultants. 2009. Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Final EIR. County of Santa 

Barbara Office of Long Range Planning and Rincon Consultants, Inc. March 2009. 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2008, Scope and Content of Air 

Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, Updated June 2008. 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2007. 2007 Clean Air Plan. 



Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), 2002. Regional Growth Forecast 

2000-2030. 

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), 2007. Regional Growth Forecast 

2005-2040. 

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), 2009. Santa Barbara County 

Congestion Management Program. Approved June 18, 2009. 

Santa Barbara County Public Works, 2009. Jesusita Fire Emergency Watershed Response Plan. 

June 2009. 

Santa Barbara County, 2005. Bicycle Master Plan. January 2005. 

Santa Barbara County, 2008a. Mission Canyon Community Wildfire Protection Plan. December 

18, 2008. 

Santa Barbara County, 2008b. Red Flag Alert Plan. Revised April 4, 2008. 

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native 

Plant Society, Sacramento. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 2001. Phase I Historical Resources 

Report, Library and Auxiliary Buildings, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara, 

California. February 2001. 

Stoecker and Conception Coast Project. 2002. Steelhead Assessment and Recovery 

Opportunities in Southern Santa Barbara County, California. 

Historic Resources Group 2008 (Revised June 2009).Technical Report, Historic Resources 

Assessment, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. September 2008 (Revised June 2009). 

Weeks, Day D. and Anne E. Grimmer, 1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships Heritage Preservation Section, 

Washington D.C. 

Wilcoxon, Larry, 1984. The Results of an Intensive Cultural Resources Survey for the Mission 

Canyon Wastewater Facilities Project, Santa Barbara County. Document on file, Central 

Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara (E-466). 



Wilcoxon, Larry and G. King, 1983. A Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment for the Mission 

Canyon Wastewater Disposal Project, Santa Barbara, CA. Document on File, Central Coast 

Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara (E-469) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Modeling the Impacts of 

Hydromodification on Water Quantity and Quality. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. Water Data Report CA-2005 – 11119745 Mission 

Creek at Rocky Nook Park, at Santa Barbara, California. 

University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) 2008. Long Range Development Plan Draft EIR, 

March 2008. 

URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde, 1999. South Coast Watershed Characterization Study, An 

Assessment of Water Quality Conditions in Four South Coast Creeks. August 1999. 

Wildland Interface Mitigation and Evacuation Planning Task Force. 2001. Santa Barbara I-Zone 

Major Incident Preplan, July 2001. 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Johnson, George. June 9, 2009 and July 20, 2009. City of Santa Barbara, Creeks Supervisor. 

Email correspondence regarding current steelhead restoration projects within the Mission 

Canyon area. 

Wilken, Dieter. June 5 and 6, 2009. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Vice President Programs & 

Collections. Email correspondence regarding local documented occurrences of sensitive 

plant species within the Mission Canyon/Rattlesnake Canyon area.. 

Johnson, Martin. October 16, 2008. Santa Barbara County Fire Captain. Phone conversation.

Mission Canyon Community Plan EIR - Long Range Planning ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?