Guadalupe City Council
February 24, 2026

i-Tree
Ecosystem Analysis
Guadalupe Inventory
Urban Forest Effects and Values
November 2025
48 of 181

Summary
Understanding an urban forest's structure, function and value can promote management decisions that will improve human health and environmental quality. An assessment of the vegetation structure, function, and value of the Guadalupe Inventory urban forest was conducted during 2025. Data from 738 trees located throughout Guadalupe Inventory were analyzed using the i-Tree Eco model developed by the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station. • Number of trees: 738
• Tree Cover: 5.865 acres
• Most common species of trees: Coastal live oak, Monterey cypress, Queen palm • Percentage of trees less than 6" (15.2 cm) diameter: 50.8% • Pollution Removal: 437.7 pounds/year ($397/year)
• Carbon Storage: 219.8 tons ($95.1 thousand)
• Carbon Sequestration: 4.643 tons ($2.01 thousand/year) • Oxygen Production: 12.38 tons/year
• Avoided Runoff: 45.14 thousand gallon/year ($403/year) • Building energy savings: N/A – data not collected
• Avoided carbon emissions: N/A – data not collected
• Replacement values: $1.98 million
Ton: short ton (U.S.) (2,000 lbs)
Monetary values $ are reported in US Dollars throughout the report except where noted.

Ecosystem service estimates are reported for trees.

With Complete Inventory Projects, oxygen production is estimated from gross carbon sequestration and does not account for decomposition. Oxygen production in Plot Inventory Projects is estimated from net carbon sequestration.

For an overview of i-Tree Eco methodology, see Appendix I. Data collection quality is determined by the local data collectors, over which i-Tree has no control.
49 of 181

Table of Contents
Summary........................................................................................................................................................................2 I. Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest ...................................................................................................................4 II. Urban Forest Cover and Leaf Area ............................................................................................................................7 III. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees .....................................................................................................................9 IV. Carbon Storage and Sequestration ........................................................................................................................11 V. Oxygen Production ..................................................................................................................................................13 VI. Avoided Runoff .......................................................................................................................................................14 VII. Trees and Building Energy Use ..............................................................................................................................15 VIII. Replacement and Functional Values ....................................................................................................................16 IX. Potential Pest Impacts ............................................................................................................................................17 Appendix I. i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements .............................................................................................19 Appendix II. Relative Tree Effects ...............................................................................................................................23 Appendix III. Comparison of Urban Forests ................................................................................................................24 Appendix IV. General Recommendations for Air Quality Improvement ....................................................................25 Appendix V. Invasive Species of the Urban Forest .....................................................................................................26 Appendix VI. Potential Risk of Pests ............................................................................................................................27 References ...................................................................................................................................................................33 50 of 181

I. Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest
The urban forest of Guadalupe Inventory has 738 trees with a tree cover of Coastal live oak. The three most common species are Coastal live oak (14.5 percent), Monterey cypress (9.6 percent), and Queen palm (7.3 percent). 51 of 181

Urban forests are composed of a mix of native and exotic tree species. Thus, urban forests often have a tree diversity that is higher than surrounding native landscapes. Increased tree diversity can minimize the overall impact or destruction by a species-specific insect or disease, but it can also pose a risk to native plants if some of the exotic species are invasive plants that can potentially out-compete and displace native species. In Guadalupe Inventory, about 38 percent of the trees are species native to North America, while 31 percent are native to California. Species exotic to North America make up 62 percent of the population. Most exotic tree species have an origin from Oceania (16 percent of the species).
52 of 181

The plus sign (+) indicates the tree species is native to another continent other than the ones listed in the grouping.

Invasive plant species are often characterized by their vigor, ability to adapt, reproductive capacity, and general lack of natural enemies. These abilities enable them to displace native plants and make them a threat to natural areas.

Three of the 77 tree species in Guadalupe Inventory are identified as invasive on the state invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010). These invasive species comprise 7.7 percent of the tree population though they may only cause a minimal level of impact. These three invasive species are Punk tree (6.2 percent of population), California peppertree (0.8 percent), and Brazilian peppertree (0.7 percent) (see Appendix V for a complete list of invasive species).
53 of 181

II. Urban Forest Cover and Leaf Area
Many tree benefits equate directly to the amount of healthy leaf surface area of the plant. Trees cover about 5.865 acres of Guadalupe Inventory and provide 24.18 acres of leaf area.

In Guadalupe Inventory, the most dominant species in terms of leaf area are Monterey cypress, Outeniqua yellowwood, and Coastal live oak. The 10 species with the greatest importance values are listed in Table 1.

Importance values (IV) are calculated as the sum of percent population and percent leaf area. High importance values do not mean that these trees should necessarily be encouraged in the future; rather these species currently dominate the urban forest structure.

Table 1. Most important species in Guadalupe Inventory
Species Name
Percent
Population
Percent
Leaf Area IV
Monterey cypress 9.6 24.4 34.0
Coastal live oak 14.5 7.1 21.6
Outeniqua yellowwood 6.2 8.9 15.1
Queen palm 7.3 2.5 9.8
Carrotwood 2.2 5.2 7.4
Punk tree 6.2 0.5 6.7
California sycamore 4.6 2.0 6.6
Southern magnolia 2.8 3.2 6.1
Vinegartree 5.7 0.3 6.0
Mexican fan palm 3.1 2.9 6.0
54 of 181

Common ground cover classes (including cover types beneath trees and shrubs) in Guadalupe Inventory are not available since they are configured not to be collected. 55 of 181

III. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees
Poor air quality is a common problem in many urban areas. It can lead to decreased human health, damage to landscape materials and ecosystem processes, and reduced visibility. The urban forest can help improve air quality by reducing air temperature, directly removing pollutants from the air, and reducing energy consumption in buildings, which consequently reduces air pollutant emissions from the power sources. Trees also emit volatile organic compounds that can contribute to ozone formation. However, integrative studies have revealed that an increase in tree cover leads to reduced ozone formation (Nowak and Dwyer 2000).

Pollution removal1 by trees in Guadalupe Inventory was estimated using field data and recent available pollution and weather data available. Pollution removal was greatest for ozone (Figure 7). It is estimated that trees remove 437.7 pounds of air pollution (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns (PM10*)2, and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) per year with an associated value of $397 (see Appendix I for more details). 1 PM10* is particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. If PM2.5 is not monitored, PM10* represents particulate matter less than 10 microns. PM2.5 is generally more relevant in discussions concerning air pollution effects on human health. 2 Trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* when particulate matter is deposited on leaf surfaces. This deposited PM2.5 and PM10* can be resuspended to the atmosphere or removed during rain events and dissolved or transferred to the soil. This combination of events can lead to positive or negative pollution removal and value depending on various atmospheric factors (see Appendix I for more details). 56 of 181

In 2025, trees in Guadalupe Inventory emitted an estimated 256.7 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (114.6 pounds of isoprene and 142.1 pounds of monoterpenes). Emissions vary among species based on species characteristics (e.g. some genera such as oaks are high isoprene emitters) and amount of leaf biomass. Forty- five percent of the urban forest's VOC emissions were from Coastal live oak and Monterey cypress. These VOCs are precursor chemicals to ozone formation.³
General recommendations for improving air quality with trees are given in Appendix VIII. ³ Some economic studies have estimated VOC emission costs. These costs are not included here as there is a tendency to add positive dollar estimates of ozone removal effects with negative dollar values of VOC emission effects to determine whether tree effects are positive or negative in relation to ozone. This combining of dollar values to determine tree effects should not be done, rather estimates of VOC effects on ozone formation (e.g., via photochemical models) should be conducted and directly contrasted with ozone removal by trees (i.e., ozone effects should be directly compared, not dollar estimates). In addition, air temperature reductions by trees have been shown to significantly reduce ozone concentrations (Cardelino and Chameides 1990; Nowak et al 2000), but are not considered in this analysis. Photochemical modeling that integrates tree effects on air temperature, pollution removal, VOC emissions, and emissions from power plants can be used to determine the overall effect of trees on ozone concentrations. 57 of 181

IV. Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Climate change is an issue of global concern. Urban trees can help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon (from carbon dioxide) in tissue and by altering energy use in buildings, and consequently altering carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel based power sources (Abdollahi et al 2000).

Trees reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in new growth every year. The amount of carbon annually sequestered is increased with the size and health of the trees. The gross sequestration of Guadalupe Inventory trees is about 4.643 tons of carbon per year with an associated value of $2.01 thousand. See Appendix I for more details on methods.

Carbon storage is another way trees can influence global climate change. As a tree grows, it stores more carbon by holding it in its accumulated tissue. As a tree dies and decays, it releases much of the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Thus, carbon storage is an indication of the amount of carbon that can be released if trees are allowed to die and decompose. Maintaining healthy trees will keep the carbon stored in trees, but tree maintenance can contribute to carbon emissions (Nowak et al 2002c). When a tree dies, using the wood in long-term wood products, to heat buildings, or to produce energy will help reduce carbon emissions from wood decomposition or from fossilfuel or wood-based power plants. 58 of 181

Trees in Guadalupe Inventory are estimated to store 220 tons of carbon ($95.1 thousand). Of the species sampled, Monterey cypress stores the most carbon (approximately 35.3% of the total carbon stored) and Outeniqua yellowwood sequesters the most (approximately 11.4% of all sequestered carbon.) 59 of 181

V. Oxygen Production
Oxygen production is one of the most commonly cited benefits of urban trees. The annual oxygen production of a tree is directly related to the amount of carbon sequestered by the tree, which is tied to the accumulation of tree biomass.

Trees in Guadalupe Inventory are estimated to produce 12.38 tons of oxygen per year.⁴ However, this tree benefit is relatively insignificant because of the large and relatively stable amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and extensive production by aquatic systems. Our atmosphere has an enormous reserve of oxygen. If all fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent (Broecker 1970).

Table 2. The top 20 oxygen production species.

Species Oxygen
Gross Carbon
Sequestration Number of Trees Leaf Area
(pound) (pound/yr) (acre)
Outeniqua yellowwood 2,834.70 1,063.01 46 2.15
Coastal live oak 2,195.30 823.24 107 1.72
Carrotwood 1,482.97 556.11 16 1.26
Italian stone pine 1,410.12 528.80 8 1.08
Red gum eucalyptus 1,283.21 481.20 2 0.88
Monterey cypress 1,215.06 455.65 71 5.90
Southern magnolia 956.54 358.70 21 0.78
Sweetgum 785.53 294.57 8 0.89
Punk tree 784.61 294.23 46 0.12
Callery pear 686.93 257.60 14 0.30
Vinegartree 586.20 219.82 42 0.08
Mugga ironbark 563.88 211.45 1 0.26
Narrow-leafed ash 547.30 205.24 7 0.67
Goldenrain tree 527.93 197.97 17 0.48
African sumac 438.76 164.54 14 0.08
Canary island pine 403.04 151.14 10 0.41
Monterey pine 396.60 148.72 2 0.25
Mexican fan palm 373.23 139.96 23 0.69
White alder 373.15 139.93 11 0.29
Cherry plum 358.45 134.42 11 0.12
60 of 181

VI. Avoided Runoff
Surface runoff can be a cause for concern in many urban areas as it can contribute pollution to streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans. During precipitation events, some portion of the precipitation is intercepted by vegetation (trees and shrubs) while the other portion reaches the ground. The portion of the precipitation that reaches the ground and does not infiltrate into the soil becomes surface runoff (Hirabayashi 2012). In urban areas, the large extent of impervious surfaces increases the amount of surface runoff.

Urban trees and shrubs, however, are beneficial in reducing surface runoff. Trees and shrubs intercept precipitation, while their root systems promote infiltration and storage in the soil. The trees and shrubs of Guadalupe Inventory help to reduce runoff by an estimated 45.1 thousand gallons a year with an associated value of $400 (see Appendix I for more details). Avoided runoff is estimated based on local weather from the user-designated weather station. In Guadalupe Inventory, the total annual precipitation in 2023 was 17.5 inches. 61 of 181

VII. Trees and Building Energy Use
Trees affect energy consumption by shading buildings, providing evaporative cooling, and blocking winter winds.

Trees tend to reduce building energy consumption in the summer months and can either increase or decrease building energy use in the winter months, depending on the location of trees around the building. Estimates of tree effects on energy use are based on field measurements of tree distance and direction to space conditioned residential buildings (McPherson and Simpson 1999).

Because energy-related data were not collected, energy savings and carbon avoided cannot be calculated. ⁵ Trees modify climate, produce shade, and reduce wind speeds. Increased energy use or costs are likely due to these tree-building interactions creating a cooling effect during the winter season. For example, a tree (particularly evergreen species) located on the southern side of a residential building may produce a shading effect that causes increases in heating requirements.

Table 3. Annual energy savings due to trees near residential buildings, Guadalupe Inventory Heating Cooling Total
MBTUa 0 N/A 0
MWHb 0 0 0
Carbon Avoided (pounds) 0 0 0
aMBTU - one million British Thermal Units
bMWH - megawatt-hour
Table 4. Annual savings a($) in residential energy expenditure during heating and cooling seasons, Guadalupe Inventory
Heating Cooling Total
MBTUb 0 N/A 0
MWHc 0 0 0
Carbon Avoided 0 0 0
b
Based on the prices of $204.7 per MWH and $12.9396400362223 per MBTU (see Appendix I for more details) cMBTU - one million British Thermal Units
cMWH - megawatt-hour
62 of 181

VIII. Replacement and Functional Values
Urban forests have a replacement value based on the trees themselves (e.g., the cost of having to replace a tree with a similar tree); they also have functional values (either positive or negative) based on the functions the trees perform.

The replacement value of an urban forest tends to increase with a rise in the number and size of healthy trees (Nowak et al 2002a). Annual functional values also tend to increase with increased number and size of healthy trees.

Through proper management, urban forest values can be increased; however, the values and benefits also can decrease as the amount of healthy tree cover declines.

Urban trees in Guadalupe Inventory have the following replacement values:
• Replacement value: $1.98 million
• Carbon storage: $95.1 thousand
Urban trees in Guadalupe Inventory have the following annual functional values:
• Carbon sequestration: $2.01 thousand
• Avoided runoff: $403
• Pollution removal: $397
• Energy costs and carbon emission values: $0
(Note: negative value indicates increased energy cost and carbon emission value) 63 of 181

IX. Potential Pest Impacts
Various insects and diseases can infest urban forests, potentially killing trees and reducing the health, replacement value and sustainability of the urban forest. As pests tend to have differing tree hosts, the potential damage or risk of each pest will differ among cities.Fifty-three pests were analyzed for their potential impact and compared with pest range maps (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014) for the conterminous United States to determine their proximity to Santa Barbara County. Eight of the fifty-three pests analyzed are located within the county. For a complete analysis of all pests, see Appendix VII.

One common pest of white fir, grand fir, and red fir trees is the fir engraver (FE) (Ferrell 1986). FE poses a threat to

0.0 percent of the Guadalupe Inventory urban forest, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.

Heterobasidion Root Disease (HRD) poses a threat to 0.0 percent of the Guadalupe Inventory urban forest, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.

The Jeffrey pine beetle (JPB) (Smith et al 2009) is native to North America and is distributed across California, Nevada, and Oregon where its only host, Jeffrey pine, also occurs. This pest threatens 0.0 percent of the population, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.

Mountain pine beetle (MPB) (Gibson et al 2009) is a bark beetle that primarily attacks pine species in the western United States. MPB has the potential to affect 0.0 percent of the population ($0 in replacement value).

Polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB) (University of California 2014) is a boring beetle that was first detected in California. Guadalupe Inventory could possibly lose 50.1 percent of its trees to this pest ($753 thousand in replacement value).
64 of 181

Thousand canker disease (TCD) (Cranshaw and Tisserat 2009; Seybold et al 2010) is an insect-disease complex that kills several species of walnuts, including black walnut. Potential loss of trees from TCD is 0.0 percent ($0 in replacement value).

Western Five-Needle Pine Mortality (WFNPM) poses a threat to 0.0 percent of the Guadalupe Inventory urban forest, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.

The western pine beetle (WPB) (DeMars and Roettgering 1982) is a bark beetle and aggressive attacker of ponderosa and Coulter pines. This pest threatens 0.0 percent of the population, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.
65 of 181

Appendix I. i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements
i-Tree Eco is designed to use standardized field data and local hourly air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure and its numerous effects (Nowak and Crane 2000), including:
• Urban forest structure (e.g., species composition, tree health, leaf area, etc.). • Amount of pollution removed hourly by the urban forest, and its associated percent air quality improvement throughout a year.
• Total carbon stored and net carbon annually sequestered by the urban forest. • Effects of trees on building energy use and consequent effects on carbon dioxide emissions from power sources.
• Replacement value of the forest, as well as the value for air pollution removal and carbon storage and sequestration.
• Potential impact of infestations by pests, such as Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, and Dutch elm disease.

Typically, all field data are collected during the leaf-on season to properly assess tree canopies. Typical data collection (actual data collection may vary depending upon the user) includes land use, ground and tree cover, individual tree attributes of species, stem diameter, height, crown width, crown canopy missing and dieback, and distance and direction to residential buildings (Nowak et al 2005; Nowak et al 2008).

During data collection, trees are identified to the most specific taxonomic classification possible. Trees that are not classified to the species level may be classified by genus (e.g., ash) or species groups (e.g., hardwood). In this report, tree species, genera, or species groups are collectively referred to as tree species.

Tree Characteristics:

Leaf area of trees was assessed using measurements of crown dimensions and percentage of crown canopy missing.

In the event that these data variables were not collected, they are estimated by the model.

An analysis of invasive species is not available for studies outside of the United States. For the U.S., invasive species are identified using an invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010)for the state in which the urban forest is located. These lists are not exhaustive and they cover invasive species of varying degrees of invasiveness and distribution. In instances where a state did not have an invasive species list, a list was created based on the lists of the adjacent states. Tree species that are identified as invasive by the state invasive species list are cross-referenced with native range data. This helps eliminate species that are on the state invasive species list, but are native to the study area.

Air Pollution Removal:

Pollution removal is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, and particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 is generally more relevant in discussions concerning air pollution effects on human health.

Air pollution removal estimates are derived from calculated hourly tree-canopy resistances for ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides based on a hybrid of big-leaf and multi-layer canopy deposition models (Baldocchi 1988; Baldocchi et al 1987). As the removal of carbon monoxide and particulate matter by vegetation is not directly related to transpiration, removal rates (deposition velocities) for these pollutants were based on average measured values from the literature (Bidwell and Fraser 1972; Lovett 1994) that were adjusted depending on leaf phenology and leaf area.

Particulate removal incorporated a 50 percent resuspension rate of particles back to the atmosphere (Zinke 1967).

Recent updates (2011) to air quality modeling are based on improved leaf area index simulations, weather and 66 of 181

pollution processing and interpolation, and updated pollutant monetary values (Hirabayashi et al 2011; Hirabayashi et al 2012; Hirabayashi 2011).

Trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* when particulate matter is deposited on leaf surfaces (Nowak et al 2013). This deposited PM2.5 and PM10* can be resuspended to the atmosphere or removed during rain events and dissolved or transferred to the soil. This combination of events can lead to positive or negative pollution removal and value depending on various atmospheric factors. Generally, PM2.5 and PM10* removal is positive with positive benefits.

However, there are some cases when net removal is negative or resuspended particles lead to increased pollution concentrations and negative values. During some months (e.g., with no rain), trees resuspend more particles than they remove. Resuspension can also lead to increased overall PM2.5 and PM10* concentrations if the boundary layer conditions are lower during net resuspension periods than during net removal periods. Since the pollution removal value is based on the change in pollution concentration, it is possible to have situations when trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* but increase concentrations and thus have negative values during periods of positive overall removal.

These events are not common, but can happen.

For reports in the United States, default air pollution removal value is calculated based on local incidence of adverse health effects and national median externality costs. The number of adverse health effects and associated economic value is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) (Nowak et al 2014). The model uses a damage-function approach that is based on the local change in pollution concentration and population. National median externality costs were used to calculate the value of carbon monoxide removal (Murray et al 1994).

For international reports, user-defined local pollution values are used. For international reports that do not have local values, estimates are based on either European median externality values (van Essen et al 2011) or BenMAP regression equations (Nowak et al 2014) that incorporate user-defined population estimates. Values are then converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates.

For this analysis, pollution removal value is calculated based on the prices of $1,622 per ton (carbon monoxide), $200 per ton (ozone), $28 per ton (nitrogen dioxide), $7 per ton (sulfur dioxide), $-6,697 per ton (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns), $7,623 per ton (particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns).

Carbon Storage and Sequestration:

Carbon storage is the amount of carbon bound up in the above-ground and below-ground parts of woody vegetation.

To calculate current carbon storage, biomass for each tree was calculated using equations from the literature and measured tree data. Open-grown, maintained trees tend to have less biomass than predicted by forest-derived biomass equations (Nowak 1994). To adjust for this difference, biomass results for open-grown urban trees were multiplied by 0.8. No adjustment was made for trees found in natural stand conditions. Tree dry-weight biomass was converted to stored carbon by multiplying by 0.5.

Carbon sequestration is the removal of carbon dioxide from the air by plants. To estimate the gross amount of carbon sequestered annually, average diameter growth from the appropriate genera and diameter class and tree condition was added to the existing tree diameter (year x) to estimate tree diameter and carbon storage in year x+1.

Carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are based on estimated or customized local carbon values. For international reports that do not have local values, estimates are based on the carbon value for the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2015) and converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates.

For this analysis, carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are calculated based on $433 per ton. 67 of 181

Oxygen Production:

The amount of oxygen produced is estimated from carbon sequestration based on atomic weights: net O2 release (kg/yr) = net C sequestration (kg/yr) × 32/12. To estimate the net carbon sequestration rate, the amount of carbon sequestered as a result of tree growth is reduced by the amount lost resulting from tree mortality. Thus, net carbon sequestration and net annual oxygen production of the urban forest account for decomposition (Nowak et al 2007).

For complete inventory projects, oxygen production is estimated from gross carbon sequestration and does not account for decomposition.

Avoided Runoff:

Annual avoided surface runoff is calculated based on rainfall interception by vegetation, specifically the difference between annual runoff with and without vegetation. Although tree leaves, branches, and bark may intercept precipitation and thus mitigate surface runoff, only the precipitation intercepted by leaves is accounted for in this analysis.

The value of avoided runoff is based on estimated or user-defined local values. For international reports that do not have local values, the national average value for the United States is utilized and converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates. The U.S. value of avoided runoff is based on the U.S. Forest Service's Community Tree Guide Series (McPherson et al 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2007; 2010; Peper et al 2009; 2010; Vargas et al 2007a; 2007b; 2008).

For this analysis, avoided runoff value is calculated based on the price of $0.01 per gallon.

Building Energy Use:

If appropriate field data were collected, seasonal effects of trees on residential building energy use were calculated based on procedures described in the literature (McPherson and Simpson 1999) using distance and direction of trees from residential structures, tree height and tree condition data. To calculate the monetary value of energy savings, local or custom prices per MWH or MBTU are utilized.

For this analysis, energy saving value is calculated based on the prices of $204.70 per MWH and $12.94 per MBTU.

Replacement Values:

Replacement value is the value of a tree based on the physical resource itself (e.g., the cost of having to replace a tree with a similar tree). Replacement values were based on valuation procedures of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, which uses tree species, diameter, condition, and location information (Nowak et al 2002a; 2002b). Replacement value may not be included for international projects if there is insufficient local data to complete the valuation procedures.

Potential Pest Impacts:

The complete potential pest risk analysis is not available for studies outside of the United States. The number of trees at risk to the pests analyzed is reported, though the list of pests is based on known insects and disease in the United States.

For the U.S., potential pest risk is based on pest range maps and the known pest host species that are likely to experience mortality. Pest range maps for 2012 from the Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014) were used to determine the proximity of each pest to the county in which 68 of 181

the urban forest is located. For the county, it was established whether the insect/disease occurs within the county, is within 250 miles of the county edge, is between 250 and 750 miles away, or is greater than 750 miles away. FHTET did not have pest range maps for Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight. The range of these pests was based on known occurrence and the host range, respectively (Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center; Worrall 2007).

Relative Tree Effects:

The relative value of tree benefits reported in Appendix II is calculated to show what carbon storage and sequestration, and air pollutant removal equate to in amounts of municipal carbon emissions, passenger automobile emissions, and house emissions.

Municipal carbon emissions are based on 2010 U.S. per capita carbon emissions (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center 2010). Per capita emissions were multiplied by city population to estimate total city carbon emissions.

Light duty vehicle emission rates (g/mi) for CO, NOx, VOCs, PM10, SO2 for 2010 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2010; Heirigs et al 2004), PM2.5 for 2011-2015 (California Air Resources Board 2013), and CO2 for 2011 (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency 2010) were multiplied by average miles driven per vehicle in 2011 (Federal Highway Administration 2013) to determine average emissions per vehicle.

Household emissions are based on average electricity kWh usage, natural gas Btu usage, fuel oil Btu usage, kerosene Btu usage, LPG Btu usage, and wood Btu usage per household in 2009 (Energy Information Administration 2013; Energy Information Administration 2014)
• CO2, SO2, and NOx power plant emission per KWh are from Leonardo Academy 2011. CO emission per kWh assumes 1/3 of one percent of C emissions is CO based on Energy Information Administration 1994. PM10 emission per kWh from Layton 2004.
• CO2, NOx, SO2, and CO emission per Btu for natural gas, propane and butane (average used to represent LPG), Fuel #4 and #6 (average used to represent fuel oil and kerosene) from Leonardo Academy 2011. • CO2 emissions per Btu of wood from Energy Information Administration 2014. • CO, NOx and SOx emission per Btu based on total emissions and wood burning (tons) from (British Columbia Ministry 2005; Georgia Forestry Commission 2009).
69 of 181

Appendix II. Relative Tree Effects
The urban forest in Guadalupe Inventory provides benefits that include carbon storage and sequestration, and air pollutant removal. To estimate the relative value of these benefits, tree benefits were compared to estimates of average municipal carbon emissions, average passenger automobile emissions, and average household emissions.

See Appendix I for methodology.

Carbon storage is equivalent to:
• Amount of carbon emitted in Guadalupe Inventory in 2 days • Annual carbon (C) emissions from 156 automobiles
• Annual C emissions from 64 single-family houses
Carbon monoxide removal is equivalent to:
• Annual carbon monoxide emissions from 0 automobiles
• Annual carbon monoxide emissions from 0 single-family houses Nitrogen dioxide removal is equivalent to:
• Annual nitrogen dioxide emissions from 1 automobiles
• Annual nitrogen dioxide emissions from 0 single-family houses Sulfur dioxide removal is equivalent to:
• Annual sulfur dioxide emissions from 25 automobiles
• Annual sulfur dioxide emissions from 0 single-family houses Annual carbon sequestration is equivalent to:
• Amount of carbon emitted in Guadalupe Inventory in 0.0 days • Annual C emissions from 0 automobiles
• Annual C emissions from 0 single-family houses
70 of 181

Appendix III. Comparison of Urban Forests
A common question asked is, "How does this city compare to other cities?" Although comparison among cities should be made with caution as there are many attributes of a city that affect urban forest structure and functions, summary data are provided from other cities analyzed using the i-Tree Eco model.

I. City totals for trees
City % Tree Cover Number of Trees Carbon Storage Carbon Sequestration Pollution Removal (tons) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)
Toronto, ON, Canada 26.6 10,220,000 1,221,000 51,500 2,099 Atlanta, GA 36.7 9,415,000 1,344,000 46,400 1,663
Los Angeles, CA 11.1 5,993,000 1,269,000 77,000 1,975
New York, NY 20.9 5,212,000 1,350,000 42,300 1,676
London, ON, Canada 24.7 4,376,000 396,000 13,700 408
Chicago, IL 17.2 3,585,000 716,000 25,200 888
Phoenix, AZ 9.0 3,166,000 315,000 32,800 563
Baltimore, MD 21.0 2,479,000 570,000 18,400 430
Philadelphia, PA 15.7 2,113,000 530,000 16,100 575
Washington, DC 28.6 1,928,000 525,000 16,200 418
Oakville, ON , Canada 29.1 1,908,000 147,000 6,600 190
Albuquerque, NM 14.3 1,846,000 332,000 10,600 248
Boston, MA 22.3 1,183,000 319,000 10,500 283
Syracuse, NY 26.9 1,088,000 183,000 5,900 109
Woodbridge, NJ 29.5 986,000 160,000 5,600 210
Minneapolis, MN 26.4 979,000 250,000 8,900 305
San Francisco, CA 11.9 668,000 194,000 5,100 141
Morgantown, WV 35.5 658,000 93,000 2,900 72
Moorestown, NJ 28.0 583,000 117,000 3,800 118
Hartford, CT 25.9 568,000 143,000 4,300 58
Jersey City, NJ 11.5 136,000 21,000 890 41
Casper, WY 8.9 123,000 37,000 1,200 37
Freehold, NJ 34.4 48,000 20,000 540 22
II. Totals per acre of land area
City Number of Trees/ac Carbon Storage Carbon Sequestration Pollution Removal (tons/ac) (tons/ac/yr) (lb/ac/yr)
Toronto, ON, Canada 64.9 7.8 0.33 26.7
Atlanta, GA 111.6 15.9 0.55 39.4
Los Angeles, CA 19.6 4.2 0.16 13.1
New York, NY 26.4 6.8 0.21 17.0
London, ON, Canada 75.1 6.8 0.24 14.0
Chicago, IL 24.2 4.8 0.17 12.0
Phoenix, AZ 12.9 1.3 0.13 4.6
Baltimore, MD 48.0 11.1 0.36 16.6
Philadelphia, PA 25.1 6.3 0.19 13.6
Washington, DC 49.0 13.3 0.41 21.2
Oakville, ON , Canada 78.1 6.0 0.27 11.0
Albuquerque, NM 21.8 3.9 0.12 5.9
Boston, MA 33.5 9.1 0.30 16.1
Syracuse, NY 67.7 10.3 0.34 13.6
Woodbridge, NJ 66.5 10.8 0.38 28.4
Minneapolis, MN 26.2 6.7 0.24 16.3
San Francisco, CA 22.5 6.6 0.17 9.5
Morgantown, WV 119.2 16.8 0.52 26.0
Moorestown, NJ 62.1 12.4 0.40 25.1
Hartford, CT 50.4 12.7 0.38 10.2
Jersey City, NJ 14.4 2.2 0.09 8.6
Casper, WY 9.1 2.8 0.09 5.5
Freehold, NJ 38.3 16.0 0.44 35.3
71 of 181

Appendix IV. General Recommendations for Air Quality Improvement Urban vegetation can directly and indirectly affect local and regional air quality by altering the urban atmosphere environment. Four main ways that urban trees affect air quality are (Nowak 1995):
• Temperature reduction and other microclimate effects
• Removal of air pollutants
• Emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and tree maintenance emissions • Energy effects on buildings
The cumulative and interactive effects of trees on climate, pollution removal, and VOC and power plant emissions determine the impact of trees on air pollution. Cumulative studies involving urban tree impacts on ozone have revealed that increased urban canopy cover, particularly with low VOC emitting species, leads to reduced ozone concentrations in cities (Nowak 2000). Local urban management decisions also can help improve air quality.

Urban forest management strategies to help improve air quality include (Nowak 2000):

Strategy Result
Increase the number of healthy trees Increase pollution removal Sustain existing tree cover Maintain pollution removal levels Maximize use of low VOC-emitting trees Reduces ozone and carbon monoxide formation Sustain large, healthy trees Large trees have greatest per-tree effects Use long-lived trees Reduce long-term pollutant emissions from planting and removal
Use low maintenance trees Reduce pollutants emissions from maintenance activities
Reduce fossil fuel use in maintaining vegetation Reduce pollutant emissions Plant trees in energy conserving locations Reduce pollutant emissions from power plants Plant trees to shade parked cars Reduce vehicular VOC emissions Supply ample water to vegetation Enhance pollution removal and temperature reduction
Plant trees in polluted or heavily populated areas Maximizes tree air quality benefits Avoid pollutant-sensitive species Improve tree health
Utilize evergreen trees for particulate matter Year-round removal of particles 72 of 181

Appendix V. Invasive Species of the Urban Forest
The following inventoried tree species were listed as invasive on the California invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010):

Species Namea Number of Trees % of Trees Leaf Area Percent Leaf Area (ac)
Punk tree 46 6.2 0.1 0.5
California peppertree 6 0.8 0.5 2.2
Brazilian peppertree 5 0.7 0.3 1.2
Total 57 7.72 0.93 3.87
a
Species are determined to be invasive if they are listed on the state's invasive species list 73 of 181

Appendix VI. Potential Risk of Pests
Fifty-three insects and diseases were analyzed to quantify their potential impact on the urban forest. As each insect/ disease is likely to attack different host tree species, the implications for {0} will vary. The number of trees at risk reflects only the known host species that are likely to experience mortality.

Code Scientific Name Common Name Trees at Risk Value
(#) ($ thousands)
AL Phyllocnistis populiella Aspen Leafminer 0 0.00
ALB Anoplophora glabripennis Asian Longhorned Beetle 4 8.24 ARCA Neodothiora populina Aspen Running Canker 0 0.00
ARD Armillaria spp. Armillaria Root Disease 0 0.00
BBD Neonectria faginata Beech Bark Disease 0 0.00
BC Sirococcus clavigignenti
juglandacearum
Butternut Canker 0 0.00
BLD Litylenchus crenatae mccannii Beech Leaf Disease 0 0.00 BM Euproctis chrysorrhoea Browntail Moth 0 0.00
BOB Tubakia iowensis Bur Oak Blight 0 0.00
BSRD Leptographium wageneri Black Stain Root Disease 0 0.00 BWA Adelges piceae Balsam Woolly Adelgid 0 0.00
CB Cryphonectria parasitica Chestnut Blight 0 0.00
DA Discula destructiva Dogwood Anthracnose 0 0.00
DBSR Leptographium wageneri var.
pseudotsugae
Douglas-fir Black Stain Root
Disease
0 0.00
DED Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Dutch Elm Disease 0 0.00
DFB Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Douglas-Fir Beetle 0 0.00 EAB Agrilus planipennis Emerald Ash Borer 9 37.28
FE Scolytus ventralis Fir Engraver 0 0.00
FR Cronartium quercuum f. sp.

Fusiforme
Fusiform Rust 0 0.00
FTC Malacosoma disstria Forest Tent Caterpillar 0 0.00
GSOB Agrilus auroguttatus Goldspotted Oak Borer 107 139.97 HRD Heterobasidion irregulare/
occidentale
Heterobasidion Root Disease 0 0.00
HS Neodiprion tsugae Hemlock Sawfly 0 0.00
HWA Adelges tsugae Hemlock Woolly Adelgid 0 0.00
JPB Dendroctonus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine Beetle 0 0.00
JPBW Choristoneura pinus Jack Pine Budworm 0 0.00
LAT Choristoneura conflictana Large Aspen Tortrix 11 16.74 LWD Raffaelea lauricola Laurel Wilt 5 4.80
MOB Xyleborus monographus Mediterranean Oak Borer 1 1.34 MPB Dendroctonus ponderosae Mountain Pine Beetle 0 0.00 NSE Ips perturbatus Northern Spruce Engraver 0 0.00
OW Bretziella fagacearum Oak Wilt 107 139.97
PBSR Leptographium wageneri var.
ponderosum
Pine Black Stain Root Disease 0 0.00
POCRD Phytophthora lateralis Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease 2 3.16 PSB Tomicus piniperda Pine Shoot Beetle 20 200.23
74 of 181

PSHB Euwallacea nov. sp. Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer 370 752.96 RPS Matsucoccus resinosae Red Pine Scale 0 0.00
SB Dendroctonus rufipennis Spruce Beetle 0 0.00
SBW Choristoneura fumiferana Spruce Budworm 0 0.00
SFM subalpine fir mortality summary Subalpine Fir Mortality 0 0.00 SLF Lycorma delicatula Spotted Lanternfly 15 16.81
SOD Phytophthora ramorum Sudden Oak Death 156 170.11
SPB Dendroctonus frontalis Southern Pine Beetle 20 200.23 SW Sirex noctilio Sirex Wood Wasp 20 200.23
TCD Geosmithia morbida Thousand Canker Disease 0 0.00
WBB Dryocoetes confusus Western Balsam Bark Beetle 0 0.00 WBBU Acleris gloverana Western Blackheaded Budworm 0 0.00 WFNPM western five-needle pine
mortality summary
Western Five-Needle Pine
Mortality
0 0.00
WM Operophtera brumata Winter Moth 118 152.63
WPB Dendroctonus brevicomis Western Pine Beetle 0 0.00
WPBR Cronartium ribicola White Pine Blister Rust 0 0.00 WSB Choristoneura occidentalis Western Spruce Budworm 0 0.00 Code Scientific Name Common Name Trees at Risk Value
(#) ($ thousands)
75 of 181

In the following graph, the pests are color coded according to the county's proximity to the pest occurrence in the United States. Red indicates that the pest is within the county; orange indicates that the pest is within 250 miles of the county; yellow indicates that the pest is within 750 miles of the county; and green indicates that the pest is outside of these ranges.

Note: points - Number of trees, bars - Replacement value 76 of 181

Based on the host tree species for each pest and the current range of the pest (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014), it is possible to determine what the risk is that each tree species in the urban forest could be attacked by an insect or disease. Spp. Risk Risk Weight Species Name AL
ALB
ARCA
ARD
BBD
BC
BLD
BM
BOB
BSRD
BWA
CB
DA
DBSR
DED
DFB
EAB
FE
FR
FTC
GSOB
HRD
HS
HWA
JPB
JPBW
LAT
LWD
MOB
MPB
NSE
OW
PBSR
12 Coastal live oak
9 Bigleaf maple
8 Camphor tree
7 White alder
6 Peach
6 Persian silk tree
5 Shamel ash
5 Chinaberry
5 Avocado
5 Sweet cherry
5 Chinese elm
4 Outeniqua
yellowwood
4 California sycamore
4 Mexican fan palm
4 Southern magnolia
4 Chinese pistache
4 Goldenrain tree
4 Carrotwood
4 Callery pear
4 Canary island pine
4 Sweetgum
4 Italian stone pine
4 Loquat tree
4 Chinese flame tree
4 California peppertree
4 Blackwood
4 Brazilian peppertree
4 Mioporo
4 King palm
4 Red gum eucalyptus
4 Blue jacaranda
4 Monterey pine
4 Victorian box
3 Vinegartree
3 Coast redwood
2 Black cherry
2 Port orford cedar
1 Narrow-leafed ash
1 Bay Tree spp
1 Glossy privet
77 of 181

1 Apricot
1 Common plum
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
SpeciesName
AL
ALB
ARCA
ARD
BBD
BC
BLD
BM
BOB
BSRD
BWA
CB
DA
DBSR
DED
DFBEAB
FE
FR
FTC
GSOB
HRD
HS
HWA
JPB
JPBW
LAT
LWD
MOB
MPB
NSE
OW
PBSR
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
SpeciesName
POCRD
PSB
PSHB
RPS
SB
SBW
SFM
SLF
SOD
SPB
SW
TCD
WBB
WBBU
WFNPM
WM
WPB
WPBR
WSB
12 Coastal live oak
9 Bigleaf maple
8 Camphor tree
7 White alder
6 Peach
6 Persian silk tree
5 Shamel ash
5 Chinaberry
5 Avocado
5 Sweet cherry
5 Chinese elm
4 Outeniqua
yellowwood
4 California sycamore
4 Mexican fan palm
4 Southern magnolia
4 Chinese pistache
4 Goldenrain tree
4 Carrotwood
4 Callery pear
4 Canary island pine
4 Sweetgum
4 Italian stone pine
4 Loquat tree
4 Chinese flame tree
4 California peppertree
4 Blackwood
4 Brazilian peppertree
4 Mioporo
4 King palm
4 Red gum eucalyptus
4 Blue jacaranda
4 Monterey pine
4 Victorian box
3 Vinegartree
3 Coast redwood
2 Black cherry
2 Port orford cedar
1 Narrow-leafed ash
1 Bay Tree spp
1 Glossy privet
78 of 181

1 Apricot
1 Common plum
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
SpeciesName
POCRD
PSB
PSHB
RPS
SB
SBW
SFM
SLF
SOD
SPB
SW
TCD
WBB
WBBU
WFNPM
WM
WPB
WPBR
WSB
Note:

Species that are not listed in the matrix are not known to be hosts to any of the pests analyzed.

Species Risk:
• Red indicates that tree species is at risk to at least one pest within county • Orange indicates that tree species has no risk to pests in county, but has a risk to at least one pest within 250 miles from the county
• Yellow indicates that tree species has no risk to pests within 250 miles of county, but has a risk to at least one pest that is 250 and 750 miles from the county
• Green indicates that tree species has no risk to pests within 750 miles of county, but has a risk to at least one pest that is greater than 750 miles from the county
Risk Weight:

Numerical scoring system based on sum of points assigned to pest risks for species. Each pest that could attack tree species is scored as 4 points if red, 3 points if orange, 2 points if yellow and 1 point if green.

Pest Color Codes:
• Red indicates pest is within Santa Barbara county
• Red indicates pest is within 250 miles county
• Yellow indicates pest is within 750 miles of Santa Barbara county • Green indicates pest is outside of these ranges
79 of 181

References
Abdollahi, K.K.; Ning, Z.H.; Appeaning, A., eds. 2000. Global climate change and the urban forest. Baton Rouge, LA:

GCRCC and Franklin Press. 77 p.

Baldocchi, D. 1988. A multi-layer model for estimating sulfur dioxide deposition to a deciduous oak forest canopy.

Atmospheric Environment. 22: 869-884.

Baldocchi, D.D.; Hicks, B.B.; Camara, P. 1987. A canopy stomatal resistance model for gaseous deposition to vegetated surfaces. Atmospheric Environment. 21: 91-101.

Bidwell, R.G.S.; Fraser, D.E. 1972. Carbon monoxide uptake and metabolism by leaves. Canadian Journal of Botany. 50:
1435-1439.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection. 2005. Residential wood burning emissions in British Columbia. British Columbia.

Broecker, W.S. 1970. Man's oxygen reserve. Science 168(3939): 1537-1538.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. Estimated National Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle by Vehicle Type using Gasoline and Diesel. Washington, DC: Burea of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. Table 4-43.

California Air Resources Board. 2013. Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects. Table 3 Average Auto Emission Factors. CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board.

California Invasive Species Advisory Committee. 2010. The California Invasive Species List. CA: Invasive Species Council of California. <http://www.iscc.ca.gov/docs/CaliforniaInvasiveSpeciesList.pdf> Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 2010. CO2 Emissions (metric tons per capita). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Cardelino, C.A.; Chameides, W.L. 1990. Natural hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research. 95(D9): 13,971-13,979.

Cranshaw, W.; Tisserat, N. 2009. Walnut twig beetle and the thousand cankers disease of black walnut. Pest Alert. Ft.

Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

Seybold, S.; Haugen, D.; Graves, A. 2010. Thousand Cankers Disease. Pest Alert. NA-PR-02-10. Newtown Square, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.

DeMars, C. J., Jr.; Roettgering, B. H. 1982. Western Pine Beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 1. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. Dutch Elm Disease. http://threatsummary.forestthreats.org/ threats/threatSummaryViewer.cfm?threatID=43
80 of 181

Energy Information Administration. 1994. Energy Use and Carbon Emissions: Non-OECD Countries. Washington, DC:

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

Energy Information Administration. 2013. CE2.1 Fuel consumption totals and averages, U.S. homes. Washington, DC:

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

Energy Information Administration. 2014. CE5.2 Household wood consumption. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

Federal Highway Administration. 2013. Highway Statistics 2011.Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation. Table VM-1.

Ferrell, G. T. 1986. Fir Engraver. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 13. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 2014. 2012 National Insect & Disease Risk Maps/Data. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm2012.shtml Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. Biomass Energy Conversion for Electricity and Pellets Worksheet. Dry Branch, GA:

Georgia Forestry Commission.

Gibson, K.; Kegley, S.; Bentz, B. 2009. Mountain Pine Beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2. Washington, DC: U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 12 p.

Heirigs, P.L.; Delaney, S.S.; Dulla, R.G. 2004. Evaluation of MOBILE Models: MOBILE6.1 (PM), MOBILE6.2 (Toxics), and MOBILE6/CNG. Sacramento, CA: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.

Hirabayashi, S. 2011. Urban Forest Effects-Dry Deposition (UFORE-D) Model Enhancements, http:// www.itreetools.org/eco/resources/UFORE-D enhancements.pdf Hirabayashi, S. 2012. i-Tree Eco Precipitation Interception Model Descriptions, http://www.itreetools.org/eco/ resources/iTree_Eco_Precipitation_Interception_Model_Descriptions_V1_2.pdf Hirabayashi, S.; Kroll, C.; Nowak, D. 2011. Component-based development and sensitivity analyses of an air pollutant dry deposition model. Environmental Modeling and Software. 26(6): 804-816.

Hirabayashi, S.; Kroll, C.; Nowak, D. 2012. i-Tree Eco Dry Deposition Model Descriptions V 1.0 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 2015. Technical Support Document:

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. http:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf Layton, M. 2004. 2005 Electricity Environmental Performance Report: Electricity Generation and Air Emissions. CA:

California Energy Commission.

Leonardo Academy. 2011. Leonardo Academy's Guide to Calculating Emissions Including Emission Factors and Energy Prices. Madison, WI: Leonardo Academy Inc.

Lovett, G.M. 1994. Atmospheric deposition of nutrients and pollutants in North America: an ecological perspective.

Ecological Applications. 4: 629-650.
81 of 181

McPherson, E.G.; Maco, S.E.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; VanDerZanden, A.M.; Bell, N. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest, Silverton, OR.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. 1999. Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry: guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-171. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 237 p.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Crowell, A.M.N.; Xiao, Q. 2010. Northern California coast community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-228. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-228. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Maco, S.E.; Xiao, Q. 2006a. Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-201. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao, Q. 2007. Northeast community tree guide:
benefits, costs, and strategic planting.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Gardner, S.L.; Cozad, S.K.; Xiao, Q. 2006b. Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-199. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao, Q. 2006c. Piedmont Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR 200. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Xiao Q.; Mulrean, E. 2004. Desert Southwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Community Tree Council, Inc. 81 :81.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Scott, K.I.; Xiao, Q. 2000. Tree Guidelines for Coastal Southern California Communities. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q. 1999. Tree Guidelines for San Joaquin Valley Communities. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; Maco, S.E.; Hoefer, P.J. 2003. Northern Mountain and Prairie Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; Pittenger, D.R.; Hodel, D.R. 2001. Tree Guidelines for Inland Empire Communities. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.

Murray, F.J.; Marsh L.; Bradford, P.A. 1994. New York State Energy Plan, vol. II: issue reports. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Office.

National Invasive Species Information Center. 2011. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Invasive Species Information Center. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/main.shtml Nowak, D.J. 1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A., eds. Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen. 82 of 181

Tech. Rep. NE-186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 83-94.

Nowak, D.J. 1995. Trees pollute? A "TREE" explains it all. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forestry Conference. Washington, DC: American Forests: 28-30.

Nowak, D.J. 2000. The interactions between urban forests and global climate change. In: Abdollahi, K.K.; Ning, Z.H.; Appeaning, A., eds. Global Climate Change and the Urban Forest. Baton Rouge, LA: GCRCC and Franklin Press: 31-44.

Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Greenfield, E. 2014. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution. 193:119-129.

Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Hoehn, R. 2013. Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten U.S. cities and associated health effects. Environmental Pollution. 178: 395-402.

Nowak, D.J.; Civerolo, K.L.; Rao, S.T.; Sistla, S.; Luley, C.J.; Crane, D.E. 2000. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric Environment. 34: 1601-1613.

Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. 2000. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen, M.; Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century.

Proceedings of IUFRO conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-212. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: 714-720.

Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Dwyer, J.F. 2002a. Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(4): 194 - 199.

Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Hoehn, R.E. 2005. The urban forest effects (UFORE) model: field data collection manual. V1b. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 34 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Tools/downloads/UFORE_Manual.pdf Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Ibarra, M. 2002b. Brooklyn’s urban forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-290. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 107 p.

Nowak, D.J.; Dwyer, J.F. 2000. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser, John, ed.

Handbook of urban and community forestry in the northeast. New York, NY: Kluwer Academics/Plenum: 11-22.

Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Crane, D. 2007. Oxygen production by urban trees in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 33(3):220-226.

Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T; Bond, J. 2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 34(6): 347-358.

Nowak, D.J.; Stevens, J.C.; Sisinni, S.M.; Luley, C.J. 2002c. Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(3): 113-122.

Peper, P.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Albers, S.N.; Xiao, Q. 2010. Central Florida community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-230. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Peper, P.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao Q. 2009. Lower Midwest community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-219. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-219. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 83 of 181

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Smith, S. L.; Borys, R. R.; Shea, P. J. 2009. Jeffrey Pine Beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 11. Washington, DC: U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-10-012a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. The social cost of carbon. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
University of California. 2014. Polphagous Shot Hole Borer. Sacramento, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
van Essen, H.; Schroten, A.; Otten, M.; Sutter, D.; Schreyer, C.; Zandonella, R.; Maibach, M.; Doll, C. 2011. External Costs of Transport in Europe. Netherlands: CE Delft. 161 p.

Vargas, K.E.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Xiao, Q. 2007a. Interior West Tree Guide.

Vargas, K.E.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Xiao, Q. 2007b. Temperate Interior West Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting.

Vargas, K.E.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Xiao, Q. 2008. Tropical community tree guide:
benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-216. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-216. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Worrall, J.J. 2007. Chestnut Blight. Forest and Shade Tree Pathology. http://www.forestpathology.org/dis_chestnut.html
Zinke, P.J. 1967. Forest interception studies in the United States. In: Sopper, W.E.; Lull, H.W., eds. Forest Hydrology.

Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press: 137-161.
84 of 181
Appendix B
Guadalupe Street Trees Ordinance
Recommended Updates
85 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18 CHAPTER 12.12

STREET TREES ORDINANCE
§ 12.12.010. Title for citation (Title modified)
§ 12.12.020. Purpose (New)
§ 12.12.020. Applicability (New)
§ 12.12.020. Enforcement authority (Unchanged)
§ 12.12.022. Definitions (New)
§ 12.12.030. Public plantings—Permission required
§ 12.12.030. Tree Clearance and Public Nuisances (New, incorporated parts of 12.12.060.

Dangerous trees deemed nuisance)
§ 12.12.031. Restricted Actions (New, incorporated parts of § 12.12.030. Public plantings— Permission required.)
§ 12.12.032. Permit Application Requirements. (New)
§ 12.12.033. Exceptions. (New)
§ 12.12.034. Permit Processing and Required Findings (New) § 12.12.036. Tree Replacement Requirements (New)
§ 12.12.038. Conditions of Approval (New)
§ 12.12.040. Street tree plan (Unchanged)
§ 12.12.050. Trimming and removal conditions. (Removed due to it being duplicative) § 12.12.060. Dangerous trees deemed nuisance. (Removed, incorporated into new §12.12.030.) § 12.12.070. Appeal procedures (Unchanged)
§ 12.12.080. Public utility trimming restrictions (Unchanged) § 12.12.090. Injuring or destroying trees or plants prohibited. (Removed, parts incorporated into § 12.12.031. Restricted Actions)
§ 12.12.100. Violation—Penalty (Unchanged)
§ 12.12.010. Title for citation.

The ordinance codified in this chapter shall hereafter be referred to as the "Street Trees (and Shrubs?) Ordinance" of the City.
(Ord. 63 §1, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.020. Purpose.

The City of Guadalupe (City) upholds the Tree Ordinance in affirmation with the value and importance of maintaining the City’s urban forest. Trees within the urban forest provide numerous benefits to community health and happiness and provide valuable wildlife for habitat. The purpose of this chapter is to compliment the City’s urban forest goals and prioritize trees as a vital community asset, as well as align the City’s practices with the tree care practices outlined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
§ 12.12.020. Applicability
This ordinance is applicable within the boundaries of the City of Guadalupe. § 12.12.020. Enforcement authority.

The Director of Public Works, or duly authorized designee (Director), shall be charged with the enforcement of this chapter. The Director of Public Works, or designee may request assistance for 86 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18 enforcement from code compliance.
(Ord. 63 §2, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.022. Definitions.

City Tree shall mean any tree in a public parking strip or other City-owned property, right-ofway, or easement Dripline shall mean all of the area of ground underneath the tree to the outermost edge of any portion of the tree’s canopy.

Hazardous Conditions shall mean when a tree or shrub is currently causing or will imminently cause injury, property damage, or impediment to the work of any public safety officer..

Injure shall mean any act or omission that causes physical damage to a tree, shrub, or plant, resulting in a loss of structural integrity, vitality, or aesthetic value, as determined by a qualified arborist using industry-recognized standards such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 and International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practices. Injury includes, but is not limited to: topping, girdling, poisoning, excessive root disturbance, improper pruning, or mechanical damage to the trunk, limbs, or roots.

Nuisance Tree or Shrub shall mean any tree or shrub growing in a parking strip or any public place, or on private property, which is endangering or which in any way may endanger the security or usefulness of any public street, sewer, sidewalk, or the full and safe operation of public utility wires.

Parking strip shall mean any portion of a City easement over privately owned property adjacent to a City street, typically located between the sidewalk and the curb, and intended for landscaping, tree planting, or other public use.

Plant (noun) shall mean any living vegetation, including but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, vines, grasses, and groundcovers, whether annual, biennial, or perennial in nature.

Plant (verb) shall mean the act of placing or establishing a tree, shrub, or other vegetation into the ground or other growing medium, whether by seed, cutting, transplant, or other method, with the intent that it grows and becomes established.

Prune shall mean selective removal of specific branches, stems, or roots of a tree or shrub to improve structure, health, or aesthetics, or to mitigate hazards, performed in accordance with ANSI A300 standards and best management practices.

Public place shall mean all grounds or areas other than streets or parks that are owned by, leased to, or under the control of the City, including but not limited to plazas, medians, rights-of-way, and public facilities.

Remove shall mean the act of cutting down, uprooting, or otherwise eliminating a tree, shrub, or plant from its location, including actions that result in the death or permanent displacement of the plant.

Shrub shall mean a woody plant of relatively low height, distinguished from a tree by having 87 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18 several stems rather than a single trunk.

Street tree plan shall mean a document, map, or set of guidelines adopted by the City that identifies approved tree species, planting locations, spacing, and maintenance standards for trees located within public rights-of-way or other designated planting areas.

Tree shall mean a usually tall, woody plant, distinguished from a shrub by having a comparatively greater height and, characteristically, a single trunk rather than several stems.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall mean the area located within the dripline of the tree. In no case shall the TPZ be less than fifteen (15) feet from the trunk of a tree.

Trim shall mean the act of cutting away dead, damaged, or excessive branches or foliage from a tree or shrub to maintain its health, appearance, or to ensure public safety, typically involving minor or routine maintenance.
§ 12.12.030. Tree Clearance and Public Nuisances

1. It is the responsibility of the property owner from which the tree trunk originates to ensure the following:
a. All trees must be pruned to maintain a minimum 8-foot vertical clearance above sidewalks to ensure safe pedestrian passage.
b. All trees must be pruned to maintain a minimum 14-foot vertical clearance above streets to allow for safe vehicle movement, including emergency and service vehicles.
c. Tree trunks, roots and debris must be maintained to keep sidewalks compliant with ADA standards, which includes but is not limited to:
i. Ensuring a continuous, unobstructed path of travel
ii. Repairing uplifted or cracked pavement caused by tree roots iii. Removing vegetation or debris that impedes accessibility iv. Maintaining proper slope and cross-slope to prevent trip hazards. d. Trees must be maintained to not interfere with the full and safe operation of any public utility, including but not limited to overhead electrical utility wires.

2. Upon detecting that a tree is not in compliance with the requirements listed in this section, the Director shall issue a notice to the property owner. Failure of the property owner or his or her duly authorized agent to comply with ten (10) days shall be deemed a violation of this chapter, and subject to the penalties set forth in Section 12.12.100.

3. The City may remove or trim, or permit to do so, for any tree that is out of compliance with the requirements listed above in this section.
§ 12.12.031. Restricted Actions
§ 12.12.030. Public plantings—Permission required.

The following actions on any City tree Cshall be a violation of this chapter:No trees or shrubs shall hereafter be planted in or removed from any public parking strip or other public place in Commented [JD1]: @City, note that this means that the
city is responsible for maintaining all parkway/easement/city property trees. Property owners are responsible for
maintaining the branch clearance and the potential
infrastructure damage that comes from trees on their
property.

Does this align with desired maintenance responsibilities? Commented [KC2R1]: Clarify that if a tree is on an
easement, it is still the adjacent property owner responsibility to maintain tree
88 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18 the City without permission from the Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee. For purposes of this chapter, "parking strip" shall refer to any portion of a City easement over privately owned property adjacent to a City street.
(Ord. 63 §3, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)

1. Introduction of harmful chemicals or poisons within the dripline of any tree.

2. Introduction of pests or pathogens.

3. Removal of the bark around the circumference of the tree (girdling)

4. Any action(s) that foreseeably leads to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health or structure

5. Attaching ropes, signs, handbills or wires to a tree. § 12.12.032. Permit Application Requirements.

A permit is required to perform any of the following actions on City treesor :

1. Tree planting

2. Tree removal

3. Any extreme root or branch pruning that is not consistent with standard arboriculture practices for a healthy tree, including pollarding, topping, lion-tailing, or severe pruning

4. Relocation or transportation of a tree without a permit

5. Digging, trenching, grade changes, and soil compaction or paving within the Tree Protection Zone.
§ 12.12.033. Exceptions.

A permit shall be automatically approved and the fee waived for the following reasons:

1. Removal of any dead or dying tree, as confirmed by the Director.

2. Actions to trees or shrubs that address hazardous conditions. a. In the case of limb failures, whole tree removal may not be necessary. The Director shall determine the level of work necessary to address the hazard. § 12.12.034. Permit Processing and Required Findings

1. Permit Fees shall be determined by the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

2. The following findings shall be made by the Director to approve the planting of any City Tree
a. All new City trees must be a species from the City’s tree list. b. The species planted must be suitable for the site, accounting for planter size, surrounding infrastructure and tree growth habits.
89 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18

3. Minimum requirements: Permits to remove city trees must meet the following minimum requirements:
a. In the case of development, there is no feasible amendment to plans that would allow for tree preservation.
b. The proposed action complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3513).

4. Required Additional Findings: Removals for City trees may only be permitted if the Director finds any of the additional findings below to be applicable:
a. The proposed action is necessary to remediate damage caused by the tree to the surrounding permitted infrastructure and there are no reasonable solutions to adapt or relocate the infrastructure to accommodate for the tree. b. The removal of the tree is necessary to repair a geological hazard. c. The tree is suppressing the growth and development of an adjacent tree of higher value, and removal of the tree will create improved growing conditions for the higher value tree to thrive.
d. Tree removal is necessary to adhere to the provisions of the Solar Shade Control Act (California Public Resources Code §25890 et seq.).
e. Tree has been identified to have High or Extreme tree risk rating as calculated by an ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Arborist and the proposed action would mitigate risk to an acceptable level. If a tree permit is submitted on the grounds of tree risk, an ISA tree risk assessment form must be included with the application. § 12.12.036.Tree Replacement Requirements

1. All permitted tree removals shall replaced as described in Table 1.

Table 1: Tree Replacement Requirements
Canopy Size of Removed Tree 1 Replacement Requirement with Development Up to 25 feet One tree
25 feet to 40 feet Two trees
More than 40 feet Three trees

2. The Replacement Tree(s) shall be a 24” box tree, planted in alignment with ANSI Standards.

3. Replacement Tree(s) shall be of a species selected from the City’s species list, and the species chosen shall be suitable to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, surrounding canopy, and other relevant factors

4. Fees In-lieu of Replanting. In cases where replacing the tree(s) is inappropriate due to existing tree canopy or site restrictions, in-lieu replacement fees will be required. An in-lieu payment for each tree removed and not replaced onsite, in the amount of $1,500, shall be paid to the City Tree Replacement Fund. The Tree Replacement Fund shall have the sole use of funding City-initiated tree planting, tree maintenance, and urban forestry community education and outreach.

Commented [KC3]: City to investigate typical tree size for plantings. Change to 15 gallon tree if appropriate.

Commented [JD4]: Fee discussion needed with the city.

Also discuss Tree Replacement Fund.

Commented [KC5R4]: We have proposed $1,500 as a
starting point, but City should determine what fee is fair for residents and would cover the City costs of planting a new tree with watering and establishment care.
90 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18 § 12.12.038. Conditions of Approval
In approving the permit, the City may impose conditions for the purpose of protecting any trees which are to remain or to otherwise ensure compliance with the purpose of this chapter. § 12.12.040. Street tree plan.

All trees and shrubs hereafter planted in any public parking strip or other public place in the City shall conform as to species and location with the recommendation of theby determined by Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee or to the street tree plan of the City, which are hereby made a part of the ordinance codified in this chapter.. (Ord. 63 §4, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.050. Trimming and removal conditions.

The Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee, may cause to be trimmed, pruned or removed any trees, shrubs, plants or vegetation in any parking strip or other public place, or may require any property owner to trim, prune or remove any trees, shrubs, plants or vegetation in a parking strip abutting upon the owner's property at the sole cost of the owner, and failure to comply therewith after 15 days' notice from Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee, or from code compliance, shall be deemed a violation of this chapter. (Ord. 63 §5, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.060. Dangerous trees deemed nuisance.

Any tree or shrub growing in a parking strip or any public place, or on private property, which is endangering or which in any way may endanger the security or usefulness of any public street, sewer, sidewalk, or the full and safe operation of public utility wires, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and the City may remove or trim such tree, or may permit any public utility to do so, or may require the property owner to remove or trim any such tree on private property or on a parking strip abutting upon such owner's property at the sole expense of the property owner.

Failure of the property owner or his or her duly authorized agent to comply therewith, within 30 days after notice from Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee, or from code compliance, shall be deemed a violation of this chapter, and subject to the penalties set forth in Section 12.12.100.
(Ord. 63 §6, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.070. Appeal procedures.

Appeals from directions and orders made under this chapter may be made by filing written notice thereof with the City Clerk within 10 days after such direction and order is received, stating in substance that appeal is being made from such direction and order to the City Council. The City Clerk shall thereupon call such appeal to the attention of the City Council at the next regular succeeding meeting, or otherwise as soon as possible but no later than within 45 days, at which meeting the appellant and the from Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee, or from Code Compliance may present evidence. Action taken by the City Council after such hearing shall be conclusive, and in the event the City Council shall uphold the decision of the from Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee, or from code compliance, the property owner or his or her duly authorized agent shall have 10 days thereafter to comply with such notice. (Ord. 63 §6, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
91 of 181
City of Guadalupe, CA
§ 12.12.100 § 12.12.100
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/GU4932 on 2025-09-18 § 12.12.080. Public utility trimming restrictions.

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as limiting the right of any public utility to remove or trim trees which, in its opinion, endanger the safe operation of its wires, poles and appurtenances.
(Ord. 63 §6, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.090. Injuring or destroying trees or plants prohibited.

It is a violation of this chapter to abuse, destroy or mutilate any tree, shrub or plant in a public parking strip or any other public place, or to attach or place any rope or wire (other than one used to support a young or broken tree), sign, poster, handbill or other thing to or on any tree growing in a public place, or to cause or permit any wire charged with electricity to come in contact with any such tree, or to allow any gaseous, liquid or solid substance which is harmful to such trees to come in contact with their roots or leaves.
(Ord. 63 §7, 1959; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023)
§ 12.12.100. Violation—Penalty.

Any person guilty of violating any of the provisions of this chapter, or performing any act declared by this chapter to be unlawful, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor or an infraction, depending on the discretion of the City Attorney when filing the criminal complaint, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine in accordance with the general penalty provision then effect in the City, pursuant to Chapter 1.08 of this code, as amended. In addition to or in lieu of criminal prosecution, from Director of Public Works or duly authorized designee, or from code compliance may pursue the administrative remedies set forth in Chapter 1.10 and 1.11 of this code.
(Ord. 63 §8, 1959; Ord. 86-271 §33; Ord. 2023-512, 10/24/2023) Commented [JD6]: Needs to be aligned with in-lieu fee & permit costs. Fee & penalty discussion needed between
Dudek & City.
92 of 181
Appendix C
City Document Review
93 of 181

GUADALUPE UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX C – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW GUADALUPE UFMP 1
1 City Document Review
This section reviews and highlights key documents that the city has published in regard to the health and maintenance of their urban forest, and how the UFMP addresses goals and actions within these documents.

1.1 2042 General Plan
The Guadalupe 2042 General Plan is the main document for the City that guides serves as the community's blueprint for the use and development of land within its planning area. The General Plan consists of ten interrelated elements which include: land use, housing, circulation, conservation and open space, air quality and safety, noise, environmental justice, community design and historic preservation, public services and facilities, and economic development. This section focuses on how the General Plan interacts with the urban forest and the ways that recommendations in the Guadalupe UFMP align with goals and actions in the General Plan.

Table 1.1: General Plan Highlights
Goal/Policy/Program Chapter/Section Relation to UFMP
Goal LU-7: To create a compact, walkable,
and beautiful downtown with a mix of
uses that maintains the feel of a small,
tight-knit community anchored in the
surrounding agricultural economy.

Principle for revitalization of the Central
Business District: Safe and convenient
pedestrian circulation enhanced by
landscaping, street furniture, and public
art within the shopping area.

Program CIR-1.1.4: The Finance
Department and the Public Works
Department will continue to work with the
City Council to implement ideas contained
in the Guadalupe Mobility + Revitalization
Plan (2019) for the improvement of
pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., improved
sidewalks, bulb-outs, and street furniture)
and landscaping, to encourage walking,
shopping, and street dining in Downtown
Guadalupe.

Chapter 2: Land Use
The UFMP emphasizes the
importance of trees and landscaping
in enhancing the visual character of
Guadalupe’s built environment,
including the central business
district, where trees can both soften
the appearance of buildings and
parking areas, as well as provide
shade and greenery to improve the
pedestrian experience, encouraging
foot traffic and supporting local
businesses. The UFMP recommends
the City develop a partnership with
the Guadalupe Business Association
to enhance canopy cover in the
Central Business District and the
downtown areas of the City.

Goal EJ-3: To create equitable access to
safe recreational activities and parks
among all communities in the city so that
Chapter 4: Environmental
Justice

The tree canopy goals within the
UFMP are based on analysis of
where current canopy is lacking
within the City and prioritizes tree
94 of 181

GUADALUPE UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX C – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW GUADALUPE UFMP 2
all residents are empowered to choose an
active lifestyle that supports their health.

Policy EJ-1.9: The City will require the
dedication of at least four (4) acres of
park land per one thousand residents for
future open space designated areas, and
it will discourage fees in lieu of such
dedications.
planting efforts to increase canopy in
those areas, including parks that
could be enhanced with more trees.

Goal EJ-5: To promote the equitable
engagement with all segments of the
community so that all residents share an
equal voice in decisions that affect their
community.

Policy EJ-1.16: The City will encourage the
use of open spaces by hosting Citysponsored events and activities that involve the community from the planning
phase through implementation.

Chapter 4: Environmental
Justice

Community engagement and public
participation was a key component
of the UFMP process and involved
multiple opportunities for the public
to voice their opinions, concerns,
and desires including an online
public survey, City UFMP webpage
with email contact information, a
Focus Groups with participation from
the public, and a public review
period for the draft UFMP. Ongoing
community engagement will be
crucial in educating resident’s and
encouraging them to plant trees on
private property.

Goal COS-2: To protect natural habitats
and other open space areas to ensure the
longevity of native species as the built
environment develops and to preserve
aesthetic and visual amenities.

Goal COS-7: To maintain and expand
projects that promote City beautification
and open space for the health and
enjoyment, recreational opportunities,
and the natural environment of
Guadalupe and the Santa Maria Valley.

Chapter 5: Conservation and
Open Space
At part of the UFMP project, the
current street tree ordinance was
provided recommended updates to
better protect the City’s existing
trees.

Economic benefits to commercial
areas from trees and other
landscaping is also highlighted in the
UFMP.

Goal CD-1: To ensure that new
development is well designed and
compatible with Guadalupe’s historic
character.

Chapter 7: Conservation and
Open Space
At part of the UFMP project, the
current street tree ordinance was
provided recommended updates to
better protect the City’s existing
trees, and clarify tree replacement
standards. The recommended tree
species list was also updated as part
95 of 181

GUADALUPE UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX C – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW GUADALUPE UFMP 3
Program CD-1.1.1: Within three years of
adoption of the Guadalupe 2042 General
Plan, the Building and Planning
Department will initiate a process with the
City Council to update the City’s adopted
Downtown Design Guidelines to:
▪ Provide site planning guidance for
new development so that the need for
tree removal is minimized. When trees
must be removed to accommodate
new development, the City will require
development sites to be replanted
with similar species or other species
that are reflective of the community’s
character;
▪ Provide guidance for the planting and
maintenance of street trees; and
of this project to ensure appropriate,
climate adaptive species.

Additionally, the UFMP provides an
appendix with a suite of
arboricultural best management
practices on planting and
maintenance of urban trees.

Goal S-1: To achieve and maintain clean,
healthy air for the residents of Guadalupe
and to reduce greenhouse gases
consistent with state efforts to address
climate change.

Policy S-1.3: The City will ensure that new
development with sensitive uses located
adjacent to toxic air contaminant (TAC)
sources minimizes potential health risks
by requiring new development to be
designed with consideration of site and
building orientation, location of trees, and
incorporation of ventilation and filtration
to lessen any potential health risks.

Policy S-1.4: The City will support
continuing regional efforts to mitigate the
effects of climate change through the
multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation
planning process administered by the
County of Santa Barbara.

Chapter 8: Air Quality and
Safety
The City’s urban forest will be crucial
for mitigating future climate impacts
like improving air quality,
sequestering carbon, and providing
shade and cooler temperatures on
hot days. The UFMP provides
resources on climate-appropriate
tree species, and tree establishment
and maintenance. The UFMP also
provides recommended actions and
projected costs for increasing the
City’s tree canopy in priority areas
and identifies ways were the City can
improve its management of the
urban forest.
96 of 181

GUADALUPE UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX C – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW GUADALUPE UFMP 4
2 References
City of Guadalupe. 2042 General Plan. Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. November 2022. Accessed from https://cityofguadalupe.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/City-of-Guadalupe-2042-General-Plan-FinalEnglish.pdf 97 of 181
Appendix D
Staff Interviews Summary
98 of 181
APPENDIX D – STAFF INTERVIEW SUMMARY GUADALUPE UFMP 2
City of Guadalupe Staff Interviews Summary
An integral part of developing a UFMP is understanding how the City’s current system operates. This piece of the puzzle allows the project team to know the intricacies of the city, the challenges currently faced, and opportunities for improvement. While maintenance and canopy data provide many levels of insight, Staff interviews provide the on-the-ground perspective and allow the project team to fill in gaps of where the City is, how it got there, and the direction needed to get the City where it needs to go.

Table 1: Interview Summary
Theme Details
Urban Forestry
Context
95% of trees mapped; ordinance (2023) assigns ROW maintenance to property owners.

Limited staff and equipment; major work contracted out
Residents are confused about tree ownership and responsibilities.

No proactive pruning or planting program; maintenance is reactive Irrigation: some systems outdated or non-functional.

Staffing Workload constrained by other duties; no dedicated urban forestry manager Public Works manages contractors but does not have arboricultural expertise & technical oversight.

Parks and Streets crews handle emergency trimming and irrigation fixes.

Budget
Streets budget (~$160K) for tree work; insufficient for full pruning cycles.

Landscaping tax funds: Pasadera ($65K), Point Sal ($45K), Guadalupe ($25K); restricted to landscaping
No dedicated urban forestry budget; grants mainly for infrastructure, not green infrastructure.

Environmental
Challenges
Wind: Persistent year-round; causes leaning and staking failures.

Flooding: Santa Maria River damaged parks and storm basins; trees rot in basins.

Climate: Heat vulnerability minimal; wind and waterlogging are primary stressors Policy
Tree ordinance vague; lacks clear criteria for removals and planting.

Enforcement inconsistent; residents unaware of responsibilities Development standards minimal; developers plant unsuitable species without long-term maintenance plans.

No Arbor Day or volunteer planting events.
99 of 181
APPENDIX D – STAFF INTERVIEW SUMMARY GUADALUPE UFMP 3
Community
Engagement
Opportunities: Public-facing tree map, bilingual materials, tree giveaways, focus groups, surveys.

Key Challenges
Lack of formal standards for planting, staking, irrigation, and maintenance.

Insufficient staffing and funding; no arborist.

Reactive maintenance approach; outdated irrigation systems.

Limited interdepartmental coordination and unclear contractor requirements.

Opportunities
Standards & Guidelines: Develop UFMP “playbook” with planting, staking, irrigation, and pruning standards; pictorial pamphlets; contract templates.

Species Selection & Resilience: Wind-tolerant species; riparian species for basins; modify staking standards (3 stakes vs. 2).

Staffing & Expertise: Shared arborist agreement with Santa Maria; future parks/urban forestry manager role.

Infrastructure Improvements: Redesign irrigation systems for redundancy and offline functionality.

Community Engagement: Educational campaigns; bilingual materials; tree planting events; Tree City USA certification goal.

Vision (50 Years)
Proactive, resilient urban forest integrated into city planning.

Supported by clear standards, community engagement, and sustainable funding.

Trees selected for wind and flood resilience; maintained through structured programs. 100 of 181
Appendix E
Guadalupe Community Engagement Results Summary
101 of 181
Community Engagement
Community outreach was a key step in the development process of the UFMP to understand and amplify the voices of Guadalupe’s community. Kicking off in summer 2025, residents and businesses were engaged in outreach efforts that included the following activities and educational materials:
▪ An online, tree-related community survey (67 responses total) ▪ Tabling at a large community event (Fiestas Patrias) with educational posters describing tree benefits, desired future tree planting locations, a QR code linking to the tree survey, and a free tree raffle. ▪ Guadalupe’s UFMP webpage (https://cityofguadalupe.org/urban-forestry/) detailing project updates, public meetings, and UFMP review notifications, and other community resources. ▪ Social media outreach through the City of Guadalupe channels (Instagram, Facebook, and NextDoor). ▪ Two Focus Group meetings made up of various local organizations and community members who helped provide key terms for the vision statement and ideas for the Strategic Plan (2 meetings, 9 attendees) Summary of Stakeholder Input
Online Surveys
An online survey was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees, and to offer a space for public feedback on the City’s Tree Ordinance (Ch 12.12). The 18-question survey was open between August 1, 2025 and November 18, 2025, and was distributed through various City social media outlets and community events. The survey had a total of 67 respondents, which is a fairly low level of participation. Of the combined 67 respondents, 82% live in Guadalupe, 27% work in Guadalupe, and 3% go to school in Guadalupe (Table E-1). Table E-2 highlights other relevant survey respondent demographics, and how they compare to City data from the US Census Bureau. The ages of survey participants ranged widely but did not capture any responses from young people under the age of 18. The majority (73%) of respondents are homeowners. During the implementation phase of the UFMP, it will be important to continue to outreach to City residents to ensure that diverse prospectives are heard and valued. The full survey response results can be found at the end of this Appendix.

Table E-1. Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Live, Work, or go to School in Guadalupe
Response Percent of Respondents
Live in Guadalupe 82%
Work in Guadalupe 27%
Go to school in Guadalupe 3%
Source: Guadalupe UFMP Community Survey 2025
102 of 181
Table E-2. Demographics of Survey Respondents Compared to Demographics of the City of Guadalupe
Category Demographics of Survey Respondents
U.S. Census Demographics of
City of Guadalupe 2023
Age 65 or older 27% 65 or older 8%
Age Between 18 and 65 73% Between 18 and 65 54%
Age Under 18 0% Under 18 38%
Housing Status Homeowner 73% Homeowner 57%
Source: U.S Census Bureau 2023
Survey Results Limitations and Need for Ongoing Community Engagement The community survey conducted as part of this UFMP process offers a glimpse into how community members perceive and engage with Guadalupe’s urban forest and related ordinances. It’s important to acknowledge that the number of respondents (67) was a small fraction of the City’s total population of 8,400 people. This means the survey doesn’t reflect a statistically representative cross-section of the community. Instead, it likely reflects the views of individuals who are already interested or invested in urban forestry issues. Their feedback, while not comprehensive, is still valuable as it highlights the concerns and priorities of engaged residents who took the time to share their thoughts.

Rather than drawing broad conclusions, the survey results can be used to identify recurring themes and areas of interest. These included concerns about tree maintenance responsibilities, desires for more trees and shade in public spaces, and interest in educational resources for tree care. Such patterns can help guide future outreach and planning efforts, especially when paired with other data sources like canopy coverage maps or neighborhood demographics.

Ultimately, the survey represents a starting point. It underscores the need for ongoing and deeper engagement using more inclusive outreach strategies to ensure that future efforts reflect the diversity of Guadalupe’s residents and their viewpoints. At the same time, it provides a foundation of community input that can inform early steps in urban forest planning and help shape conversations moving forward.

Urban Forest In-Person Public Engagement
Dudek tabled at one in-person event (Fiestas Patrias celebration) on September 14, 2025. The Project Team had a table with information on poster boards that introduced residents and other attendees to the UFMP, encouraged participation in the online community survey, asked which areas around the City could use more trees, asked people to identify their favorite benefit of trees, and created a venue for residents to voice their opinions and perceptions about the City’s urban forest. The total attendance from the in-person outreach is estimated to be over 100 individuals who stopped by the table and/or participated in one of the poster board activities. The poster board responses were digitized and are detailed in Tables E-3 and E-4 and Figures E-1 to E-3.
103 of 181
Table E-3. Urban Forest Engagement Responses to Poster 1 – What Do You Love Most About Trees?
Poster 1: What Do You Love
Most About Trees?
09/14/25 Fiestas
Patrias Event
Percent of
all Votes
Cleaner Air 25 22.1%
Shade 21 18.6%
Beauty 12 10.6%
Food 12 10.6%
Wildlife Habitat 11 9.7%
Energy Savings 9 8.0%
Healthier Communities 9 8.0%
Connecting with Neighbors 8 7.1%
Stormwater Mitigation 6 5.3%
Total Votes 113 100%
Table E-4. Urban Forest Engagement Responses to Poster 2 – Where do We Need More Trees?
Poster 2: Where Do We Need
More Trees?
09/14/25 Fiestas
Patrias Event
% of all
Votes
Parks 27 20.6%
Schools 27 20.6%
Sidewalks 18 13.7%
Transit Stops 14 10.7%
Front and Back Yards 14 10.7%
Apartment Communities 12 9.2%
Retail Areas 10 7.6%
Parking Lots 9 6.9%
Total Votes 131 100%
Figures E-1 to E-3. Poster Boards and Table at the In-Person Community Engagement Event

104 of 181
Focus Group Meetings
The consultant team hosted two Focus Group meetings with various community stakeholders (Table E-5) who met during the plan development process. The two meetings provided an opportunity for the consultant team to relay key findings to the Focus Groups, get feedback on community priorities, and discuss and prioritize strategies and actions for addressing current issues and achieving Guadalupe’s future urban forestry goals. The result was the creation of the UFMP’s vision statement and recommended actions included in the UFMP.

Table E-5. Guadalupe’s Focus Group Participants
Participant Organization/Affiliation
Steph Wald Creek Lands Conservation
Jose Nichols Comite Civico
Deborah Sykes Resident / Santa Barbara County Library Advisory Committee Griselda Vega Martinez Resident / Santa Barbara County Action Network Christina Hernandez Council Member, City of Guadalupe
Dayanira Cruz Engineer Technician, City of Guadalupe
Judy Wilson (Sent comments via
email)
President, Guadalupe Business Association
Kevin Cullinen Dudek
Dana Link-Herrera Dudek
The Focus Group meetings began with an introduction to the project and key urban forestry concepts, an overview of analysis findings and community engagement efforts, followed by brainstorming exercises. During the brainstorming exercises, Focus Group participants were asked a series of questions. The results of the brainstorm discussion are summarized in Table E-6.

Question Discussion/Response
What words describe the kind of
future urban forest you want for the
City of Guadalupe?
• More native trees; manzanitas, oaks
• Colorful trees/ Fall colors
• Replace pine trees that were removed from Leroy Park with oaks or other native species.
• Trees are an integral part of parks
• Symbol of life
• Longevity
• As many trees as possible
• Reduce pollutants
• Climate resilient
• Community gathering spaces
• Shade
• Outdoor classroom (Dunes Center)
• Flood protection
• Right tree, right place
• Reduce hazards
• Water wise
• Shaded walking paths
• Trees in community areas
• Mental health
105 of 181
What benefits of trees should be
highlighted?
• Beauty/ambience
• Economy
• Climate change
• Air quality
• Habitat
• Wind breaks
• Flood mitigation
• Watershed health
Where would you most like to see
more trees in Guadalupe?
• Leroy Park
• West side of city for windbreaks
• Trees along walking paths
• Wetland area in Gularte Tract; potential outdoor classroom • Apartment complexes
What tools or information would
help you increase or improve
collaboration with the City?
• Disseminate information on the City Water Bill (some cost) • Host Community Information Meeting
• Coordinate with the Little House by the Park event and host a tree raffle
• Collaborate with Guadalupe Community Air Project:
http://guadalupeair.com/data/aqi
What opportunities and challenges
do you foresee for growing
Guadalupe’s urban forest?
• Opportunities
- Community tree planting event
- Tree care education
- Memorial trees in parks. Potential revenue source for the city.
- Community service opportunities
- Events for selling/raffling trees
- Youth education
• Challenges
- Trees grow slowly and need maintenance and care
- Cost to maintain trees
- Proximity of levees, private agricultural lands, riparian areas of Santa Maria River
- Need to articulate benefits of UFMP and how it can be leveraged as a tool
- Need continued support/collaboration
Would you like us to reach out to
any other groups or people for this
plan?
• Santa Barbara County Promotores
• Santa Barbara Community Action Network
• Guadalupe Coalition of non profits
• Kawanis Club
• Lions Club
• Vietnam veterans’ organization
• Boys and Girls club
• Guadalupe Bulldogs
• Guadalupe Dune Center
• Hiking groups
106 of 181
• How to get the word out:
- Social media
- Local businesses posting flyers
- Little House by the Park
- Community schools
- E-blasts, flyers
- Friends of the Guadalupe Library
107 of 181
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
CITY OF GUADALUPE – UFMP SURVEY RESULTS 11-18-2025
(67 TOTAL RESPONDENTS)

1. Does your neighborhood have planted street trees (street trees- any tree that is planted in the public rightof-way near and along the roadways which shade sidewalks and grow over the road)? Feelings on Planted City Trees Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this
option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes, and I like them. 27 40%
No, but I wish we did. 33 49%
Yes, but I don't like them. 4 6%
No and I don't want them 3 4%
40%
49%
6% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes, and I like them. No, but I wish we did. Yes, but I don't like them. No and I don't want them

1. Percentage of respondents with and without planted street trees 108 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

2. Where would you like to see more trees planted in Guadalupe? Where respondents would like trees planted category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this
option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Sidewalks and streets 35 52%
Parks 33 49%
Parking Lots 29 43%
Biking and walking paths 29 43%
Neighborhoods 26 39%
Schools 12 18%
Shopping Districts 11 16%
New developments 9 13%
Residential Properties 5 7%
Apartment Communities 3 4%
I would NOT like to see more trees in Guadalupe 0 0%
52% 49%
43% 43%
39%
18% 16% 13%
7% 4%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

2. Places where respondents would like to see more trees planted 109 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

2. Where would you like to see more trees planted in Guadalupe? - Other Responses Count Along Guadalupe Street 1
On the side of roads (example on the main road towards the beach) 1 No palm trees, Jacaranda trees. Some trees near me and on the south end of Guadalupe street you have to duck or walk around because they need to be trimmed. 1 As a coastal town, we should consider adding palm trees and to give it a coastal feel for residents and visitants passing buy who would want to make purchases in Guadalupe
1 City Hall, Fire Station 1
Entryways of Guadalupe 1
110 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

3. Where should the City of Guadalupe plant more trees? 111 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

4. Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in? Activities that respondents would do Category (full
description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Volunteer or help organize a community tree planting event. 47 70% Plant a tree on your private property. 30 45%
Attend a tree education workshop (in person or virtual). 26 39% Help the City promote the Urban Forest program through
community outreach and social media 24 36%
Volunteer to provide basic tree care in your neighborhood (watering and weeding). 20 30%
I am not interested in helping to support the City's urban forest program. 4 6%
Other (please specify below) 5 7%
70%
45%
39% 36%
30%
6% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Volunteer or help
organize a
community tree
planting event.

Plant a tree on
your private
property.

Attend a tree
education
workshop (in
person or virtual).

Help the City
promote the
Urban Forest
program through
community
outreach and
social media
Volunteer to
provide basic tree
care in your
neighborhood
(watering and
weeding).

I am not
interested in
helping to support
the City's urban
forest program.

Other (please
specify below)

4. Activities in which respondents would be willing to participate 112 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

4. Activities in which respondents would be willing to participate - Other Responses Count Write press releases. 1
Participate in tree variety selection process. Particularly more varieties and more color. 1 Space on our property to hold community events/outreach 1 I would suggest creating social media pages "Guadalupe Trees" and using the pages to promote event, feedback, and transparency.
1 I’m a certified arborist and tree climber and can help with education and hands on work
1 113 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

5. What factors would make you more likely to plant a tree on your property? Factors that would make respondents more likely to plant a tree on their property Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Assistance with the labor to plant and maintain a tree 19 28% Financial support for tree trimming, watering, and
maintenance 17 25%
Having information on how to properly plant, water, and maintain a tree. 12 18%
I am not inclined to plant a tree on my property. 3 4%
Other (please specify) 6 9%
Did not answer question 9 13%
28% 25%
18%
4%
9%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Assistance with the
labor to plant and
maintain a tree
Financial support for
tree trimming,
watering, and
maintenance
Having information
on how to properly
plant, water, and
maintain a tree.

I am not inclined to
plant a tree on my
property.

Other (please
specify)
Did not answer
question

5. Factors that would make respondents more likely to plant a tree on their property.
114 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

5. Factors that would make respondents more likely to plant a tree on their property - Other Responses Count
Write press releases. 1
Participate in tree variety selection process. Particularly more varieties and more color. 1 Space on our property to hold community events/outreach 1 I’m a certified arborist and tree climber and can help with education and hands on work
1 6. What factors would make you less likely to plant a tree on your property? Factors that would make respondents more inclined to
plant a tree on their property Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Risk of damage to sewer pipes/ sidewalks/ driveways 16 24% The cost to plant, water, and maintain trees. 12 18%
Mess caused by leaves, fruit, bark 4 6%
Fire Hazard 1 1%
None of the above 26 39%
Other (please specify) 6 9%
Did not answer question 2 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk of damage to
sewer pipes/
sidewalks/
driveways
The cost to plant,
water, and
maintain trees.

Mess caused by
leaves, fruit, bark
Fire Hazard None of the
above
Other (please
specify)
Did not answer
question

6. Factors that would make respondents more inclined to plant a tree on their property.
115 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

6. Factors that would make respondents less likely to plant a tree on their property - Other Responses Count
The damage caused by the wind. 1
Water for irrigation (very high prices) 1
Physical inability to select the right tree and to plant a tree. 1 I'm next to a Tot park - so I have trees next to me, they need to be trimmed by the City however, they are getting too big and starting to grow into my house,. They need to be trimmed. 1
Small yard. I already planted 3 trees meant for small yards, shade, and wind. Very few of the residents in the Pasadera development have planted trees, especially on the clo side, and it is really needed. The development looks bare and awful. 1 I Rent 1
116 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

7. It typically costs under $10 a year to water a newly planted tree. Does this information make it more likely that you would plant a tree on your property?
Feelings on Planted City Trees Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes. 53 79%
No 11 16%
Did not answer question 3 4%
79%
16%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes. No Did not answer question

7. Willingness and ability for respondents to plant and maintain trees on their property given average water cost of $10/year 117 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

8. Please select your level of agreement with the following statement: “I think Guadalupe effectively maintains its trees.”
Level of agreement on statement: "Guadalupe effectively maintains its trees" Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Strongly agree 2 3%
Agree 19 28%
Neutral 21 31%
Disagree 17 25%
Strongly disagree 8 12%
Did not answer question 2 3%
3%
28% 31%
25%
12%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Did not answer question

8. Level of agreement with the following statement: “I think Guadalupe effectively maintains its trees.”
118 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

9. Select the top three (3) tree management actions the City should take.

Preferences for City Priorities in UFMP (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who selected
the following UFMP
Prioritization category as
#1 choice:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Increase the number of trees planted each year. 46 69%
Plant native trees that enhance native pollinators and
wildlife habitats 43 64%
Improve and preserve existing trees 34 51%
Prioritize planting drought tolerant and low-maintenance species 30 45%
Provide opportunities and educational resources for
community members relating to trees 14 21%
Increase urban forest safety by removing dead, dying, or otherwise hazardous trees 13 19%
Reduce the risk of invasive pests and diseases. 13 19%
Other 5 7%
Did not answer question 4 6%
119 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

9. Top choices that Respondents want for the City to prioritize for the management of Guadalupe trees - Other Responses Count
Limit tall palm trees as they will eventually fall over and cause damage. 1 Seek resources for long term maintenance (e.g., a tree advocate and expert such as a City Arborist). 1
Watering the trees that have been donated to us so that they survive, for example, those we planted in the parks 1
Plant palm trees along Main Street. It will enhance Main Street. 1 Require that trees are planted in new residential and commercial developments. 1

10. Have you observed damage caused by trees in your neighborhood? Have Respondents observed damage caused by trees in
their neighborhood?
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes 10 15%
No 56 84%
Did not answer question 1 1%
15%
84%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No Did not answer question

10. Have Respondents observed damage caused by trees in their neighborhood?
120 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
10a. Where have you seen damage caused by trees in your neighborhood? (select all that apply) Where Respondents have observed damage caused by
trees in their neighborhood.

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Streets or sidewalks 7 10%
Overhead utilities 3 4%
Underground utilities (pipes, sewer line, etc.) 0 0%
Other (please specify) 3 4%
Did not answer question 57 85%
10a. Where Respondents observed damage caused by trees in their neighborhood - Other Responses Count
Diseased/dying trees and overgrown branches 1
Our concrete in our backyard 1
Tot park trees next to my house need to be trimmed. some dead trees in park as well. 1 10%
4% 0% 4%
85%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Streets or sidewalks Overhead utilities Underground utilities (pipes, sewer line, etc.)
Other (please specify) Did not answer
question
10a. Where Respondents observed damage caused by trees in their neighborhood
121 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

11. Did you know that Guadalupe has an ordinance that provides protections and regulations for the City’s street trees?
Awareness that the City of Guadalupe has an ordinance
that provides protections and regulations for the City's trees?
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes 11 16%
No 55 82%
Did not answer question 1 1%
16%
82%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes No Did not answer question

11. Awareness that the City of Guadalupe has an ordinance that provides protections and regulations for the City's trees? 122 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

12. Who do you think should be responsible for maintaining public street trees? Who participants think should be responsible for
maintaining public street trees (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Shared responsibility between the City and adjacent
property owner 38 57%
The City only 26 39%
The adjacent property owner only 2 3%
Did not answer question 1 1%
57%
39%
3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Shared responsibility
between the City and
adjacent property owner
The City only The adjacent property
owner only
Did not answer question

12. Who participants think should be responsible for maintaining public street trees
123 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

13. Have you ever been asked by the City to remove or prune a tree on your property or in the parking strip next to your property?
Response to whether participants have ever been
asked by the City to remove or prune a tree on
their property or in the parking strip next to their
property?
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes, and it was a good experience 1 1%
Yes, and it was a bad experience 1 1%
No 63 94%
Did not answer question 2 3%
1% 1%
94%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes, and it was a good
experience
Yes, and it was a bad
experience
No Did not answer question

13. Response to whether participants have ever been asked by the City to remove or prune a tree on their property or in the parking strip next to their property?
124 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

14. Do you live or work or go to school in the City of Guadalupe? Do you live, work, and/or go to school in City of
Guadalupe Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Live 55 82%
Work 18 27%
Go to school 2 3%
None of the above 9 13%
Did not answer question 0 0%
82%
27%
3%
13%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Live Work Go to school None of the above Did not answer question

14. Percentage of respondents who live, work and/or go to school in the City of Guadalupe
125 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

15. Which best describes your current housing situation? Current housing situation Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Homeowner 49 73%
Renter 9 13%
Child of homeowner 6 9%
Child of renter 2 3%
Did not answer question 1 1%
73%
13%
9%
3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Homeowner Renter Child of
homeowner
Child of renter Did not answer
question

15. Percentage of respondents who are homeowners vs
renters
126 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 11/18/2025 APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

16. Which of the following age groups are you a part of? Age Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Under 18 0 0%
18-24 3 4.5%
25-34 10 14.9%
35-44 16 23.9%
45-54 12 17.9%
55-64 8 11.9%
65+ 18 26.9%
Did not answer question 0 0%

0.0%

4.5%

14.9%

23.9%

17.9%

11.9%

26.9%
0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Did not
answer
question

16. Age of survey respondents
127 of 181
APPENDIX F – VIBRANT CITIES LAB GUADALUPE UFMP 1

SELF-ASSESSMENT MONITORING PLAN
Appendix F
Vibrant Cities Lab Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
128 of 181
APPENDIX F – VIBRANT CITIES LAB GUADALUPE UFMP 2

SELF-ASSESSMENT MONITORING PLAN
Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool
The Community Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool was created by the Vibrant Cities Lab to provide a quantifiable method for a city to track its progress towards a sustainable urban forest. Vibrant Cities Lab is a collaboration of partners which includes the United States Forest Service, American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils, and serves as an online hub of urban forest and tree research, best practices, and planning tools (https://old.vibrantcitieslab.com/assessment/). The Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool is based on research of urban forest sustainability and establishes criteria and indicators to measure urban forest sustainability. The tool is used as an assessment to define the City’s current state of a specific area of urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the City’s current state of the metric is and then sets where the goal metric should be. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the City is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score”, or how far off the current state is from the desired goal. A city that has a gap score between 20 to 40 is not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program. Conversely, gap scores of 40+ indicates that a City is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.

Guadalupe’s assessment was conducted on November 12, 2025, by City staff and the consultant team. Table F-1 provides the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre-UFMP metrics. Staff used Vibrant Cities Lab’s rating descriptions to determine Hanford’s status (prior to the UFMP process) for the various categories and then chose the goals they want to achieve in each category to determine the gap between the two ratings.

Based on this first assessment, the City has a current rating of 19, with a gap score of 72. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool and be retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress. The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding asks to City Council.

Table F-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Canopy cover
The existing canopy is
50%-75% of desired. (Fair
1)
1 The existing canopy is >75%-
100% of desired – at individual
neighborhood level as well as
overall municipality. (Optimal 4)
4 3
Inventory (Urban Forest
Inventory and
Assessment)
Complete or sample-based
inventory of publicly owned
trees. (Fair 1)
1 Inventory guides planning,
management decisions. (Good
2)
2 1
Assessment
Methodology
Complete, detailed, and
spatially explicit, highresolution Urban Tree
Canopy (UTC) assessment
based on enhanced data
(such as LIDAR) –
accompanied by
comprehensive set of
goals by land use and
other parameters. (Better
3)
3 As described for "Better" rating
all utilized effectively to drive
urban forest and green
infrastructure policy and
practice municipality-wide and
at neighborhood or smaller
management level. (Optimal 4)
4 1
129 of 181
APPENDIX F – VIBRANT CITIES LAB GUADALUPE UFMP 3

SELF-ASSESSMENT MONITORING PLAN
Table F-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Publicly owned trees
Complete tree inventory
that includes detailed tree
condition ratings.
(Good 2)
2 Complete GIS tree inventory
that includes detailed tree
condition and risk ratings.
(Optimal 4)
4 2
Publicly owned natural
areas
Identified only in natural
area survey. (Fair 1) 1
Ecological structure and
function of all natural areas
assessed and documented.
(Better 3)
3 2
Private property trees
Aerial, point-based
assessment – capturing
extent and location. (Fair
1)
1 Bottom-up sample based
assessment, as well as detailed
UTC analysis of entire urban
forest, including private
property, integrated into
municipality-wide [multi-agency]
GIS system. LIDAR and hyperspectral imaging most helpful. (Optimal 4)
4 3
Relative performance
index by species
Half ofthe six most
common species have
higher RPI scores than the
average of all species in
community. (>1.). (Good 2)
2 All of the six most common
species have higher RPI scores
than the average of all species
in the community. (Optimal 4)
4 2
Use of native
vegetation
Voluntary use of native
species on publicly and
privately owned lands;
invasive species are
recognized.
(Fair 1)
1 Native species are widely used
on a project-appropriate basis
in all areas; invasive species
are proactively managed for
eradication to the full extent
possible. (Optimal 4)
4 3
Align municipal
departments
Municipal
departments/agencies
take actions impacting
urban forest with no crossdepartmental coordination
or consideration of the
urban forest resource.
(Low -1)
-1
Municipal policy implemented
by formal
interdepartmental/interagency
working teams on all municipal
projects.
(Optimal 4)
4 5
Engage residents in
planning and
implementation
Some neighborhood
groups engaged across the
community but no minimal
outreach to assure
underserved
neighborhoods participate
effectively. (Fair 1)
1 Proactive outreach and
coordination efforts by
municipality and NGO partners
resulting in widespread citizen
involvement and structured
engagement among diverse
neighborhood groups. (Optimal
4)
4 3
Environmental equity
Planting and outreach
includes attention to low
canopy neighborhoods or
areas. (Fair 1)
1 Equitable planting and outreach
at the neighborhood level is
guided by strong resident
involvement in low canopy/high
need areas. Residents
4 3
130 of 181
APPENDIX F – VIBRANT CITIES LAB GUADALUPE UFMP 4

SELF-ASSESSMENT MONITORING PLAN
Table F-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
participate actively in
identifying needs for their
neighborhoods, planning,
implementation and
monitoring.
(Optimal 4)
Trees acknowledged as
vital community
resource
Trees generally recognized
as important and
beneficial. (Fair 1)
1 Urban forest recognized as vital
to the community’s
environmental, social, and
economic well-being. (Optimal
4)
4 3
Engage large private
landowners and
institutions
Large private landholders
are generally uninformed
about urban forest issues
and opportunities.
(Low -1)
-1
Municipality educates
landowners, provides technical
assistance, sets goals and
provides incentives for
managing resources in
accordance with plan. (Fair 1)
1 2
All utilities work with
municipality, employ
best management
practices
Utilities take actions
impacting urban forest
with no municipal
coordination. (Fair 1)
1 Utilities are included in informal
municipal teams that
communicate regularly and
collaborate on a project-specific
basis. (Better 3)
3 2
Green industry
embraces goals, high
standards
Little or no cooperation
among segments of green
industry or awareness of
municipality-wide urban
forest goals and
objectives. (Low -1)
-1
Specific collaborate
arrangements across segments
of green industry in support of
municipality-wide goals and
objectives. (Good 2)
2 3
Develop urban forest
management plan
New or recent urban forest
management plan
developed to achieve goal
for publicly-owned forest
resources. (Good 2)
2 New or recent urban forest and
green infrastructure
management plan which
targets public and private tree
planting and protection based
on assessment of anticipated
benefits - and assures these
benefits are distributed
equitably among
neighborhoods. (Optimal 4)
4 2
Cooperative planning
with other
municipalities
Some neighboring
municipalities and regional
agencies share similar
urban forest policies and
plans (Fair 1)
1 Some urban forest planning
and cooperation across
municipalities and regional
agencies. (Good 2)
2 1
Forestry plan integrated
into other municipal
plans
Urban forestry plan
mentions how it could
meet other municipal
objectives, or inform other
planning efforts. (Low -1)
-1
Once completed, urban forestry
planning team works with other
agencies to align current and
future objectives. (Good 2)
2 3
131 of 181
APPENDIX F – VIBRANT CITIES LAB GUADALUPE UFMP 5

SELF-ASSESSMENT MONITORING PLAN
Table F-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Urban forestry program
capacity
Lack of staff training
and/or access to adequate
equipment limits
effectiveness. (Fair 1)
1 Team has capacity and will in
the future work to achieve all
goals of the urban forest
management plan, to maintain
the resource over time, and
adapt management as
circumstances change.
(Optimal 4)
4 3
Municipality-wide urban
forestry funding
Ad hoc funding for
emergency; reactive
management. (Fair 1)
1 Sustained, long-term funding
from multiple municipal,
regional, and/or state agencies,
along with private sources to
implement a comprehensive
urban forest management plan
and provide for maintenance
and adaptive management as
circumstances change.
(Optimal 4)
4 3
Growing site suitability
Appropriate tree species
are considered in site
selection. (Fair 1)
1 All trees planted in sites with
adequate soil quality and
quantity, and with sufficient
growing space and overall site
conditions to achieve their
genetic potential and thus
provide maximum ecosystem
services. Where growing
conditions are poor, guidance
provided on how to improve soil
volume, quality, other factors.
(Optimal 4)
4 3
Tree establishment and
maintenance
Some tree planting and
establishment occurs, but
with limited overall
municipality-wide planning
and post-planting care.
(Low -1)
-1
Comprehensive tree
establishment plan provides
concrete guidance on most of
the following criteria: site
selection, size, age class,
diversity of species, native plant
choice, planting protocols, and
young tree care. (Optimal 4)
4 5
Management of
publicly owned natural
areas
Only reactive management
to facilitate public use, e.g.
hazard abatement, trail
maintenance. (Fair 1)
1 Management plan in place for
each publicly owned natural
area to facilitate appropriate
public use. (Good 2)
2 1
Policies that foster
good urban forestry on
private lands
No tree protection
ordinance, or one that's
weak and rarely enforced.
(Low -1)
-1
Policies regarding stormwater,
site and subdivision planning,
zoning and other issues that
affect private forests are
included in management plan.
(Good 2)
2 3
132 of 181
APPENDIX F – VIBRANT CITIES LAB GUADALUPE UFMP 6

SELF-ASSESSMENT MONITORING PLAN
Table F-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Tree protection policy
and enforcement
Policies in place to protect
public trees and employ
industry best management
practices, but rare or
inconsistent enforcement
(Fair 1)
1 Integrated municipality-wide
policies and practices to protect
public and private trees,
consistently enforced and with
penalties sufficient to deter
violations. (Optimal 4)
4 3
Monitoring
Monitoring is infrequent
and reactive to reported
changes in tree health, site
condition. (Fair 1)
1 Monitoring on a regular basis
with rotating schedule for each
area. Monitors are
professionals or volunteers
trained to collect specific data
required by municipality. Multiyear data available for trend analyses. (Good 2)
2 1
Tree risk management
No tree risk assessment or
risk management program.

Response is on a reactive
basis only. (Low -1)
-1
Includes "better" but with TRAQqualified contractors on city projects. Educate tree care
companies and public about
importance of TRAQ
qualifications. (Optimal 4)
4 5
Urban wood and green
waste utilization
While most green waste
does not go to landfill,
uses are limited to chips or
mulch. (Fair 1)
1 The majority of green waste is
reused or recycled - for energy,
products, and other purposes
beyond chips or mulch. (Good
2)
2 1
Total Current Score 19 Total Goal Rating 91
Total Gap Score 72
133 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Appendix G
Potential Funding Resources
134 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Potential Resources Summary
The City of Guadalupe (City or Guadalupe) needs to identify funding streams to develop a dedicated annual budget for the urban forestry program. Without an allocated, reliable budget, the City is unable to plan for management actions that will help achieve the City’s canopy cover goal, leaving the future of the urban forest uncertain. The City has lost 1.6% of canopy cover from 2018 to 2022 and without active, annually funded programs for tree planting, scheduled maintenance, and removal and replacement of City-managed trees, the City will continue to lose canopy cover on public land. Trees in Guadalupe today enhance air and water quality, assist in stormwater mitigation, and enhance the quality of life for community members. The benefits provided through City-managed trees will continue to decrease if the City does not take an active effort to enhance urban forestry program and regain canopy cover on public land.

Funding strategies may include incurring fees throughout urban forestry operations, pursuing various grant funding sources, collaborative funding through partnerships, and identifying community resources that may be interested in participating in urban forestry efforts. Table G-1 summarizes early opportunities identified through Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) development. Additional information for these early opportunities follow and potential opportunities that require further exploration, collaboration, time, and staff capacity are described in the Future Potential Opportunities section of this appendix.

Early Opportunities
Urban forestry can be funded through various mechanisms employed by the City with numerous opportunities that require further exploration. The potential funding mechanisms listed in Table G-1 were identified as opportunities with potential for early implementation, or opportunities the City is already pursuing. Additional details of these early opportunities follow Table G-1.

Table G-1. Early Opportunities
Opportunity Recommended Action Implementation Steps Potential Benefit Landscape
and Lighting
District
(Landscape
Tax)
Establish an annually
allocated percentage for
Community Benefit
Districts (CBDs) for tree
care for each District to
project annual dedicated
budgets for tree care.

Prioritize young tree
structural pruning and
establishment care
maintenance for initial cost
projections.

Project costs for mature
tree maintenance to
identify funding needs for
future management.

CBDs will have allocated
funding for tree care that
does not impact the General
Fund.

Aligning with
City Planning
Efforts
Engage the City’s Grant
Administrator to identify
where tree planting can
be used to meet goals.

Engage the City’s
internal departments to
identify existing projects
that may fund urban
forestry.

Active projects that may
allow tree planting and tree
preservation as methods to
meet planning goals
include the Guadalupe
Mobility Revitalization Plan,
the Guadalupe Short Range
Transit Plan, Guadalupe
Circulation Improvements.

Existing planning efforts
prioritize pedestrian safety,
protected bicycle lanes, and
traffic calming. Trees in
urban areas help with these
efforts and may be an
allowable expense.
135 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Street Tree
and Shrubs
Ordinance
Update
Update the Tree
Ordinance to include
permits, violation
penalties, and an in-lieu
fee bank.

The UFMP project included
analysis of the Tree
Ordinance with
recommendations for
update which will help the
City achieve goals through
regulatory tools.

Enhanced tracking of tree
removals and replacements
through development.

Allows tree planting in areas
that lack dedicated funding.

Grant Funded
Programs
Engage the City’s Grant
Administrator to identify
future opportunities
where urban forestry
actions may qualify for
various grant programs.

Grant programs anticipated
to continue funding include
the US Forest Service,
California Natural
Resources Agency,
California Department of
Transportation, CalFire.

Agencies typically fund tree
planting which may allow for
reallocation of the City’s
planting budget to other tree
care practices once
awarded.

Departmental
Partnerships
Explore potential
resource-sharing with
City departments to
identify opportunities to
educate the community
to achieve similar goals.

Potential partners
include Guadalupe
Water Department,
Public Safety, and
Recreation
Departments.

Explore sharing community
outreach funding and
resources to address
overlapping goals such as
water-wise tree selection
and proper watering, and
planting trees for traffic
calming to increase
pedestrian safety.

Internal departments may
maximize their community
engagement budgets by
sharing these resources,
budgets, and opportunities
to educate the community.

Engaging
Active
Partners
Community partners
already engaged in
urban forestry can be
engaged to enhance
collaboration on urban
forestry.

Engage active communitybased organizations with
existing relationships such
as Creek Lands
Conservation, Comite
Civico, Guadalupe Business
Association, Amigos de
Guadalupe.

These groups participated in
UFMP development and are
already engaged with the
community. Existing
relationships allow for early
partnerships for educational
opportunities.

Community
Champions
The UFMP development
process identified at
least two (2) residents
who showed interest in
assisting in community
engagement efforts
focused on urban
forestry. Early outreach
to these individuals is
vital to citizen
collaboration.

Engage the ISA Certified
Arborist who was interested
in providing education and
training for community
events such as tree
planting and workshops.

Engage resident who is
interested in hosting
educational workshops on
their property.

Community champions are
invaluable partners that
allow for collaborative care
of the urban forest.

Partnering with residents
may foster greater advocacy
and participation in urban
forestry throughout the
community.

Landscape and Lighting District (Landscape Tax)
The City of Guadalupe recently passed a Landscape Tax (Tax) to establish Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) for specific neighborhoods in the City. This Tax is a dedicated revenue source to fund the expenses related to the special benefit of properties in each associated Landscaping and Lighting Districts (District).

These funds are dedicated specifically to the maintenance and operation of local parks, landscaping, and 136 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
streetlight improvements within the District. Although CBDs may fund tree planting and tree care, the allocated percentage of the Tax to trees in each District is still being finalized.

Identifying an annual percentage of Landscape Tax revenue that will be dedicated to tree care will allow the City to plan for on-going maintenance, identify gaps in funding, and ensure Districts have reliable funding to manage their neighborhood urban forest. Early identification of this percentage will allow the City to plan for necessary tree maintenance costs separate from the General Fund.

Alignment with Planning Efforts
Urban forestry and urban trees are often overlooked as a green infrastructure tool that can be used to achieve multiple City objectives. Throughout the City of Guadalupe’s planning efforts, priorities such as traffic calming, walkability, air quality, and economic growth can be supported by planting trees. These existing efforts may be an early opportunity to reach planting targets. Additionally, tree planting may be identified as an allowable expense, or effective method, to achieve program goals that may be considered through internal advocacy.

Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance Update
The City of Guadalupe requires a tree removal permit to be filed for trees on public land, including the utility right-of-way. However, the parameters of the Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Chapter 12.12) is not widely known among community members, resulting in trees being removed on public land without being replaced with new trees. As the Ordinance is updated, associating a cost with tree removal permit administration may help incur costs for the urban forestry program. Updating the Ordinance to include enforceable parameters and penalties for violation may be a strategy to recover funds to repopulate the urban forest when the Ordinance is violated.

As a component of the Ordinance update, an in-lieu fee fund can be established. When a tree is removed and there is no viable vacant site on the property of the removal, an in-lieu fee fund can help the City recover lost canopy cover. Once funds are in the in-lieu fund, fees should be allocated towards the urban forestry program to distribute new tree planting in public areas with low canopy cover. This funding can be used to plant new trees in the ‘right tree, right place’, on public land, decreasing costs for the City while providing a pathway for residents to contribute to the urban forestry program when their property does not allow for a replacement tree. The in-lieu fee should be seen as a last resort and on-site verification to confirm that an appropriate planting site is not available is a protective measure the City can use so the in-lieu fee is used as intended.

Grant Funded Programs
State and Federal entities such as the US Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, and CalFire may fund urban forestry efforts as part of their projects. Topics for funding typically include stormwater management, green infrastructure, urban greening, green schools, environmental education, urban and community forestry, wood innovation, workforce development, and youth engagement, among others. Public funding sources often target disadvantaged communities based on state or federal assessment tools. The City of Guadalupe is identified as such through tools such as CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and the DAC Mapping Tool by the Department of Water Resources.

The City has successfully secured grant funding through multiple state and federal programs which indicate competitiveness of current proposals. The City also employs a Grant Administrator which is a vital 137 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
component of successful award and implementation of grant-funded programs. Early engagement with the Grant Administrator to discuss potential opportunities within existing projects where trees can be included is an early step in planning for the future urban forest. Exploring partnerships with regional entities and other community-based organizations for grant projects where urban forestry efforts are an eligible expense is one strategy to use trees to achieve the City’s overall planning goals. Although the City will likely remain competitive for these programs, the future of federal allocations is uncertain. Therefore, the City must seek alternative sources of funding to enhance the urban forestry program, regardless of potential grant funding.

Departmental Partnerships
Cities are often siloed in their operational practices. However, some cities take the initiative to identify departments addressing similar issues and explore if a partnership can be developed to most effectively use public resources. Collaborating with streets departments to cost share on repairing tree and infrastructure conflicts, hosting water-wise events in partnership with water providers, cross marketing opportunities such as rebate or tree give away programs to reduce water use and working with Fire or Risk Departments on tree maintenance education are successful methods used by cities.

Engaging Active Partners and Community Champions
The Urban Forest Management Plan development process identified groups and individuals already engaged in urban forestry or are interested in participating. Engaging these groups and individuals early in the UFMP implementation process may allow for leveraging educational partnerships, collaborative events, and expertise and donated time of community champions to support the City’s urban forestry program. 138 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Future Potential Opportunities
Potential resources to enhance urban forestry funding long-term require further exploration, discussion, collaboration, and associated staff capacity and budget. These potential resources are seen as long-term pursuits to secure funding to foster a sustainable urban forest. These opportunities include fees, assessments, and taxes, grant opportunities, and partnerships which are described in the following pages.

Fees, Assessments, and Taxes
Voter approved fees, assessment, or tax measures can be one method to generate the additional revenue needed for the care of the urban forest. The level of funding required varies with the selected strategy.

Details regarding potential methods are found in Table G-2. The City of Guadalupe recently passed a Landscape Tax which will establish Community Benefit Districts. Passing this tax is an important step in funding urban forestry efforts. Although the Landscape Tax is for specific districts, increasing taxes paid by residents is a sensitive topic and consideration for additional fees, assessments, and taxes may require the City to wait for residents to be receptive to considering additional costs.

Table G-2. Fees, Assessments, Taxes
Mechanism Description
General
Obligation
Bonds*
Local governments commonly use General Obligation (GO) bonds to fund construction and improvement of projects involving real property (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, and parks). GO bonds typically carry low interest rates, making them attractive for capital projects, which may include tree planting. However, funding is available for discrete projects, often over a limited time rather than an extended period. In addition, ongoing maintenance is ineligible for GO bond funding pursuant to federal tax law. California cities pay debt service from GO bonds through ad valorem property taxes, where assessments are based on property value. As a result, the issuance of GO bonds requires two-thirds voter approval (State Treasurer 2008).

Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing
Districts (EIFD)
A certain geographic boundary of the City would be established as an EIFD, where a portion of the tax increment could be designated for urban forest maintenance along with other services benefitting the district. Recognizing the argument that healthy, well maintained urban forests of streetscapes, parks and greenways increase property values, allocating a portion of tax increment could be one consideration as a funding strategy.

Business
Improvement
District (BID)
A business improvement district or BID provides revenue for improvements and services that supplement or enhance services, such as public perceived safety, landscaping maintenance, special events, public art, street furnishings, marketing, and advocacy on behalf of the business district and may be considered for downtown areas.

Film Permit and
Fees
The City of Guadalupe’s Planning Department requires Temporary Land Use Permits for filming within City limits. The Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes is a popular location for filming, and the City requires a $500 deposit for permits. Enhancing permit fees may allow for additional revenue generation for the City which may be considered for urban forestry funds to enhance downtown area or pathways leading to the dunes.
139 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Grant Opportunities
As of 2025, the availability of future federal and state grant programs is uncertain, and grant funding should not be seen as a replacement to allocated funding for an urban forestry program. Table G-3 details various grant programs which have historically been funded and align with urban forestry efforts. Some of the opportunities listed are not available at the time of UFMP development but were included for potential future consideration.

Table G-3. Federal or State Grant Funding
Funding Program Agency Description
Proposition 4 Governor’s
Office of
California
In November 2024, voters approved Proposition 4, a $10
billion bond measure focused on increasing the state’s
resilience to the impacts of climate change. The Governor has proposed a multiyear spending plan to implement the bond, including appropriations totaling $2.7 billion in 2025‑26.

Funding will likely be allocated through other State agencies like CAL FIRE and will go to programs that address wildfire and forest resilience, extreme heat mitigation, and biodiversity and nature-based solutions, among others.

Urban and
Community Forestry
Grants
CAL FIRE Funding available for tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, blighted urban lands
improvements, urban forest planning, and green schoolyards to advance the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s existing grant funding for the UFMP comes from this grant program.

Green Schoolyards
Grant
CAL FIRE One of the grants under the CAL FIRE Urban and Community Forestry Grant program that is specifically targeted towards improving tree canopy on school facilities.

Active Transportation California
Department of
Transportatio
n
This program provides funding to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant components of several eligible projects under the Active Transportation Program, including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. Disadvantaged Communities are guaranteed a minimum of 25% of the entire program’s funding.

Community Wildfire
Defense Grants
US Forest
Service
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorizes the $1 billion, five-year CWDG Program funding. This program funds the
development or revision of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) and to implement projects described in a
Community Wildfire Protection Plan that are less than ten years old. The program prioritizes at-risk communities:
- In an area identified as having high or very high
wildfire hazard potential,
- Are low income,
- Have been impacted by a severe disaster that affects
the risk of wildfire.

Due to a lack of wildfire urban interface/intermix areas identified in Guadalupe, the City may not be competitive for a CWDG grant. However, CWPPs may create a pathway for
future funding and should be explored with the Fire
Department.
140 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Wood Innovations,
Community Wood,
and Wood Products
Infrastructure
Assistance
US Forest
Service
Grant funding will support proposals that increase demand and create new and innovative uses for sustainably sourced wood. Funded proposals include converting heating systems in schools to sustainable biomass boilers, installing cuttingedge equipment in sawmills and processing facilities to increase efficiency, supporting innovative housing using mass timber, and more.

Urban Wood Reuse CAL FIRE CAL FIRE has a grant assistance program that awards funding for Cities and non-profit organizations to develop an urban wood reuse program. Example projects include providing
lumber and other wood products to local makers and artisans, generating funding to support operations and contributing to local economic development.

Environmental
Enhancement and
Mitigation
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
This program was created by California Streets and Highways Code Section 164.56 (Article XIX, Section 1, of the State Constitution), which authorizes the legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account (Motor Vehicle Revenues, Section 2100) for
environmental enhancement and mitigation projects that are directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of modifying existing transportation facilities or for the design, construction, or expansion of new transportation facilities.

The applicant entity is not required to be a transportation- or highway-related organization, and partnerships are
encouraged. Urban forestry projects designed to offset
vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide are eligible.

Urban and
Community Forest
Sustainability
Standard
Sustainable
Forestry
Institute (SFI)
This grant program is being modified new guidelines are planned to be released. The prior grant funding allowed a city to benchmark their urban and community forest against the SFI urban and community forestry sustainability standard.

Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
California
Strategic
Growth Council
Urban Greening is a threshold requirement for all AHSC
funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling, flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters and filters, vegetated swales, bioretention basins, infiltration trenches and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, parks and open space.

Extreme Heat and
Community
Resilience Program
(EHCRP)
California
Governor’s
Office of Land
Use and
Climate
Innovation
Reduce the impacts of extreme heat. Maintenance and
watering for nature-based solutions and any staff training necessary to ensure landscapes are maintained to achieve desired outcomes. is an eligible activity for this grant program. Parking space, asphalt, and/or other impervious and/or low albedo surface removal with trees or shade
replacement is an eligible activity.

Recreation Economy
for Rural
Communities
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Helps communities identify strategies to grow their outdoor recreation economy and revitalize their main streets.

Small towns and rural communities develop a local steering committee and pair them with a team of federal agency
partners and consultants, who then work with the community over several months. This assistance program results in a Community Action Plan with actions and next steps. Los
Amigos de Guadalupe received assistance in 2022. This
program may accept applications for projects in other areas of the City not included in the Amigos de Guadalupe project. 141 of 181
APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
CalTrans The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 and Assembly Bill 101 to encourage, promote and increase active modes of transportation. Administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of State Programs, the ATP receives funding annually from the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, as mandated
by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) (Chapter 2031, statutes of 2017). The City was awarded this funding in 2018 with partners. With additional transportation planning, the City may be eligible for this program with different partners or areas of focus.

Community Partnerships
Trees growing on private properties are a large contributor to the city-wide canopy cover and securing a dedicated annual budget for City-managed trees only accounts for efforts to regain canopy cover on public land. Resources dedicated to encouraging private property tree planting and urban forestry education will be imperative in regaining canopy cover on private properties, where the City does not have jurisdiction to directly impact canopy cover.

Urban Forestry Organizations
National community-based organizations such as American Forests, the Arbor Day Foundation, the National Wildlife Federation, and regional groups such as the California Urban Forests Council and California ReLeaf, at times, invest in programs to assist in urban forestry efforts. These organizations have hosted programs that give residents free trees to plant on their private property. Increasing canopy cover on private property is a continued challenge for many public entities, and public funding sources do not fund private property enhancements. These partnerships help to fill that gap and provide free urban forestry resources, education, and trees for private property. Monitoring these groups for active campaigns may present opportunities for funded resources for the City.

Volunteer and Community-Based Groups
Volunteer tree planting events are a popular activity among communities. Groups like Kiwanis, Lions Club, beautification groups, and school and religious groups have historically supported volunteer efforts including tree planting and providing urban forestry education, canvassing for adopt-a-tree programs, and may be interested in collaboration as the City explores the community’s appetite for urban forestry advocacy. Community groups mentioned in the UFMP development process include the Santa Barbara County Promotores, Santa Barbara Community Action Network, Guadalupe Coalition of Nonprofits, Vietnam Veteran’s Organization, Boys and Girls Clubs, Guadalupe Bulldogs, Guadalupe Community Action Coalition, and the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Center.

Collaborative Funding for Infrastructure Conflicts
When trees and infrastructure conflict, a public tree or a private tree may be causing damage to potentially both public and private infrastructure. Although cities continuously address and mitigate these issues, the time from the initial inquiry to repair may be lengthy and cumbersome. Some residents may be interested in prioritizing the repair of the infrastructure in front of their home, with a desire to provide funding for prioritization. In these cases, some cities have obliged to this request and share the repair cost with residents. Although this will increase the administrative burden on staff, cost-sharing may be an appealing method for the City, as the cost is supplemented, and resident satisfaction increases. 142 of 181
Appendix
H
Arboriculture Best Management Practices
▪ H1 - Nursery Stock Standards
▪ H2 - Tree Spacing Guidelines for Residential Yards and City Streets ▪ H3 - Tree Planting Guidelines
▪ H4 - Tree Staking Guidelines
▪ H5 – Tree Watering Guidelines
▪ H6 - Young Tree Pruning Guidelines
▪ H7 - Mature Tree Pruning Guidelines
▪ H8 - Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
▪ H9 - Trees and High Wind
▪ H10 - Mature Tree Protection During Construction Guidelines ▪ H11 - Tree Care for Wildlife and Migratory Bird Treaty Act ▪ H12 - Tree Replacement to Expand Canopy Cover
143 of 181
Appendix
H1
Nursery Stock Standards
144 of 181
Introduction
The quality of nursery stock has lasting effects on tree longevity, highlighting the importance of nursery stock inspection and selection. This appendix visually displays the nursery selection ISA BMPs and provides explanations on why this practice is important for tree longevity.

Table H-1. Nursery Stock Characteristics
Characteristic Reasoning Relation to Longevity
Root ball Inspect root ball to ensure
roots are white in color.

Healthy roots are necessary for tree roots to
efficiently absorb water and nutrients and provide
the entire tree with resources for tree growth and
health.

Reject stock that have roots
with a sour smell.

Remove girdling roots at the
time of planting or reject
stock.

Girdling roots restrict the tree’s water and nutrient
flow from roots to the rest of the tree reducing
growth and health.

Ensure structural roots are
horizontal and reach the root
ball periphery.

Trees with horizontal roots and balanced root
structure enable the roots to access larger soil areas
which may contain more nutrients and water to
provide to the tree.

Branching
structure
Look for specimens with a
strong, central leader, branch
aspect ratio less than 1/3rd of
the trunk for each primary
branch, with even branch
distribution both radially and
vertically.

Trees with optimal structure will have less defects to
correct as the tree establishes into landscape. When
trees are pruned or corrected for defects at the time
of planting, trees need resources to
compartmentalize the wound and heal. By avoiding
these defects, trees will be able to establish without
a need for greater resources including water.

Quality of stock Trees should be healthy and
vigorous with no signs of
drought stress, die-back, pest
or disease, and no signs of
mechanical injury.

Healthy trees with no signs of stress establish into
the landscape more readily.
145 of 181
Root Correction for
Container Grown Trees
Accept
Roots radiate from trunk and reach each side of root ball without deflecting down or around.

Root collar Remove excess
soil. Do not cover
root collar.

Bottom-Up View
Absorbing
Roots
Structural
Roots
Example 1 Example 2
Reject
Structural roots primarily grow
to one side or tangent to trunk.

Remove girdling root
growing over or under
a structural root. Cut here Structural roots do
not reach periphery.

Structural roots circle
and do not radiate
from the trunk.

Scenario 2
Scenario 1 Scenario 3

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION ADAPTED BY DUDEK
146 of 181
Nursery Stock Selection
Accept

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION ADAPTED BY DUDEK
Accept
One central leader
(No codominant leaders)
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66 as measured 1"
above the top of the branch union
B A
Aspect ratio is
less than 0.66.
1”
Branch
union A B
1”
Branch
union
Reject
Multiple leaders
(Several co-dominant
leaders)
Reject
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.

Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.

B A
1”
Branch
union
B
NOTE: 1. Nursery stock with significant mechanical injury, serious root defects, and trees that show signs of dehydration are to be rejected. 2. Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions.

Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 3. Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.

A B
1”
Branch
union
147 of 181

Appendix H2
Tree Spacing Guidelines for
Residential Yards and City Streets
148 of 181
Spacing Guidelines for
Residential Yard Trees
Spacing requirements
by tree size
Large 45’ tall and higher
30’ 16’
15’
15’
10’
12’ to 15’ 8’ to 10’
Medium 25’ to 45’ Small Up to 25’
Source: Sacramento Tree Foundation
If you plant more than
one tree, make sure they
are sited far enough
apart to allow full growth
of both trees. Trees
should be placed 12 to
30 feet apart depending
on their ultimate size
Knowing the type of soil, water needs, and eventual size of the tree will help you select the best tree for your yard.

Fence
12’ - 30’
Foundation
Plant at least 8 feet
from sidewalks and
driveways, 15 feet
from home foundations and swimming
pools, and 6 feet
from fences.
15’
15’
10’ 10’ 10’
8’
6’
6’
6’ 6’ 6’
Spacing from
other trees
Spacing from
building foundations
Spacing from sidewalks.
curbs and driveways
Spacing from limbs to
overhead wires
Spacing from trunk at maturity
to in-ground electrical lines
Spacing from trunk at maturity
to in-ground gas lines
Deciduous trees (trees that lose their
leaves) will help cool your home in
the summer and allow the sun to
warm it in the winter.

Planting the right tree on the South,
West, and East side of your home
allows trees to shade your home and
lower energy costs.

Residence is
shaded from the
harsh summer
sun.

Site your tree
where the
tree can grow
to its full size.

W E
N
S
BEFORE

YOU DIG
CALL 811
149 of 181
Large
45’ tall and higher
15’
15’
12’ to 15’
10’
6’
6’ 4’
Spacing Guidelines for Street Trees
30’ 16’
10’
8’ to 10’
Medium
25’ to 45’
Small
Up to 25’
15’
15’
10’
6’
Spacing from
other trees
Spacing from
building foundations
Spacing from sidewalks,
curbs and driveways
Spacing from
sides of median
All trees
Streetlights
20 ft. from
trunk at
maturity
Fire Hydrant
10 ft. from
trunk at
maturity
Spacing from limbs
to overhead wires
Spacing from trunk at
maturity to in-ground
electrical lines
Spacing from trunk
at maturity to
in-ground gas lines
3’
10’
8’
6’
6’
6’
150 of 181
Appendix
H3
Tree Planting Guidelines
151 of 181
Introduction
Tree establishment and long-term survival can be impacted greatly by the actions taken during planting, such as the width and depth of the planting hole, placing the tree at the right depth, and proper staking.

Refer to this appendix covers tree planting details and use the appendix for tree spacing guidelines to minimize future infrastructure conflicts. The table below provide explanations on why these practices are important for tree longevity.

Table H-2. Tree Planting Characteristics
Characteristic Reasoning Relation to Longevity
Planting depth Planting a tree too deep or too
shallow will inhibit the tree’s
establishment and growth.

If planted too shallow, tree roots will not have
soil to establish in, decreasing the water and
nutrients available to the tree overall.

Planting a tree too deeply, may cause roots to
suffocate and cause root rot.

Water at planting Ensure newly planted trees
receives 15 gallons of water,
applied slowly upon planting.

Watering a tree after planting reduces
transplant shock experienced by the tree and
its roots, helping establishment.

Staking at planting Trees that lean at the time of
planting should be staked with
one, two, or three stakes and
supported by flexible ties. Each
stake and tie shall allow
movement of the tree trunk to
develop trunk taper.

Leaning trees can be corrected to grow
vertically with the support of stakes and ties.

Trees that grow with a lean into maturity can
potentially cause conflicts with pedestrian or
vehicle paths of travel.

Tying stakes to a tree too tightly will prevent
movement of the tree, slowing the growth of
the trunk and inhibiting establishment of a
strong root system that can support the tree
during high wind events.

Plant early in the
planting season
Plant trees in winter months
while rain events are likely and
high heat events are less
frequent.

Planting new trees in winter months will allow
the tree to take advantage of rain events and
limited heat stress. Providing water to newly
planted trees through the planting season
when not naturally occurring, assist the tree
in the early phases of establishment.
152 of 181
Tree Planting
and Mulching
Planting hole shall be dug
no deeper than the root ball
and root collar is to be 1 to 2
inches above finished grade.

Round-topped soil berm 4
inches high by 8 inches wide
above root ball surface shall be
constructed around the root ball.

Berm shall be built 6 to 12
inches outside of root ball. Ensure root 2” to 3” layer of mulch. collar is visable
Prior to mulching, lightly
tamp soil around the root
ball (do not over compact).

After backfilling, slowly water
to saturate the root ball.

Root ball width
Planting hole 2-3 times width of root ball
Loose soil. Dig and
turn the soil to reduce
compaction.

Keep mulch 4 to 6 inches
away from trunk.

Finished grade

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION

ADAPTED BY DUDEK
153 of 181
Appendix
H4
Tree Staking Guidelines
154 of 181
Tree Staking
Care Guidelines
Install two stakes outside of
the root ball.

Remove nursery stake.

Stake location shall not
interfere with permanent
branches.

Tree stakes should be
firmly secured vertically
in the soil 2 feet deep.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION

ADAPTED BY DUDEK
Place non-abrasive tree ties
in the middle to lower portion
of the tree to allow 3-4” of
tree sway in each direction.

Nail tree ties to stake.
155 of 181
Appendix
H5
Tree Watering Guidelines
156 of 181
Drip line
Watering Guidelines
Watering for Wet Seasons
Watering Guidelines for
Hot and Dry Seasons Tree Age Frequency Quantity
First 3
months after
planting
Deep water by
filling basin twice
a week
10-15 gallons
per watering
4 -12 months
following
planting
Fill the water basin
every week or every
other week
10-15 gallons
Year 2 - 3 Every 2 - 4 weeks
May through
October
15-20 gallons
Year 4 - 7 Once a month May
through October
deep watering
Prolonged and unexpected extreme
heat waves can threaten a newly
planted trees survivability by
depleting the available water inside
the tree and in the soil.

During these periods trees may need
additional watering once or twice a
week to be sustained.

It is critical to provide
additional water as soon as possible
during extreme heat events to
maintain tree health and vigor.

Prolonged saturated soil can lead to
tree mortality.

Turn off irrigation during rain events.

To avoid over watering a newly
planted tree, monitor soil moisture
after rain events.

If soil is saturated, stop watering.

Resume watering when soil is dry.
157 of 181
Appendix
H6
Young Tree Pruning Guidelines
158 of 181
Pruning to Improve Young Tree Structure
1 Remove 2 Select central leader and 3 Select lowest 4 Select scaffold 5 Select low temporary broken branches. remove competing leaders. permanent branch. branches. branches. Cut back and leave as temporary.
1 Broken
branch

BEFORE PRUNING
2 Central
leader

WHAT TO PRUNE
Competing
leader

AFTER PRUNING
4 Scaffold
branch
5 Temporary branch
3 Lowest
permanent
branch
NOTE: 1. At the time of planting, limit pruning to removal of broken, dead, or diseased branches only.

2. Young Tree Structural Pruning is to occur only after trees establish and resume normal growth rates following planting.

Structural Pruning: A Guide for the Green Industry
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION | ADAPTED BY DUDEK
159 of 181
Appendix
H7
Mature Tree Pruning Guidelines
160 of 181
Tree Pruning
Central
Leader
Suckers
2 1
3 4
5 6
7 8
Limbs that compete with the
tree’s central leader.

Rubbing, crossing branches.

Inadequate spacing between
branches.

Awkward unattractive
branches.

Watersprouts that shoot up
from main “scaffold” branches.

Dead, diseased, or broken
limbs.

Limbs that sag or grow close
to the ground.

Suckers that grow from the
roots or base of the trunk.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Healthy Pruning Cuts
1 2
3 On the bottom of the limb between
6 and 12 inches from the trunk; cut
about one-quarter of the way through.

Through the limb from
the top, starting about
1 inch beyond the first
cut. The weight of the
branch may cause it
to snap off before the
cut is complete.

Cut completely through the short
remaining stub from top to bottom
just beyond the swollen branch collar.

Support the stub while sawing to
make a clean cut.
1 2
3 How to Make a Pruning Cut
To prune a tree limb larger than 2
inches in diameter cleanly and safely,
as shown in the image above, use a
pruning saw and make these three
sequential cuts:
161 of 181
Appendix
H8
Tree Risk Management
162 of 181
Introduction
The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) developed a specialized Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ), training arborists to effectively assess tree risk using a systematic and documented process. TRAQ arborists are equipped to systematically assess tree health, structural integrity, likelihood of tree failure, time frame in which failure may occur, likelihood of impact to target (e.g., people, home, car), and severity of impact should it occur. TRAQ arborists are trained to consider solutions to mitigate tree risk prior to considering removal as a recommendation.

Tree risk management begins with the tree owner establishing an acceptable level of risk (ISA 2017) and identifying the appropriate level of assessment to determine the risk of individual trees. Three levels of risk assessment exist in the ISA TRAQ program which vary in detail and equipment used to complete the assessment: level 1 limited visual assessment, level 2 basic assessment, and level 3 advanced assessment (shown in the table below). Municipalities often utilize all levels of assessment throughout the City to balance risk assessment programs with responsible use of public funds. A level 1 assessment is often used to first identify trees that are high risk. Once high-risk trees or areas of concern are identified, a level 2 assessment occurs for individual trees and mitigation follows, A level 3 assessment is typically reserved for trees of significance, protected trees, or large mature trees that provide value to the community with costly replacement. Effective risk management depends on tree risk assessments being conducted on a regular basis, occurring every 3-5 years as tree risk conditions may develop as trees continue to mature.

By utilizing these three assessment levels, the City can manage tree risk prior to failure and retain trees where risk can be mitigated.

Table N-1. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Levels
Risk Assessment
Level
Description
Level 1 ‘Windshield’ survey to identify high risk trees while driving or walking. Only major defects or concerns are observed and recorded.

Level 2
360-degree observation of the crown, limbs, and trunk.

Determination of targets (homes, people, cars) that may be impacted by tree or limb failure.

Level of damage to the target should impact occur.

Level 3
Advanced assessments of the roots, stem, or crown.

Analyze internal aspects of trees using sophisticated tools and technology. 163 of 181
Appendix
H9
Trees and High Wind
164 of 181
Introduction
Minimizing wind related damage from trees is a priority for the City. The table below exhibits tree characteristics and management practices that influence tree risk in high wind areas. Findings are based on arboricultural best management practices and wind and tree management research studies. However, it should be noted that in extreme weather events, many tree failures are unexpected and happen to healthy trees.

Table O-1. Findings For Tree Care in High Wind Areas
Findings Considerations
Damage to roots from construction can
impact a tree's structural stability for
decades following.

Susceptibility to windstorms may warrant more stringent protection criteria such as larger Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) than other municipalities.

Certain pruning methods of branches and
roots can have detrimental effects on a tree’s
structural integrity.

Pruning methods such as topping and lion tailing should be prohibited. Pruning trees to establish structurally
sound trees with proper trunk and branch taper decrease risk of failure in high wind areas. Exercise caution and consider long term impacts when root pruning on the
windward side of a tree.

Most trees fall in the same direction as the
prevailing winds during the storm.

Use data from past storms to analyze potential targets at risk based on historic wind direction.

Each species of tree has specific traits such
as root vigor, wood composition, and branch
structure.

Use the species list, observations from past storms, and online resources to discern which species are suitable to plant in areas vulnerable to high winds.

Source: Gilman, Ed (2015). Storm Damage Prevention: Lessons Learned. Web. Accessed March 2024. International Society of Arboriculture (2017). Tree Risk Assessment, Second Edition. 165 of 181
Appendix
H10
Mature Tree Protection During Construction Guidelines
166 of 181
Introduction
Construction for development, maintenance, and renovation can pose threats to tree survivability in numerous ways. Threats include injury to roots, trunks, and branches; soil compaction; soil contamination; and improper pruning. Including an arborist in the planning stages of construction helps avoid damage when trees intersect with the built environment. Arborists identify which trees will be retained or removed, create site-specific tree protection protocols, and establish areas where replacement trees will be planted.

Pleasanton’s Municipal Code (§17.16.070) provides guidelines for the mandatory tree protections during construction. Further detail for tree protection requirements may have significant benefits on the urban forest, as described below:

1. Tree Protection Zones: A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is an area surrounding a tree and its critical root zone where no grading, excavation, construction activity, equipment storing, or vehicle parking is to occur. The purpose of the TPZ is to protect all parts of the tree, both above and below ground.

The size of TPZ ranges between tree owners; however, research suggests that a TPZ should be at least 1.5 feet (18 inches) wide per every inch of diameter at standard height (DSH), and 18:1 ratio. (Day et al. 2010). A successful TPZ is surrounded by signed fencing that reads “Keep Out: Tree Protection Zone.”

2. Reducing Compaction: When soil is compacted, water and oxygen available to tree roots is limited, leading to detrimental issues for a tree. In construction areas, compaction occurs purposefully through mechanical compaction or incidentally through the passage of vehicles and construction equipment over soil containing a tree’s roots.

3. Minimizing Effects of Grade Changes: The optimal zone for root growth is within the first 12 inches of soil depth. Any change in grade within a tree’s rooting zone will likely cause negative impacts for tree health. The degree to which these impacts affect the tree depends on the age of the tree, species, prior stressors, and environmental factors.

4. Inspection: Trees impacted during construction, maintenance, or renovations, should be monitored for decline annually by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction. Monitoring should include photographs, annual reports, and mitigation techniques if necessary.

References:

Day, Susan, Wiseman, Phillip & Dickinson, Sarah & Harris, J. (2010). Contemporary Concepts of Root System Architecture of Urban Trees. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 36. 10.48044/jauf.2010.020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265246704_Contemporary_Concepts_of_Root_System_Architecture _of_Urban_Trees
167 of 181
Tree Protection
Guidelines for
Construction

KEEP OUT
Tree Protection Zone
(contact info)
No vehicles, construction
equipment, material, debris, paint
or paint products, pallets,
chemicals, contaminated water or
other foreign material shall be
allowed to be placed, poured,
piled, pushed, or stored within the
Tree Protection Zone of any tree.

Laminated sign
with contact info.

Tree protection zone extends 1’ beyond drip line.

Drip Line

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION

ADAPTED BY DUDEK
6 ft
Drip line
A substantial construction fence,
such as a non-movable chain link
fence, must be placed around the
Tree Protection Zone of each
Protected Tree.

Tree protections shall be in
place prior to any
construction equipment or
materials being on site.

Fencing shall remain in
place until construction
equipment, materials, and
debris have been removed
from the site and approval
from the City Landscape
Architect has been given
for removal.
1’ 1’
168 of 181
Appendix
H11
Tree Care for Wildlife and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 169 of 181
Introduction
Tree care professionals need to be aware of their impact on wildlife because their activities can directly or indirectly harm animals. Direct harm includes injuring or killing wildlife or removing nests with eggs or young. Indirect harm involves actions like removing vegetation that protects nests from weather or predators. Understanding these impacts helps arborists balance their work with wildlife care, ensuring they minimize harm while maintaining and creating habitats. This awareness is crucial for preserving urban biodiversity and supporting species that depend on specific tree structures, like dead branches.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712) plays a significant role in tree care by protecting migratory birds from harm during tree care activities. Here are some key points:

Protection of Birds: The MBTA makes it illegal to harm, kill, or disturb migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs without a permit. This includes both direct harm (e.g., cutting down a tree with an active nest) and indirect harm (e.g., removing vegetation that protects a nest).

Industry Standards: Tree care professionals must follow best practices to comply with the MBTA. This includes conducting pre-work inspections to identify and avoid disturbing active nests.

Minimizing Impact: The MBTA encourages arborists to adopt methods that minimize the impact on bird habitats. This can involve timing tree care activities to avoid nesting seasons (birds in California generally nest between February and August) and using techniques that reduce the risk of disturbing birds.

Legal Implications: Violating the MBTA can result in significant fines and penalties. Therefore, municipalities and tree care companies must be diligent in their practices to avoid unintentional harm to migratory birds.

By adhering to the MBTA, tree care professionals can help protect bird populations and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in urban environments.

Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife During Tree Care:

Tree care work varies in its risk to wildlife, and proper preparation and on-site actions can reduce these impacts. Best management practices for minimizing impacts for wildlife are organized into the following categories:

Training:

Ensuring tree care workers are aware of wildlife and can involve trained professionals when needed.

Training levels range from basic awareness to Wildlife Trained Arborists to Wildlife Biologist with specialized knowledge in wildlife protection and habitat assessment.

Project Preparation:

Assessing the breeding season and habitat value of a site to categorize the work and minimize impacts.

This involves desktop reviews and site visits to understand potential wildlife presence. In California, nesting season for birds is generally from February through August. For standalone projects involving trees, work 170 of 181
should be done outside of these nesting season months if possible. For municipalities that need to prune thousands of trees each year, it is usually not possible to conduct pruning and removal activities only during the non-nesting season months, so measures should be implemented to minimize impacts to birds and other wildlife.

Tree care work can be roughly divided into three categories, based on the level of expertise and caution required to mitigate impacts to wildlife:

Low Habitat Value High Habitat Value Sensitive Habitat
Non-breeding Season Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Breeding Season Category 2 Category 3 Category 3
Summary of Categories for Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife:
• Category 1: Low value habitat during the non-breeding season. Nesting wildlife are least likely to be encountered. A pre-work inspection by a tree care worker with awareness training is recommended.
• Category 2:
o Low value habitat during the breeding season, where nesting wildlife are more likely to be encountered.
o High value habitat during the non-breeding season, where valuable habitats are more likely to be encountered.
o A pre-work inspection by a Wildlife Trained Arborist is recommended. • Category 3:
o High value habitat during the breeding season or sensitive habitat at any time of the year, where nesting wildlife and valuable habitats are more likely to be encountered. o Best practice is to contact a Wildlife Biologist for direction. Companies with a programmatic approach may use a well-trained arborist to minimize impacts. o The Wildlife Biologist will provide recommendations on how the project can proceed, which may include timing or methodological changes. Permits from regulatory agencies may be required for work in sensitive areas.

Note: Wildlife can nest year-round in any habitat, so the assessed category may change during fieldwork. Signs of wildlife encountered during fieldwork may require further expertise.

Fieldwork:

Practices should be implemented based on the project’s category to protect wildlife during tree care activities. Staff with the appropriate training should conduct the pre-work inspection as mentioned above.

If active nests are found that may be impacted by the tree work, the Wildlife Biologist should delay the work 171 of 181
until the young no longer depend on the nest and work can safely proceed. In some cases the Wildlife Biologist may be able to suggest alternative methods to use near the nest, which are discussed below.

Considerations for Work Performed Near Active Bird Nests:

Special guidelines for working near nests to avoid disturbing breeding wildlife include:
▪ The duration of the work to be completed
▪ The tools being used
▪ The species involved
▪ The distance of the work to the active nest
▪ The status of the nest (e.g. eggs present, parent incubating, young unable to fly, mature nestlings close to fledging),
▪ The location specifics (e.g. urban vs. rural)
▪ The environmental conditions (temperature and wind)
Many nests require sufficient cover to provide protection from the elements and disguise from predators so vegetation removal should be minimized around nests. Additionally, a no-activity buffer, or an area in which no work should occur, should be established around the nest where possible.

Emergencies:

Wildlife emergencies during tree work involve situations where wildlife are injured, orphaned, or in danger, or where nests are abandoned or disturbed. The priority is to avoid these emergencies, but appropriate responses are crucial when they occur:
• Contacting Wildlife Rehabilitators: If wildlife are injured or abandoned, contact a local wildlife rehabilitator. Provide detailed information about the situation and species involved. The rehabilitator will guide the next steps, which may include doing nothing to allow parents to return or safely transporting the wildlife.
• Continuing Work: After a wildlife emergency, consult a Wildlife Biologist before resuming work. If no emergencies occur and no nesting wildlife are observed, continue working while remaining vigilant. Contact a Wildlife Trained Arborist or Wildlife Biologist if unsure how to proceed. • Human Health and Safety Emergencies: These involve immediate risks to human health or safety.

A Wildlife Biologist can help coordinate permission to remove active nests with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. In extreme situations, action may be taken before permission is received, but this should be a last resort.

These guidelines help ensure that tree care activities are conducted responsibly, minimizing harm to wildlife while addressing emergencies effectively.
172 of 181
Municipalities and contractors can adopt a programmatic approach to consistently apply these practices across multiple sites. The goal is to balance tree care with wildlife protection, ensuring minimal harm while maintaining habitat value.

References:

U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. “Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.” Accessed October 9, 2024. https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918
Basset, Corey; Donohue, Kara; Gilpin, Ryan. 2022. Tree Care for Wildlife Best Management Practices with Western Chapter ISA Appendices. https://treecareforbirds.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ Tree-Care-for-Wildlife-BMPs-4.13.22-2.pdf
173 of 181
Appendix
H12
Tree Replacement to Expand Canopy Cover
174 of 181

TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT TO

EXPAND CANOPY COVER
Height: 55’+
Example Species:

Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Aleppo Pine (Pinus halpensis)
Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmanii)
Benefits:

Large trees should be planted wherever
space allows. A large tree provides six
times more shade, stores seven times
as much carbon, and captures five
times more water than a small tree.

Height: 35’ to 55’
Example Species:

Box Elder (Acer negundo)
Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)
Australian Willow (Geijera parviflora)
Benefits:

Medium trees strike a balance between
the benefits of larger trees and the
spatial requirements of small trees.

Medium trees are beneficial to have
along parkways and in commercial
space that may not allow large trees.

Height: Under 35’
Example Species:

Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifuloia)
Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis)
Western Redbud (Cercis occidentalis)
Benefits:

Small trees are best used when a
larger tree may conflict with
surrounding infrastructure such as
powerlines or nearby buildings. Small
trees are also used to fill in gaps in the
landscape and create visual interest.
...REPLACE WITH: IF YOU REMOVE...

OR
OR
2X LARGE TREES
4X MEDIUM TREES
6X SMALL TREES
2X LARGE TREES
3X MEDIUM TREES
4X SMALL TREES
OR
OR
1X LARGE TREE
2X MEDIUM TREES
3X SMALL TREES
OR
OR
1x Large Tree
1x Medium Tree
1x Small Tree
175 of 181
APPENDIX I – GUADALUPE

RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST
Appendix I
Guadalupe Recommended Tree Species List
176 of 181
APPENDIX I – GUADALUPE

RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST
City of Guadalupe Tree Species Selection Guide
This Appendix provides more detail one each tree species from the approved tree species list inked above.

The matrix contains 8 attributes for each tree species. The Tree Species Selection Guide table below contains explanations for some attributes found in this appendix.

Table I-1. Tree Species Selection Guide
Attribute Explanation
Tree
size
Height at
maturity
These attributes should be the primary factors considered when finding the right species for a planting location. Before planting a tree, one should consider how large it will grow in the coming decades and choose a species that fits the available space at maturity.

Canopy
spread at
maturity
Trunk
Diameter
Planting
Area
requirement
Water Use Rating As California and the City of Guadalupe continue to cycle through extended periods of drought, tree species that require low amounts of water are likely to be suitable for the City’s environmental conditions.

Hardscape
Damage Potential
The hardscape damage potential is a metric for a species’ known ability to cause damage to sidewalks, streets, curbs, and gutters.

Pest and Disease
Vulnerability
There are an array of arboreal pests and diseases that affect tree health. Certain pests and diseases can have detrimental affects on certain species trees. Notes about pest and disease susceptibility are included for each species in the tree list.

Species Recommendations
Selecting the appropriate tree species for their designated planting locations can drastically simplify the task of maintaining a sustainable urban forest. Proper attention should be given to making the right species choice because decisions made at this stage have lasting impacts on the health and resiliency of a city’s urban forest. Guadalupe aims to follow the principles of “right tree, right place” when choosing which type of tree to plant and where to plant it.

The Recommended Tree Species List below has been developed to assist with the tree selection process and should be referenced whenever trees are being planted in the City of Guadalupe. All species included in this list have been filtered through the following considerations:
▪ Tree canopy. The City of Guadalupe aims to maintain and grow the Urban Forest. Therefore, trees that provide large, lush canopies have been included in the tree list and planted wherever feasible.

However, some sites don’t have the available space for a large tree to grow so trees with smalland medium-sized canopies have also been included. ▪ Species diversity helps provide resiliency to pest and pathogen infestations. The tree list has been designed to maximize species options for all of the various site scenarios that exist in Guadalupe. 177 of 181
APPENDIX I – GUADALUPE

RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST
The City of Guadalupe intends to maintain species diversity of its inventory such that no one species represents more than 5%, and no one genus comprises more than 10% of the total City inventory population (See species diversity sustainability goals in Section 1.4.2). ▪ Physical constraints such as the size of the planting soil area, canopy spread, and nearby powerlines or underground utilities, must be considered when choosing the appropriate species for a given planting site.
▪ Projected suitability and low maintenance costs. Individual trees should not require extraneous maintenance requirements to maximize the urban forest benefits throughout the city. Trees that are well-suited for their site will require less maintenance than trees in unsuitable locations. ▪ Wildlife Habitat. Trees that maximize wildlife habitat should be prioritized. In many cases, such as parks and large planting sites, this includes native trees. It must be noted, however, that native trees that thrive in wildland habitats may not thrive in some adjacent urban sites where a tree’s access to groundwater may be limited and the soil is generally more acidic, saline, compact, and devoid of symbiotic microorganisms that the tree may benefit from. In such cases, a non-native tree able to provide long-term urban forest benefits may be prioritized. ▪ Aesthetic criteria of the planting. Involve the consideration of species-specific features including fruits, litter, thorns, and seasonal color when selecting tree species.

Note: You can find out more about each species by clicking the tree’s common name hyperlink, which will take you to the Urban Forestry Ecosystems Institute’s SelecTree webpage for that species. 178 of 181
APPENDIX I – GUADALUPE

RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST
Table I-2. City of Guadalupe Recommended Tree Species List Botanical Name Common Name
Max
Height
Max
Canopy
Diameter
Planting
Area
Hardscape
Damage
Potential
Evergreen (E)
or Deciduous
(D) Water Use
Trees for Small Planting Areas (2-4' planter width)
Acer palmatum
"Bloodgood", "Burgandy
Lace", "Ever Red", "Red
Laceleaf", "Oshio Beni",
"Coral Bark"
Japanese maple cultivars
(various) 20' 10-20' 2' to 4' Low D Medium
Grewia occidentalis Crossberry 50' 5-12' 2' to 4' Low D Medium Ilex vomitoria Yaupon 20' 10-15' 2' to 4' Low E Medium
Osmanthus fragrans Sweet olive 20' 6-10' 2' to 4' Low E Medium Photinia glabra Red leaf photinia 20' 10-15' 2' to 4' Low E Medium Xylosma congesta Shiny xylosma 25' 8-15' 2' to 4' Low E Low Acacia pendula Weeping Acacia 30' 15-20' 2' to 4' Moderate D Very Low Callistemon viminalis Weeping bottlebrush 20' 15-20' 2' to 4' Low E Low Trees for Medium-Sized Planting Areas (4-7' planter width) Acer mono Painted maple 40' 30-40' 4' to 7' Moderate D Medium Acer palmatum Japanese maple 25' 15-25' 4' to 7' Moderate D Medium Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Tree 35' 15-30' 4' to 7' Moderate E Low Callistemon citrinus Lemon bottlebrush 25' 25' 4' to 7' Low E Low Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 35' 20-30' 4' to 7' Low D Medium Ceratonia siliqua Carob tree 40' 30-40' 4' to 7' High E Low Crataegus pinnatifida Chinese hawthorn 25' 10-15' 4' to 7' Low D Medium Drimys winteri Winter's bark 25' 20' 4' to 7' Low E Medium 179 of 181
APPENDIX I – GUADALUPE

RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST
Botanical Name Common Name
Max
Height
Max
Canopy
Diameter
Planting
Area
Hardscape
Damage
Potential
Evergreen (E)
or Deciduous
(D) Water Use
Trees for Medium-Sized Planting Areas (4-7' planter width) continued Eucalytpus ficifolia Red flowering gum 45' 15-60' 4' to 7' Moderate E Low Eucalyptus shirleyi Silver-leaved ironbark 35' 10-20' 4' to 7' Moderate E Low Eucalyptus spathulata Swamp malee 40' 20' 4' to 7' Low E Low Geoffroea decorticans Chilean palo verde 50' 20-50' 4' to 7' Moderate D Very Low Laburnum alpinum Scotch Laburnum 40' 20-25' 4' to 7' Low D Medium Lagunaria patersonia Primrose tree 50' 20' 4' to 7' Low E Medium Lyonothamnus floribundus
subsp. aspleniifolius Catalina Ironwod 40' 15-20' 4' to 7' Moderate D Low Maackia amurensis Amur maackia 40' 15-25' 4' to 7' Moderate D Medium Melaleuca linariifolia Flaxleaf paperbark 30' 20-25' 4' to 7' Low E Low Metrosideros excelsa
New Zealand Christmas
tree 40' 30-35' 4' to 7' Moderate E Low
Olmediella betschleriana Costa Rican holly 40' 15-20' 4' to 7' Low E Medium Pistacia chinensis'Keith
Davey','Pearl Street' Chinese Pistache 40' 25-35' 4' to 7' Low D Low Pistacia x 'Red Push' Red Push Pistache 40' 20-40' 4' to 7' Low D Low Podocarpus nagi Broadleaf podocarpus 25' 10' 4' to 7' Low E Medium Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 70' 30-70' 4' to 7' Moderate E Low Quercus glauca Ring cupped oak 40' 25-35' 4' to 7' Low E Medium Quercus myrsinifolia Japanese live oak 40' 15-30' 4' to 7' Moderate E Medium Quercus suber Cork oak 70' 70' 4' to 7' Moderate E Low
Quercus virginiana Southern live oak 80' 60-100' 4' to 7' Moderate E Medium Sophora secundiflora Mescal bean 30' 10-15' 4' to 7' Low E Low Tipuana tipu Tipu tree 50' 25-50' 4' to 7' Moderate D Medium 180 of 181
APPENDIX I – GUADALUPE

RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST
Botanical Name Common Name
Max
Height
Max
Canopy
Diameter
Planting
Area
Hardscape
Damage
Potential
Evergreen (E)
or Deciduous
(D) Water Use
Trees for Parks and Large Planting Areas (>7' planter width) Afrocarpus falcatus African fern pine 50' 50' > 7' Low D Medium Celtis sinensis Chinese hackberry 80' 40-50' > 7' Moderate D Medium Eucalyptus rudis Flooded gum 60' 25-40 ' > 7' Moderate E Medium Eucalyptus viminalis Manna gum 80' 25-50' > 7' Moderate E Medium Ficus macrophylla Moreton Bay fig 60' 70-75' > 7' High E Medium Ficus rubiginosa Rusty-leaf fig 50' 35-60' > 7' High E Medium x Hesperotropsis leylandii Leyland Cypress 50' 15-25' > 7' Moderate E Low Ilex opaca American holly 50' 20-40' > 7' Low E Medium
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red cedar 50' 20' > 7' Low E Medium Larix kaempferi Japanese Larch 80' 20-30' > 7' Moderate D Medium Metrosideros kermadecensis Kermadec Pohutukawa 50' 50' > 7' Low E Medium Sapindus drummondii Western soapberry 50' 20-30' > 7' Low D Low Sassafras albidum Sassafras 80' 50' > 7' Moderate D Very Low Taxodium distichum Bald cypress 80' 25-35' > 7' Moderate D Medium Ulmus alta Winged elm 70' 30-40' > 7' Moderate D Low
Quercus tomentella Island oak 50' 25-40' > 7' Moderate E Low 181 of 181
CITY OF GUADALUPE - Urban Forest Management Plan

PLANNING FOR A GREENER GUADALUPE
The City of Guadalupe (City or Guadalupe) is taking a big step toward a healthier, more vibrant, and more equitable city through the development of its first Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). This UFMP contains both an analysis of current conditions and a 40-year strategic road map for improving the management and health of Guadalupe’s trees. With support from a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Urban Forestry Program grant and new landscaping district fees, the City is investing in the growth and maintenance of Guadalupe’s trees, to address climate resilience, public health, and environmental justice.

Executive Summary

WHY TREES MATTER
Urban trees provide many benefits that are essential to Guadalupe’s quality of life:

Cleaner Air:

Trees absorb pollutants to
support respiratory health.

Stormwater
Management:

Trees intercept thousands of
gallons of runoff annually.

Mental Health
and Recreation:

Trees beautify spaces and
promote well-being and
community connection.

Economic Value:

Tree-lined streets can increase
property values by 3%–15%.

Cooler Streets:

Tree canopy can reduce land
surface temperatures by up to
10°F during hot days.

Polinator Habitat:

Trees support biodiversity in an
agricultural landscape.
2022 Guadalupe Canopy Cover by Neighborhood
CITY OF GUADALUPE Urban Forestry Management Plan
Key Challenges
to the Urban Forest
Guadalupe faces a number of environmental,
social, and financial challenges:

Community Engagement
The UFMP was shaped by community input
through a survey, outreach events, and two focus
group meetings with various community partners
and interested parties.

Current Urban Forest Snapshot
Guadalupe’s urban forest includes trees in parks, streets, private yards, and commercial areas. A comprehensive tree inventory and canopy cover assessment were conducted as part of this project.

Guadalupe has a current (2022) citywide canopy cover of 4.2%, down from 5.8% in 2018. This reflects a loss of about 12 canopy acres, equivalent to roughly 500 trees. Approximately 11 acres, or about 92% of the total loss, occurred on private property, which highlights the need for partnership with residents to support future urban forest goals.

TOP 3 TREE SPECIES

IN GUADALUPE
coast
live oak (Quercus agrifolia): 15%
Here is what we heard from the 67
survey respondents:
1 2
3 queen palm
(Syagrus
romanzoffiana): 7.2%
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa): 10%
The top three areas where
attendees want to see
more trees planted are
- parks (21%),
- schools (21%)
- sidwalks (14%)
89%of respondents are in
support of having neighborhood
street trees planted in the public
right-of-ways along sidewalks
and roadways.

Here is what we heard from the 131 attendees
who participated at our UFMP outreach table:

PREVALENT WIND
Because of its proximity to the coast, Guadalupe
experiences windy weather almost daily, which
poses challenges for young trees.

TREE EQUITY GAPS
Underserved areas lack green space and tree
canopy and the many benefits they provide.

LIMITED RESOURCES
Funding and staffing constraints impact longterm maintenance of Guadalupe’s public trees.

LIMITED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF

THE STREET TREE ORDINANCE
Only 16% of the respondents who took the
UFMP survey were aware of the City’s Street
Tree Ordinance and their responsibilities for
maintaining trees in the parkway adjacent to
their properties. The Street Tree Ordinance was
analyzed and was provided recommended
updates as part of this project.

CITY OF GUADALUPE Urban Forestry Management Plan
735 living trees
38 vacant sites and stumps
3 dead-standing
74 unique tree species
GUADALUPE’S 2025 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY BY THE NUMBERS:

Guadalupe’s Urban Forest Vision
How You Can Get Involved
• Plant a tree on your property,
request a tree to be planted in the
parkway adjacent to your property,
or participate in a volunteer tree
planting. Picking the “right tree for
the right place” is important, and
a recommended tree species list is
provided in Appendix I, Guadalupe
Recommended Tree Species List.
• Help water and care for trees in your
neighborhood.
• Attend a City-hosted educational
workshop about trees.
• Talk to your neighbors and friends
about the importance of trees and
the benefits they provide.

Achieving the Future Urban Forest Vision Goals Will Include:

Implementing consistent urban forestry practices through enhancing work records, implementing arboricultural standards, and establishing annual tree management work plans.

Establishing a dedicated urban forestry budget and staff by exploring resources and municipal partnerships to secure ongoing funding for the urban forest program, maintaining International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist expertise, and allocating monthly staff time toward urban forest administration.

Increasing citywide canopy cover to 10% by 2066 to improve climate resilience. Roughly 1,370 new trees will need to be planted over the next 40 years on both public and private property to achieve this goal; equity will be improved by prioritizing tree planting in neighborhoods with the lowest canopy cover and access to green space.

Increase tree planting and improve tree care on private property by developing and distributing educational materials, providing hands-on training through workshops, encouraging stewardship through tree adoption and giveaway programs, and partnering with local organizations.

CITY OF GUADALUPE Urban Forestry Management Plan
Guadalupe’s urban forest is a thriving, vital resource, cared for by the City and its community members, providing scenic beauty and clean air, and enhancing the quality of life for current and future generations.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE ADOPTING THE

GUADALUPE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, in July 2022, the City of Guadalupe applied for a California Department of Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program (Cal Fire) to develop an Urban Forestry Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe was awarded a grant from Cal Fire for $170,734.49; and WHEREAS, Dudek Corp. was awarded the contract in June 2025 for the development of the plan; and WHEREAS, Dudek Corp. prepared a draft plan in January 2026, held open comments for the public and submitted a final draft in February 2026 incorporating comments from the City and public.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council hereby adopts the “City of Guadalupe Urban Forest Management Plan attached to the staff report for this item as Attachment 1.

SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance with the intent of this document is maintained.

In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 24th of February 2026 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Judy Wilson, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution, being Resolution No. 2026-07, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 24, 2026, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Judy Wilson, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 2

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

Agenda Item No. 7G

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 24, 2026
_____________________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Sylvia Estrada, HR Manager David Trujillo, City Administrator, Interim SUBJECT: Change of Retired Annuitant Appointment – Extra Help Finance Director RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution No. 2026-08 changing the existing retired annuitant appointment of Annette Munoz to serve in an Extra Help capacity pursuant to Government Code section 21224.

BACKGROUND
Annette Munozis currently serving the City as a CalPERS retired annuitant pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), providing services as Interim Finance Director during the recruitment process for a permanent Finance Director.

The City has completed its recruitment and appointed a permanent Finance Director, who will assume the position on February 25, 2026.

With the onboarding of the permanent Finance Director, it is appropriate to change the existing retired annuitant appointment to reflect a temporary Extra Help capacity focused on transitional and advisory support.

DISCUSSION:

Government Code section 21224 permits the employment of a CalPERS retired annuitant in a temporary capacity subject to statutory conditions, including limitations on hours worked and compensation.

Munoz currently serves as the Interim Finance Director under Government Code section 21221(h). Upon appointment of the permanent Finance Director, the City seeks to have Munoz perform limited duration extra help work during the onboarding process.

Under the proposed amendment:
• Duties will be limited to transitional and advisory support. • The retired annuitant will not supplant or delay the permanent Finance Director. • Service shall not exceed nine hundred sixty (960) hours in any fiscal year for all appointments Sylvia Estrada

combined.
• Compensation shall be paid on an hourly basis within the publicly posted salary range for the Finance Director classification.
• No benefits, leave accruals, or additional compensation shall be provided. • City staff and Munoz will continue to monitor hours worked to ensure compliance with CalPERS regulations.

The City Council finds that maintaining limited-duration transitional assistance is necessary to ensure operational continuity and knowledge transfer during this period.

FISCAL IMPACT
Compensation will be paid on an hourly basis within the adopted budget for the Finance Department.

Because the appointment remains in a retired annuitant appointment, no benefit costs will be incurred.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2026-08, modifying CalPERS Retired Annuitant Appointment

2. Exhibit A – Unrepresented Salary Schedule
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-08

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE APPOINTING A CALPERS RETIRED ANNUITANT AS EXTRA HELP PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 21224 WHEREAS, Annette Munoz is currently serving as a CalPERS retired annuitant pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), providing services to the City in the capacity of Interim Finance Director during a recruitment to fill the vacancy; and WHEREAS, The City has appointed a permanent Finance Director, who will assume duties on February 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, To ensure continuity of operations and to provide extra help transitional support during the onboarding of the permanent Finance Director, the City desires to change the nature of the appointment; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 21224 authorizes limited duration extra help employment of a CalPERS retired annuitant subject to specified conditions; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 21224 and 7522.56 and their requirements are deemed incorporated into this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that maintaining limited-duration transitional assistance is necessary and consistent with applicable law and that Munoz will provide extra help assistance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1. Amendment of Appointment
The City Council hereby modifies the existing retired annuitant appointment of Annette Munoz to reflect service as an extra help employee effective February 26, 2026, pursuant to Government Code section 21224.

SECTION 2. Transitional Scope of Duties
The Extra Help assignment shall be limited to transitional and advisory duties supporting the onboarding of the permanent Finance Director and shall not supplant or delay the permanent appointment.

SECTION 3. Hour Limitation
Service shall not exceed nine hundred sixty (960) hours in any fiscal year. City staff and Munoz shall monitor and track hours worked to ensure compliance with CalPERS regulations.

ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 4. Compensation
Compensation shall be paid on an hourly basis within the publicly posted salary range for the Finance Director classification, as adopted by the City Council in the City’s Salary Schedule and maintained on file with the City Clerk, as it is the position most comparable to the duties Munoz will perform. Compensation shall not exceed the maximum of the approved salary range. No benefits, leave accruals, incentives, or other forms of additional compensation shall be provided.

SECTION 5. No Additional Employment Rights
This appointment remains temporary in nature and does not confer regular, full-time, or permanent employment status.

SECTION 6. Authority to Implement
The City Administrator is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement this Resolution in accordance with Government Code section 21224 and applicable regulations.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 24th day of February by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Judy Wilson, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2026-08 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 24, 2026, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________ Judy Wilson, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED TO FORM:
________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

UNREPRESENTED POSITIONS
(EFFECTIVE 07/01/2025)
Position Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E L-1 L-2
City Administrator Flat Rate only $170,747.20 annually ($82.09 hourly rate) Director of Public Safety Flat Rate only $ 159,348 annually ($76.61 hourly rate) Police Lieutenant 62.172 65.281 68.545 71.972 75.571 79.350 83.320 Public Works Director 59.714 62.700 65.835 69.127 72.583 76.212 80.022 Finance Director 52.763 55.401 58.171 61.080 64.134 67.342 70.710 Human Resources Manager 44.935 47.182 49.514 52.018 54.619 57.350 60.220 Associate Planner 45.435 47.706 50.092 52.596 55.226 57.987 60.890 Recreation Services Manager 38.021 39.922 41.918 44.014 46.215 48.530 50.960 ATTACHMENT 2

GUADALUPE POLICE DEPARTMENT

MONTHLY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONAL DATA SUMMARY
PART I: CRIMES

TYPE OF CRIMES

REPORTED CLEARED REPORTED CLEARED REPORTED CLEARED REPORTED CLEARED 187 PC HOMICIDE 00000000
261 PC RAPE 00110011
211 PC ROBEBRRY 00110011
242/245 PC ASSAULT 77337733
459 PC BURGLARY 00000000
484/487 PC THEFT 00100010
10851 VC VEH THEFT 00100010
451 PC ARSON 00000000
TOTAL 77757775
PART II: REPORTED CRIMES

REQUEST FOR SERVICE

TOTAL REPORTS TAKEN

TOTAL REQUEST FOR SERVICE

TOTAL ACTIVITY FOR THE MONTH

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORTS

TOTAL PROPERTY STOLEN

TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED
PART III: ARREST SUMMARY

OFFENCES

ADULTS JUVENILES ADULTS JUVENILES ADULTS JUVENILES ADULTS JUNENILES FELONY 60426042
MISDEMINOR 80608060
TOTAL 14 0 10 2 14 0 10 2
23152(a&b) VC ARREST

WARRANT ARREST
$0.00
1 0
0 0
1 30
206
236
0 $2,555.00
236
0 $2,555.00
$0.00
67 307
374
3 $0.00
$0.00

THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR THIS YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE MONTH OF JANUARY 2026

THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR THIS YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE

THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR THIS YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 67 307
374
3 $0.00
$0.00
30 206
NOTE: DUI AND WARRANT DATA ARE INCLUDED IN ABOVE ARREST TOTALS 0 0
0 Agenda Item No. 9B

GUADALUPE POLICE DEPARTMENT

MONTHLY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONAL DATA SUMMARY
PART IV: NARCOTIC ACTIVITY

TYPE OF NARCOTICS

REPORTED CLEARED REPORTED CLEARED REPORTED CLEARED REPORTED CLEARED HEROIN 00000000
COCAINE 00000000
METHAMPHETAMINE 00000000
MARIJUANA 00000000
PARAPHERNALIA 00000000
TOTAL 00000000
PART V: SPECIAL DATA

OFFICER ASSULTED

INJURY ON DUTY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

STAFFING: 1 POLICE CHIEF FILLED
1 POLICE LIEUTENANT FILLED
2 POLICE SERGEANTS 1 UNFILLED POSITION
2 AIRPORT POLICE OFFICERS 3 AIRPORT POLICE OFFICERS
10 POLICE OFFICERS 3 UNFILLED POSITIONS
3 OFFICE STAFF PERSONNEL 2 FULL TIME FILLED/1 TEMPORARY POSITION FILLED 5 RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS 5 UNFILLED POSITIONS
1 COMMUNITY SERVICE TECHNICIAN FULL TIME POSITION UNFILLED 1 EVIDENCE TECHNIAN 1 UNFILLED POSITION
2 POLICE VOLUNTEERS 1 UNFILLED
COMMENTS:
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR THIS YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE MONTH OF JANUARY 2026

THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR THIS YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE Rev: 12/01/2022

GUADALUPE FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO: PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, MICHAEL CASH
FROM: CAPTAIN PATRICK SCHMITZ
SUBJECT: MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES
January 1, 2025 – January 31, 2025
DATE: 02/03/2026
CALLS FOR SERVICE January 2025
INCIDENT TYPE This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2025-2026)
Year to date
(2024-2025)
Medical 38 30 270 224
Structure Fire 0 0 1 5
Cooking Fire 0 0 0 0
Trash or Rubbish Fire 2 2 5 9
Vehicle Fire 0 1 2 3
Grass/Vegetation Fire 0 0 3 5
Other Fire 0 0 0 2
Motor Vehicle Accidents with Injuries 1 1 17 6
Motor Vehicle Accidents No Injuries 4 2 14 10
Motor Vehicle/Pedestrian Accident 0 0 3 2
Hazardous Materials Spill/Release 0 0 1 5
Hazardous Condition Other 0 2 11 9
Water Problem/Leak 0 1 4 2
Animal Problem 0 0 0 1
Search / Rescue 0 1 4 0
Public Assistance 5 3 16 23
Police Matter/Assistance 1 0 4 8
Illegal Burn 0 0 1 2
Smoke/CO Detector Activation 0 2 17 18
Dispatch and Canceled En-route 3 2 26 20
False Alarm 1 0 15 10
TOTAL 55 47 414 364
Additional Information
STAFFING: 1 Public Safety Director (Police/Fire Chief)
2 Fire Captains (1 Vacant Position)
2 Fire Engineers (1 Vacant Position)
1 Firefighter
0 Paid-Call Firefighters (6 Vacant Positions)
Agenda Item No. 9C
Rev: 12/01/2022

GUADALUPE FIRE DEPARTMENT
Special Assignments / Events / Coverage:
- Food Distribution (01/08)
- CARE4PAWS (01/16)
CODE COMPLIANCE CASES January 2025
INCIDENT TYPE This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2025-2026)
Year to date
(2024-2025)
Business License (GMC 5.04.110) 0 0 1 1
Animal Nuisance (Odor, Noise) (GMC 6.04.100 (A, E)) 0 0 0 0 Fowl, Livestock, and Wild Animals (GMC 6.04.210) 0 0 1 0 Residential Solid Waste Collection (GMC 8.08.070) 0 0 0 0 Litter Accumulation (GMC 8.12.020) 1 1 17 21
Burning Garbage Prohibited (GMC 8.12.150) 0 0 0 0
Abatement of Weeds and Rubbish (GMC 8.16.010) 17 12 52 59 Discharge of Illegal Fireworks (GMC 8.24.020) 0 0 0 0
Unlawful Property Nuisance (GMC 8.50.070) 0 0 2 3
Graffiti Abatement (GMC 9.07.060) 3 0 10 8
Parking of Large Vehicles / Trailers (GMC 10.24.190) 0 0 0 0 Abandoned Vehicles (GMC 10.36.010) 2 0 4 7
Portable/fixed basketball goals (GMC 10.48.050) 0 0 0 1 Address Number (GMC 15.08.020 (505.1)) 3 4 69 33
Illegal Garage Conversion 0 0 0 1
Wall, Fence, or Hedge Requirements (GMC 18.52.121) 0 0 0 4 Damage Fence (GMC 18.52.125) 0 0 0 0
Trailers / Mobile Homes as Living Space (GMC 18.56.030) 0 0 1 0 Parking on Front Yard Setback (GMC 18.60.040) 7 0 22 32 Landscape Maintenance Required (GMC 18.64.120) 1 0 4 4
Working Without Permits (GMC15.04.020) 0 1 5 6
Complaints (No Violation Found) 0 0 0 1
Apartment Inspections 1 0 81 90
Yearly Business Inspections 1 9 47 39
Other 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 36 27 316 313
Complaints Received 0 0 4 4
Miscellaneous This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2025-2026)
Year to date
(2024-2025)
Visitors 30 21 160 105
Public Relations 2 5 26 18
School Station Visits (40 Kids) 0 1 8 4

GUADALUPE CODE COMPLIANCE
TO: PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, MICHAEL CASH
FROM: CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER, JOSUE MERAZ
SUBJECT: MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES
JANUARY 1, 2026 – JANUARY 31, 2026
DATE: 2/01/2026

CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES
INCIDENT TYPE This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2026-2027)
Parking Prohibited Zoning Clearance Required
(GMC 18.60.040) (D)
0 0 0
Animal Nuisance (Odor, Noise) (GMC 6.04.100 (A,E)) 0 0 0 Fowl, Livestock and Wild Animals (GMC 6.04.210) 0 0 0
Litter Accumulation (GMC 8.12.020) 0 0 0
Abatement of Weeds and Rubbish (GMC 8.16.010) 1 0 1
Unsafe Buildings-Collecting Rent for (GMC 8.40.030) 0 0 0 Unlawful Property Nuisance (GMC 8.50.070) 1 0 1
Graffiti Abatement (GMC 9.07.060) 2 0 2
Abandoned Vehicles/ Vehicle Covers (GMC 10.36.010) 3 0 3 Vacant Commercial Property Registration (GMC 8.80) 0 0 0 Parking of large vehicles/trailers (GMC 10.24.190) 0 0 0 Wall,Fence,or Hedge Requirements (GMC 18.52.121) 1 0 1
Working Without Permits (GMC15.04.020) 0 0 0
Address Number (GMC 15.08.020 (505.1)) 0 0 0
Basketball goals prohibited (GMC 10.48.050) 0 0 0
Damage Fence (GMC 18.52.125) 0 0 0
Parking on Front Yard Setback (GMC 18.60.035) 0 0 0
Trailers/Mobile homes as living space (GMC 18.56.030) 5 0 5 Prohibition of illicit discharges (GMC 13.24.050) 0 0 0 Landscape Maintenance Required (GMC 18.64.120) 0 0 0
Discharge of illegal fireworks (GMC 8.24.020) 0 0 0
72hr Parking 1 0 1
Code 60 Citations 0 0 0
TOTAL 14 0 14
Complaints Received 3 0 3
Miscellaneous This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2020-2021)
Visitors 0 0 0
Public Relations (Food distribution, Covid Vaccination) 1 1 1 School Visits () 0 0 0
Agenda Item No. 9D

RECREATION AND PARKS MONTHLY REPORT
For January 2026
Summary of Rentals/Usage for City Facilities & Parks

FACILITY THIS MONTH THIS
MONTH

LAST YEAR
THIS YEARTO-DATE
(FY 23/24)
LAST YEARTO-DATE
(FY 22/23)
Auditorium/Gym 31 39 713 509
O’Connell Park 0 1 177 229
LeRoy Park 3 3 141 111
Senior Center 0 0 0 214
Veterans Memorial Plaza 1 0 0 15
Council Chambers 4 8 245 40
Las Mujeres Park 1 0 2 0
Veterans Hall 4 3 128 133
Recreation & Parks
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Ph: 805.356.3906
Fax: 805.343.5512
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item No. 10A
Recreation & Parks Commission Meeting Minutes

CITY OF GUADALUPE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSSION TUESDAY, January 6, 2026
Call to Order: Recreation Commission - Emily Dreiling called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

1. Roll Call: Recreation Manager, Arnulfo Navarro, noted the Commissioner attendance as follows:

Commission Chair: Joseph Harris - Absent
Commissioner: Enrique Ortiz - Present
Commissioner: Emily Dreiling - Present
Commissioner: Michael Jimenez - Present
Commissioner: Richard Akowuah - Absent

2. Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner Emily Dreiling was recognized and led the Commission in the pledge of allegiance.

3. Community Participation Forum
No participation.

4. Consent Calendar
A. Minutes of the prior meetings to be approved.

Regular Business

5. Future Activities
a. Drop-in Volleyball & Basketball
b. Woman’s Basketball Night 2nd+4th Mon.
c. Badminton open gym (Mon. Wed. Fri. @ 10am)
d. Pickleball open court (Fridays 3-5pm)
e. Mobile Veterinary Clinic every Wednesday @ Le Roy
f. Poetry Jam (Jan. 16th)
g. Movie Nite (Jan. 23rd)
h. Pottery Making Class (Feb. 5th)

6. Commission Requests, Comments, and Meeting Reports
Boys and Girls Club to return to our meetings to give their monthly report.

7. Adjournment
At 6:37pm commissioner Enrique Ortiz made a motion to adjourn, and commissioner Michael Jimenez would second.

Upcoming Programs & Events

Respectfully,
Arnulfo Navarro III
Recreation Services Manager
Staff Report, Ord. No. 2026-526 Page 1 of 4 February 24, 2026 Agenda Item No. 11

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 24, 2026
_________________________________ ___________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director David Trujillo, Interim City Administrator SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider adding Chapter 18.59 to the Guadalupe Municipal Code to regulate Food Trucks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has no regulations in place that would prohibit or restrict the use of food trucks within the corporate boundaries of Guadalupe. The Police Department does have some policies in dealing with food trucks that set up within the public right-of-way. During the previous two City Administrators’ tenures, this issue of regulating food trucks came up, but the staff reports prepared at those times were not ultimately released to City Council. A presentation was made in August 2023, but there was no clear majority direction from Council on how to draft an ordinance. A staff report and presentation was made in January 2025 at the direction of the City Administrator. Based on direction from City Council, staff researched other agencies in order to find an existing ordinance that could be molded to fit the needs of Guadalupe. That draft ordinance is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Receive a presentation from staff; and
2) Conduct a public hearing and a) confirm that CEQA does not apply to preparation of Ordinance No. 2026-526; and b) introduce by title only and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-526, adding Chapter 18.59 to the Guadalupe Municipal; and 3) Continue Ordinance No. 2026-526 to March 10, 2026, for second reading and adoption.

BACKGROUND:

Staff has processed a number of business licenses over the past seven years that have allowed food trucks to operate within City limits. Extensive research with numerous staff has not turned up anything in the Guadalupe Municipal Code (GMC) that would show that food trucks have ever been regulated. Prior to the changes made in 2014 when City voters approved a new ordinance regulating business licenses, “peddlers, hawkers, and street vendors,” were required to be fingerprinted but that requirement was removed with the 2014 ordinance. While a city can Staff Report, Ord. No. 2026-526 Page 2 of 4 February 24, 2026 require certain business operators to be fingerprinted, in order to do so, there must be a rational relationship between the fingerprinting requirement and a legitimate concern for public safety, health, or welfare. It is unlikely that such a requirement could be imposed on food trucks.

Staff interacted with the Guadalupe Business Association a couple times over the past years to seek their input on the operation of food trucks within the City. Each time, the recommendations were about 50/50 supporting the food trucks, and either opposing them or limiting their operation.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Lincoln, a northern California community, adopted a food truck ordinance last summer. They were faced with the same concerns raised in Guadalupe, namely the impact on established brick and mortar restaurants. Their solution was to minimize the time and days a mobile food truck could operate when locating near an established restaurant. A summary of the basic provisions of this draft ordinance is provided below.

During the research for this report, staff was finally able to get information from the District 5 office of Caltrans (San Luis Obispo) where they informed staff that food trucks would not be permitted in the right-of-way of state highways. That means that our draft ordinance will specifically prohibit any food trucks on Guadalupe Street (Highway 1) and West Main Street (Hwy 166). That limitation will certainly be welcome information to the local restaurant owners.

However, there would be no restrictions on locating a food truck on any cross street to Guadalupe Street or West Main Street.

Summary of Ordinance Provisions:

A health permit is required from Santa Barbara County prior to issuance of an Administrative Use Permit (18.59.030)
Provisions exist for operating food trucks on public and private property (18.59.040 & .050) There are 27 special requirements identified to minimize impacts to the community.

Requirement #24 limits an operation to a maximum of six hours within a 72 hour period with no other vendor operating within a 500-foot radius (18.59.060). This section can be amended if after public comments or discussion between Councilmembers it results in a direction to staff for relaxation of the proposed requirements. These strict requirements were part of the City of Lincoln’s new ordinance.

No vendor shall operate more than two hundred feet (200’) travel distance of an approved and readily available toilet and hand-washing facility if they operate for over one hour at that location (18.59.060)
If the vendor will operate within a public right-of-way, proof of liability and vehicle insurance will be required (18.9.070.6)
Staff Report, Ord. No. 2026-526 Page 3 of 4 February 24, 2026 All food trucks will require staff approval of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) in addition to a County Health Permit and City business license (18.59.080) In January 2019, SB 946 went into effect which substantially limits local control for sales carts if located on a city’s sidewalks (public right-of-way), and prohibits criminal citations for violations.

Subject to justifications based on protecting a community’s health, safety, or welfare, SB 946 generally prohibits local jurisdictions from: requiring sidewalk vendors to operate in a specific area; prohibiting sidewalk vendors from operating in public parks, unless the park has a concession agreement; or restricting the number of sidewalk vendors. As such, this draft ordinance will focus only on food trucks and at a later time will prepare an ordinance addressing sales carts.

Provisions have been made in the draft ordinance to allow private property owners in nonresidentially zoned areas of the City to extend operational hours beyond those drafted in the ordinance to provide food service to their employees for as many hours of the day that employees are on site.

Just as business licenses and health permits are required to be renewed each year, so will be the requirements for those obtaining an AUP for food trucks.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fees for processing the Administrative Use Permit and business license will cover staff time for processing the applications.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it has been determined that CEQA does not apply.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Staff posted notice of this public hearing in three locations within the City, and published it in the Santa Maria Times.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Ordinance No. 2026-526
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-526

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 18.59 TO THE GUADALUPE MUNICIPAL CODE, REGULATING THE OPERATION OF

FOOD TRUCKS
The City Council of the City of Guadalupe, State of California, does ordain as follows:

WHEREAS, food truck sales nationally have achieved remarkable growth due to their popularity, demonstrating the economic impact of the food truck industry within the state and region; and WHEREAS, the City currently does not have regulations for food trucks; and WHEREAS, while many members of the public applaud the presence of diverse food trucks representing different cuisines and cultures, the City has been receiving increasing complaints regarding the growing presence of food trucks on private property in commercial zones, implicating health and sanitation concerns and increased traffic and parking issues, particularly in the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to regulate food trucks to protect the health and welfare of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide specific guidelines and requirements to ensure these businesses can operate safely and efficiently while minimizing potential risks to public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, by this Ordinance, the City seeks to balance the enthusiasm for mobile food trucks with the need to maintain orderly and safe public spaces, facilitating the growth of the mobile food industry in a manner that benefits both entrepreneurs and the community at large.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2. Chapter 18.59 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 18.59 FOOD TRUCKS
§ 18.59.010 Purpose and intent
§ 18.59.020 Definitions
§ 18.59.030 Health and sanitation
§ 18.59.040 Public property
§ 18.59.050 Private property
§ 18.59.060 Operations
§ 18.59.070 Public Right-of-Way
§ 18.59.080 Permit requirements
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 18.59.090 Supplemental regulations
§ 18.59.100 Violations

18.59.010 Purpose and intent.

A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate mobile food vendors to ensure that operations do not conflict with the functional aspects of commercial site and building operations.

B. The City must protect the public by ensuring mobile food facilities are operated in a safe manner and do not create nuisances or hazards. Reasonable regulations are necessary to ensure that mobile food facilities are:

1. Operated in accordance with health, safety, and traffic laws of the state.

2. Operated in accordance with parking ordinances of the city.

3. Do not cause public safety problems by contributing to traffic congestion.

4. Do not create pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

5. Do not disturb the quiet use and peaceful enjoyment of residential neighborhoods.

C. Regulations in this Chapter are enacted in accordance with the authority granted in Section 22455 of the California Vehicle Code and California Health and Safety Code Section 114315 et seq. (the “California Retail Food Code”), as each may be amended from time to time.

18.59.020 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Chapter, shall be construed as defined in this Section:
“City” means the City of Guadalupe.
“Code” means the Guadalupe Municipal Code and all codes incorporated therein by reference. “Food” shall be as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113781 or any successor provision. “Food facility” shall be as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or any successor provision.
“Food truck” means a mobile food facility as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113831 or any successor provision and any vehicle as defined in Section 670 of the California Vehicle Code, which is equipped and used for retail sales of prepared, prepackaged, or unprepared food or foodstuffs of any kind that parks at one or more locations within the City. A food truck shall also include any type of non-motorized vehicle that is used as described in this definition and is transported by a motorized vehicle.
“Food truck permit” or “permit” means an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) issued to a property owner or lessee with authority allowing food trucks to operate on private property pursuant to this Chapter, and/or issued to a food truck vendor by the City to allow a food truck to operate on public property.
“Food truck vendor” or “food vendor” or “vendor” means an individual or business responsible for or utilizing a food truck to sell, offer for sale, or distribute food. “Hand washing facility” means a facility providing either a basin, container, or outlet with an adequate supply of potable water, soap, and single-use towels, as further defined in Health and Safety Code Section 114359.
“Health Officer” shall be as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 111015. “Special event” means any outdoor event designated for the exclusive use of the event organizer utilizing public areas, including streets and parking lots temporarily closed by the City for which a City-issue permit has been obtained.
“Toilet facility” means a fixture maintained with a toilet room for the purpose of defecation or urination or both, as further defined in Health and Safety Code Section 114359. “Vend” or “vending” means to offer for sale or distribution.

18.59.030 Health and Sanitation
It is unlawful for any person to operate a food truck on public or private property without a valid health permit from the Santa Barbara County Health Department. The Health Permit shall be displayed conspicuously at all times on the vendor’s vehicle.

18.59.40 Public Property
A. No food truck shall operate on public or City-owned property, or within any City park or recreation facility without an approved Administrative Use Permit (AUP).

B. The City may issue an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for a single day event in conjunction with a special event that complies with the applicable provisions of this code and for which a permit has been issued.

18.59.50 Private Property
A. No food truck shall operate on private property without written authorization from the property owner or lessee with authority to grant such authorization.

B. Food trucks located on Industrial or Commercial property may operate daily for the sole support of the onsite employees during the hours that employees are present, with a valid Administrative Use Permit
C. Written proof of approval of the property owner or lessee shall be maintained by the vendor on site. The person operating the food truck shall present this proof upon the demand of a peace officer or City employee authorized to enforce this Chapter.

D. The private property owner wishing to authorize food truck vending shall obtain an Administrative Use Permit authorizing operations in compliance with Section 18.59.060.

E. A single event permit in an exclusively residentially zoned district may only be issued for the same location once per quarter.

18.59.060 Operations
A. All food truck vendors are subject to the following conditions:

1. Food trucks shall operate within a level parking area, where it can be demonstrated that any off-street parking spaces located in that area are not otherwise reserved, encumbered, or designated to satisfy the off-street parking requirement of a business or activity that is operating at the same time as the food truck.

2. Vendors shall not use or permit use of parking spaces on the site (e.g., customer queuing, tables, chairs, portable restrooms, signs, and any other ancillary equipment) if doing so will adversely affect the required off-street parking available for the primary use(s) of the site during peak periods as determined by the Planning Director or designee, and/or Director of Public Safety.

3. Vendors shall have adequate lighting to ensure customer safety either on the vehicle or at the location of the vehicle during business hours.

4. No food truck shall display free standing signs, sandwich board, or banners. Any signage shall be attached to the vehicle.

5. No food truck shall be located within fifty feet (50’) of any street or roadway intersection, crosswalk, fire hydrant, signal crossing, or bus stop.

6. No food truck shall locate their operation in such a way that would restrict the ingress or egress from the adjoining property.

7. No vendor shall sell food and beverage items not regulated under the California Retail Food Code (California Health and Safety Code Division 104, Part 7, Section 113700 et seq., or as may be amended from time to time).

8. No vendor shall locate their operation in such a way that would restrict accessibility routes and curb cuts.

9. No vendor shall roll up onto the sidewalk or cause traffic to be blocked or delayed.

10. No vendor shall locate their operation in such a way that would restrict access to trash enclosures.

11. No vendor shall locate their operation in such a way that would restrict off-street parking.

12. No vendor shall conduct business with customers in moving cars.

13. Vendors shall provide a visible trash receptacle for use by customers.

14. Vendors shall regularly pick up, remove, and dispose of all trash or refuse from their operation within two hundred feet (200’) of the vendor’s position. Regularly means not less than every one hour. For vendors that operate less than one hour at a location, the vendor shall pick up, remove and dispose of all trash or refuse prior to leaving the location. Except as may be otherwise authorized by an Administrative Use Permit, the vendor shall remove and transport all trash or refuse from its operation away from the location and shall dispose of it only as allowed by this code.

15. Vendors shall not dump any wastewater; neither fresh or gray into storm drains, water ways or any other unauthorized locations.

16. No vending shall occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and no overnight parking shall be permitted. Through the permit process, the Planning Director or designee at their sole discretion may impose shorter hours of operation or allow longer hours of operation depending on the type of vending and location.

17. Whenever operating for more than a one (1) hour period, no vendor shall operate more than two hundred feet (200’) travel distance of an approved and readily available toilet and handwashing facility to ensure that restroom facilities are available to the food truck permit holder and any of its employees..

18. No vendor shall vend within three hundred feet (300’) of a special event for one hour before, during or one hour after the reserved event time, unless the vendor is approved by the event’s sponsor to participate in the event, and has a valid Administrative Use Permit.

19. Vendors shall not use City utility connections, including water and electricity, without prior written approval from the City.

20. Vendors shall not leave vehicles or items unattended or stored on public property..

21. All vendors shall comply with the California Vehicle Code and California Health and Safety Code.

22. Food trucks may not operate in an exclusively residentially zoned district in the City, except for private events with an Administrative Use Permit or other City-issued permit. Food trucks may be parked on the street adjacent to the private property hosting the event, but must be moved once the event is over.

23. Vendors shall not operate in an unsafe manner, including but not limited to, impeding on- or offsite vehicle circulation and obstructing the view of pedestrians by motorists.

24. Food sales (not including set-up and take-down) shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) hours of continuous operation at a single location in a seventy-two (72) hour period, unless otherwise authorized by permit or entitlement issued by the City. For purposes of this Section, “a single location” shall extend to a five hundred (500’) foot radius of the original location. When a food truck is operating on private property and exclusively to support onsite employees, it may operate beyond the six-hour time limit as long as employees are present. The City may waive the 500- foot separation at special events to allow a variety of food trucks to serve the guests of the event.

25. All vendors shall have a valid City of Guadalupe business license.

26. No food truck shall operate on Guadalupe Street (Highway 1) or West Main Street (Highway 166).

27. An AUP for food trucks is valid for twelve months and shall be renewed each subsequent year along with proof of a Health Department permit and City Business License.

18.59.070 Public Right-of-Way
A. For an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) authorizing vendor operations on public property per Section 18.59.040, all of the following additional requirements of the vendor shall apply:

1. No food truck shall locate within any public street adjacent to a curb which has been duly designated by the City as a loading or no parking zone.

2. The vehicle shall be legally parked and shall not stop, stand, or park in any clear vision triangle.

3. Vehicles shall not occupy more than two on-street parking spaces in the public right-of-way in commercial zones.

4. When operating within the right-of-way of a street within the City, vendors shall limit food and beverage service to that side of the food truck facing away from the street.

5. As part of the AUP for a food truck permit, Vendors shall be required to indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, demands, losses, expenses, and other liabilities (including without limitation reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with operation of the food truck on City right-of-way, regardless of fault, unless the injuries or damages are the result of the City’s sole negligence or willful misconduct.

6. As part of the AUP for a food truck permit, Vendors shall be required to provide evidence of (1) liability insurance in the amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate covering liability associated with operation of the food truck; and (2) automobile insurance in the amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) commercial auto liability coverage. The insurance shall be at vendor’s sole cost and expense and shall be in full force and effect at any time the vendor is operating in the City. Prior to operations, the vendor shall deliver to the City a certificate of insurance which includes all required coverages, endorsements, and names the City of Guadalupe as additionally insured and as the certificate holder.

18.59.080 Permit Requirements
Prior to operating within the City of Guadalupe, a food truck shall process an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) per Section 18.72.230 – 18.72.290 (Article IV) or be authorized to operate by an AUP obtained by a private property owner or authorized lessee. Operators shall also obtain a health permit from County Health Department as well as a Guadalupe City business license. On residentially zoned properties, an AUP shall be issued prior to an event. Property owners and business owners may also obtain an AUP for food trucks that they hire for operation on or adjacent to their property or business and are utilized for public or private events.

18.59.090 Supplemental regulations.

The Planning Director and designees are hereby authorized to adopt supplemental rules and regulations, and to develop all related forms and/or other materials for permits and other documents, reasonably necessary to implement this Chapter, and to make such interpretations of this Chapter as they may consider necessary to achieve the purposes of this Chapter. Violations of supplemental rules and regulations shall be considered violations of this Chapter.

18.59.100 Violations.

A. In addition to all other legal actions authorized under local, State or Federal law, violations of this Chapter or the conditions of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) shall be subject to the penalty and enforcement provisions of the municipal code, including, but not limited to, Article

1.20.020 of Chapter 1.20 of Title 1. For purposes of this Chapter, the private property owner, food truck vendor and owner of the food truck, when applicable, shall be considered responsible parties for purposes of enforcement.

B. The City may suspend for up to thirty (30) days or revoke any food truck permit issued when any one or more of the following grounds are found to exist:

1. Violation of this Chapter or provisions of a food truck permit.

2. Violation of local, State or Federal law in connection with vendor activity.

3. When a vendor’s permit was issued under fraudulent circumstances or mistake.

4. When necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.

C. In connection with suspension or revocation of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or violations of this Chapter, the City may confiscate property used in connection with vending upon a determination that confiscation of the property is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.

The following procedures shall apply for suspensions, revocation, and confiscation: Prior to revocation or suspension of a permit and/or confiscation of property, the City shall provide written notice to the vendor and private property owner, as applicable, stating the reasons for the action by personal notice or certified mail.

The notice shall provide information on the appeal process and explain that a suspension may lead to a permanent revocation of the permit.

Unless immediate suspension and/or confiscation is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, prior to taking final action the City shall afford the vendor, vehicle owner and property owner, when applicable, an opportunity for an appeal hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.84 (Enforcement) and Chapter 18.80 (Appeals). For immediate suspensions and/or confiscations, the appeal hearing, if requested, shall be held within ten (10) business days after the filing of the appeal.

If an appeal is filed, the hearing officer may permanently revoke the permit, reinstate the permit, conditionally reinstate the permit, or modify the suspension, based upon findings related to circumstances described in this Section. The hearing officer shall also make appropriate findings regarding any confiscation.

SECTION 3. This Ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA guidelines, and has been found not to be subject to CEQA because it is not a project as contemplated by

14. C.C.R. § 15378.

SECTION 4. The City Council declares that each section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this Ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this Ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of February, 2026 by the following roll call vote:

MOTION:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES:

ABSENT: Councilmember:

ABSTAINED:

__________________________________ ______________________________ Judy Wilson, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS IS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
Agenda Item No. 12

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 24, 2026
________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Bill Scott, Associate Planner David Trujillo, Interim City Administrator SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Tentative Parcel Map 29,073 (2025-053-TPM) to adjust the lot lines between five parcels resulting in four (4) lots on a 0.87-acre site in the Downtown Mixed-Use zoning district and the R-3 (High Density) Residential zoning district at 868 - 878 Guadalupe Street (APN 115-101-014).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff;
b. Conduct a public hearing, including: 1) an opportunity for the applicant to present the proposed project, 2) receive any comments from the public; and c. Approve Tentative Parcel Map 2025-053-TPM, including the requisite findings, a CEQA Class 5 General Exemption, and the Conditions of Approval.

BACKGROUND:

The Applicant, Mr. Geoff Villegas, Fargen Land Surveys, representing the property owners Mr. Ernest Ruedas and Mrs. Yolanda Martinez, is requesting City Council approval of a Tentative Parcel Map. Mr.

Ruedas and Mrs. Martinez share common ownership of the land and the building at 868 - 878 Guadalupe Street (Attachment 2 – Aerial Site Map). The Parcel Map would modify the lot lines between five (5) existing parcels to result in four (4) lots. The applicants have expressed the intent to separate their common ownership of the land, with each having two of the four lots. The building would remain under co-ownership by both parties. However, the applicants have expressed the intent to enter into an agreement in which each co-owner would independently operate, manage and control separate portions of the building.

Project Site:

Although the five lots are identified by their Guadalupe Street addresses, the lots to be modified actually extend between Obispo Street on the east side and Guadalupe Street on the west side (Attachment 2 – Aerial Site Map).

Bill Scott
Guadalupe Street end of the property: The west side of the property fronting Guadalupe Street is zoned for Downtown Mixed-Use and is occupied by a single-story commercial building. Four commercial suites are addressed to Guadalupe Street, as follows:
1) 868 Guadalupe Street – Luminarias Restaurant
2) 872 Guadalupe Street – Worship Center
3) 874 Guadalupe Street – Pro Fresco Inc.
4) 878 Guadalupe Street – J&R Catering
Olivera Side of the Property: Three of the five parcels abut Olivera Street. The Olivera Street side of the property is zoned R-3 (High Density) residential. The easterly portion is undeveloped and most of this side appears to be used for outdoor storage purposes (Attachment 2). Outdoor storage is not a permitted use in the R-3 zone. This will be further discussed later in the zoning and General Plan conformance sections.

Project Description:

All five lots on the 0.87-acre property are currently under one Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN 115-101- 014). Yet, the parcels currently exist as five separate lots. As typical in the downtown area, the five lots were established originally by the historic partition entitled: Map of the Town of Guadalupe, subdivided in 1875. Under this map the five parcels are designated as Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, a portion of Lot 13 and all of Lot 14 in Block 6 of that 1875 subdivision.

As noted, the current Parcel Map would make no land division. But instead, the Parcel Map would modify some existing lot lines. As one objective, the lot line that exists between Lots #9 and #12 would be moved

3.39 feet southwesterly. This slight shift would align that lot line with a common dividing wall or “party wall” that separates the suites addressed as 872 Guadalupe Street and 874 Guadalupe Street (Attachment 3).

The modified the lot line would then denote where each co-owner’s authority and control of the building would begin. To effectuate this separation, the co-owners have expressed the intent to enter into a private agreement which would specify those portions of the building to be controlled by each co-owner.

As a result, the southerly portion of the building containing Suites 868 and 872 Guadalupe Street would be under the control of Mrs. Martinez ; and the northerly portion of the building containing Suites 874 and 878 Guadalupe Street would be controlled by Mr. Ruedas (Attachment 3 – Owner’s Proposal and Attachment 5 – Owners Letter). As the second objective, the Parcel Map would eliminate the lot line that currently exists between Lots #11 and #14 on the Olivera Street side. This would merge the two lots resulting in one larger lot (Attachment 4 – Parcel Map). The resulting four (4) lots (now identified on the Parcel Map as Lots, 1, 2, 3 and 4 ), could then be divided evenly between the two owners.

DISCUSSION:

The four main components of the project are: 1) the disposition of the four adjusted lots; 2) the disposition of the co-owned building; 3) conformance with the subdivision ordinance; 4) conformance with the zoning ordinance; and (5) conformance to the General Plan.

Disposition of the Land:

As discussed in the Background discussion, this Parcel Map permit would reconfigure the lot lines between five existing parcels to result in four lots. The property owner’s intent is to: a) equally distribute the four resulting parcels to each owner; and 2) create a demarcation line clarifying the portions of the building to be controlled by each co-owner. Once the Parcel Map has been effectuated (and deeds recorded), each owner would have full discretion on how their portion of the land would be used. Any legal responsibilities (e.g., adherence to Municipal Code standards) would become the sole responsibility of that owner.

Disposition of the Building:

It is the intent of the co-owners to operate, control and maintain each of their portions of the building independently from one another. Thus, the adjusted lot line would create a “symbolic” separation point near the center of the building. Under their agreement, each co-owner would be responsible for the use, operation and maintenance their portion of the building. From a zoning code perspective, this division should not be a problem as long as there is not a physical change to the building and its use remains consistent with zoning regulations.

It should be stated that the adjusted lot line would continue to apply to the land beneath the building, not the building itself. To “officially” divide the building, a condominium map should be pursued. Chapter

17.36 of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance specifies the procedure for such a condominium map. Yet, staff fully recognizes a condominium division has its own set of complexities. For example, the building’s utilities and structural components would likely need to be evaluated to see if and how they might be managed separately. Otherwise, common areas would likely need to be established. Therefore, in this case, the simpler approach presented by the applicants will be supported by staff.

It should also be noted that when parcel lines exist under buildings, it is the typical practice of the Planning Department to eliminate such parcel lines. Such lot lines are typically eliminated so a building exists in its entirety on one property under one ownership or ownership group. It is also recognized that in early Downtown Guadalupe, buildings were commonly constructed across lot lines, so buildings traversing parcel lines is not uncommon in the Downtown area. However, a building on two separate parcels having separate ownerships could potentially add to some degree of confusion regarding maintenance responsibilities.

A stringent condition has been added to the tentative map to clearly state that an agreement between the co-owners does not negate any legal responsibilities for both building owners. Unless otherwise expressly stated by the City, any “legal” or code compliance responsibilities for the entire building wiil remain with the building owners on record. It is noted that the appearance of the building as viewed from Guadalupe Street is good. It would be expected that the entire building will continue to be maintained with the same degree of diligence in the future.

Conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance:

Lot Design - Required:

Section 17.32.30 (Design Standards) of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance establishes minimum size, width, depth and access criteria for newly created lots. This code section specifies:

A. The minimum area of lots shall be 3,630 square feet, with a minimum width of 45 feet, except in cases of R-1-M and planned unit developments.

B. Lots having an average depth of more than three times the average width shall not be approved.

C. All lots shall have vehicular access to a street.

Provided:

Lot Size: As shown on the preliminary map, Lot 1 would be 6,712 square feet; Lot 2 would be 8,710 square feet; Lot 3 would be 7,503 square feet and Lot 4 would be 15,012 square-feet in size. Thus, each of the four resulting lots would substantially exceed the 3,630 square-foot size minimum.

Lot Depth to Width: All lots would continue to meet or exceed the minimum width of 45 feet. Only the future Lot 1, having a width of 46.41 feet and a depth of 143.97 feet, would not meet the precise “letter” of the lot width to depth ratio. However, the deficiency would only be 4.15 feet. Staff has determined that the deficiency is slight (less than 10 percent), and Lot 1 is designed to align its northerly lot line to coincide with the common party wall that separates the adjoining ownership suites. Therefore, staff has concluded, to meet the Landowners’ objective, this slight deficiency is necessarily found to be consistent with the intent and purpose of this code section. The findings for approval contained in Exhibit 2 of Resolution No. 2026-09 (Attachment 1) further establish this conclusion. All other lots would meet or exceed the lot depth to width specifications.

Street Frontage: All of the resulting lots would be provided vehicular access to a street. Lots 3 and 4 would continue to have driveway access from Olivera Street. Additionally, Lots 1 and 2 would have direct frontage along Guadalupe Street.

Conclusion: In compliance with Section 17.32.30 (Design Standards), the resulting lots would meet or exceed the minimum size standard, the street frontage access standard, and would substantially meet the lot depth to width ratio standard. The City Engineer confirms the property has full municipal services, and the new lots will meet Public Works utility and service standards. Therefore, the lot split will be found by the Planning Department to meet the criteria for the creation of new lots as specified by the Subdivision Ordinance Design Standards.

Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance:

There are two zoning districts on the property. The northwesterly portion of the property fronting Guadalupe Street is zoned for Downtown Mixed-Use development MIX; and the southeasterly portion of the site, along Olivera Street, is zoned High Density Residential (R-3). The building and retail uses on the Guadalupe Street side are consistent with the Downtown MIX zoning district.

Outdoor Storage: Behind the building, on the Olivera Street side of the property, there is excessive clutter.

The clutter is exemplified by open storage and/or disposal of abandoned or unused materials. The materials present include; but are not limited to inoperable vehicles, abandoned truck trailers and various other discarded articles. The outdoor keeping of those materials is not permitted in the High-Density Residential R-3 district; and those materials are clearly visible from Obispo Street. Furthermore, the collection of these materials violates Article II of Municipal Code Chapter 8.50. Therefore, staff believes those materials should be promptly removed from the premises and verified prior to map recordation.

General Plan Consistency:

The property is within the boundaries of the Central Business District (CBD) overlay as defined by the 2042 General Plan. The CBD applies to lands between Guadalupe Street and Olivera Street, south of Eleventh Street. The purpose of the Central Business District is to promote the revitalization of Downtown Guadalupe. As stated above, staff believes the appearance at the front of the building at 868 – 878 Guadalupe Street is good and supports the revitalization objectives of the CBD. However, the unkempt collection of unwanted vehicles and vehicle parts on the Olivera Street side of the property runs contrary to those downtown revitalization efforts. Therefore, a condition has been added to this Tentative Map to require the removal of all abandoned and stored equipment within six (6) months of the approval of this Permit or prior to map recordation, whichever comes sooner.

City Engineer Comments:

The City Engineer has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map 29,073 and has concluded that the front of the site is fully developed, and no new development is currently proposed on the easterly portion of the property.

All public facilities are fully in place to serve the property. The design and content of the Parcel Map meets the specifications of the Subdivision ordinance and no further comment is provided at this time.

Conclusion:

In summary, the tentative parcel map would serve to adjust the existing lot lines between the existing five parcels to four. The map will accommodate the objectives of the co-owners of the property to each separately own two of the resulting parcels. The Parcel map would also create a demarcation to define portions of the building to be controlled by the co-owners. As conditioned, staff believes that this Parcel Map should satisfy the objectives of the landowners and would have no detrimental effects on the good and welfare in the immediate neighborhood.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As noted, the property is already developed and no immediate change in use is anticipated. The City Engineer has concluded the property is already provided with all required municipal services. No new immediate fiscal impacts are anticipated. Upon the division ,each property owner would be responsible for the land they own. Legal responsibility for the building would remain with the owners on record.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2026-09, including CEQA Notice of Exemption (Exhibit 1), Approval Findings (Exhibit 2), and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3).

2. Aerial Site and Vicinity Map
3 Proposed Building Management

4. Tentative Parcel Map 29,073

5. Owner Letter
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29,073 (MAP 2025-053-TPM) TO MODIFY THE EXISTING LOT LINES BETWEEN FIVE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS AND RESULTING IN FOUR CONTIGUOUS LOTS ON 0.87-ACRES AT 868 - 878 GUADALUPE STREET (APN 115-101-014)
WHEREAS, Mr. Geoff Villegas (the “Applicant”) representing Mr. Ernie Ruedas and Mrs. Yolanda Martinez (“Property Owners”) has applied to the City of Guadalupe for a tentative parcel map to realign the existing lot lines between five contiguous parcels at 868-878 Guadalupe Street; and the lot line realignment would result in four contiguous lots; and
WHEREAS, said parcels are identified as Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and a portion of Lot 13 in Block 6 as shown upon the Map of the Town of Guadalupe and Subdivisions 143 and 145 of the Rancho Guadalupe, dated September 1875 and recorded March 1880, in Book B of Miscellaneous Records at Page 420 Santa Barbara County Records; and
WHEREAS, the northwesterly portion of the 0.87-acre property is currently developed and is occupied by a multi-suite commercial building, and the southeasterly portion of the property is undeveloped and the Property Owners co-own both the building and the five underlying parcels; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners seek to control and operate certain portions of the property separately and independently from one another and the resulting adjusted lots would provide for an equitable distribution of the four resulting parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners seek to control and operate portions of the building separately and independently from one another and the map would realign the common lot line between Lot 9 and Lot 12 in said Map of the Town of Guadalupe; and as modified, the lot line would coincide with a common “party wall” that separates the suites in said commercial building at 868-878 Guadalupe Street; and WHEREAS,said lot line, as amended, would establish a mutually agreeable demarcation point from which each owner would independently manage, control and operate their own portions of the building at 868- 870 Guadalupe Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has concluded that no change to the use of the building would occur and the conditions contained in Tentative Parcel Map 2025-053-TPM would serve to ensure said lot line modifications will not conflict with any land use, development or health and safety standard established by Municipal Code Chapter 18, the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and notice of said hearing was published in the Santa Maria Times at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Said public hearing notice of the hearing was posted in three public places in the City (including one at the area affected; and ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, after hearing evidence from City staff and taking public testimony, the City Council finds, pursuant to the Findings attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 2, including findings made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and subject to the project’s Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 3, that the approval of the Subdivision, is consistent with the City’s General Plan, applicable Articles of the City’s Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the entire administrative record, including application materials, staff report, the California Environmental Quality Act determination, and oral and written testimony from interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that after completely reviewing this Tentative Parcel Map, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore the activity is not subject to CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations In Land Use Limitations, Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that approval of the subdivision would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, the provisions of Title 17 (Subdivision Ordinance) and Title 18 (Zoning Code) and of the City of Guadalupe Municipal Code; and the Council therefore has the ability to make the required findings, including findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1. The recitals and findings set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby find and determine that none of the findings for denying Map 29,073 a Tentative Parcel Map (2025-053-TPM), set forth in Guadalupe Municipal Code section 17.20.060(B), can be made based on the evidence set forth in the administrative record pertaining to this application as provided before or at the Council hearing on this matter, whether verbal or documentary.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 24th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Judy Wilson, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2026-09, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 24, 2026, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
____________________________________ ______________________________ Judy Wilson, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
Notice of Exemption Exhibit 1
To: County Clerk From: City of Guadalupe
County of Santa Barbara 918 Obispo Street
123 E. Anapamu Street P.O. Box 908
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Guadalupe, CA 93434
Project Title: Ruedas 868 Guadalupe Street Tentative Parcel Map Project Applicant: Geoff Villegas
Project Location-Specific: 868 – 878 Guadalupe Street (Between Guadalupe Street and Olivera Street) Project Location-City: City of Guadalupe Project Location-County: Santa Barbara County Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:

The project is a Tentative Parcel Map Tract 29,073 (2025-053-TPM), to modify the existing lot lines between five (5) contiguous parcels on

0.87-acres in the Mixed-use and R-3 High Density) residential zoning districts. The adjusted parcel lines will result in four (4) contiguous lotsThe resulting parcels would then be divided between the two co-owners of the property. Each ownerwould then receive two of the four resulting parcels. No new development is proposed to occur under this Parcel Map.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: Guadalupe City Planning Department Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Bill Scott, Associate City Planner Exempt Status: (check one)
__Ministerial (Sec. 15268);
__ Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a));
__ Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(b)(c));
XX Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class 5 (15305) . __ General Exemption (Section 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:

The project qualifies for a Class 5 categorical exemption (Minor Alterations in Land Limitations). Although the project is a tentative parcel map, no subdivision of land is proposed. The project would modify some of the existing lot lines between five contiguous parcels to result in four contiguous parcels on 0.87-acre. The project would facilitate the equitable distribution of the four resulting parcels (two lots each) among the two landowners. No new development would result from the project. Thus, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption as specified by section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Bill Scott, Phone: (805) 356-3904 Department Representative: ____________________.

Acceptance Date: ______________.

Date Filed by County Clerk: __________.

EXHIBIT 2. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
RUEDAS LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2025-053-TPM

1.0 CEQA Findings

1.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND FULL

DISCLOSURE
The City Council has considered Class 5 Categorical Exemption specified by CEQA Section 15305 together with the Project Description as provided in the staff report herein, and the comments received and considered during the public review process for the project. The Categorical Exemption has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is adequate for this proposal.

1.2 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
On the basis of the whole record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore the activity is notsubject to CEQA.

1.3 LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are in the custody of the City of Guadalupe, 918 Obispo Street, Guadalupe, CA 93434.

2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS
Pursuant to City of Guadalupe Municipal Code Section 17.32.030 the subdivision is hereby found to meet the following:

A. The minimum allowable lot size in both the Mix (mixed-use and the R-3 (High Density) residential district is 3,630 square-feet.

The size of resulting lots would range from 6,712 square feet up to 15,012 square feet. Thus, each of the resulting lots would exceed the minimum standard established by municipal Code Section 17.32.030.

B. Code Section 17.32.030 specifies: Lots having an average depth or more than three times the average width shall not be approved.

Lot Depth to Width: All of the lots are uniformly rectangular in shape; and all lots would meet or exceed the 45-foot minimum width standard. Only Lot 1 with a width of 46.41 feet and a depth of 143.97 feet would not fully meet the lot width to depth ratio. However, the deficiency would only be 4.15 feet. The Planning Department has an established ten percent policy meaning a deficiency of ten percent or less may be evaluated on its particular merit or lack thereof; the 4.15-foot deficiency is less than ten percent of the lot depth. Given that the northerly lot line of Lot 1 has been aligned specifically to coincide with the party wall of the adjoining ownership suites inside the building, staff has concluded this slight deficiency is negligible. Thus, the resulting lots will substantially meet the minimum lot width, lot depth and lot proportion standard established by Code Section

17.32.030.

C. All lots shall have vehicular access to a street.

Roadway access to the resulting parcels will remain unchanged. All of the lots will continue to have access from either Guadalupe Street or Olivera Street.

D. Furthermore: the project is found to be consistent with the General Plan, in that:

No new development is being proposed. The existing commercial building on the northwest side of the property is consistent with the MIX (Mixed-use) zoning on the westerly portion of the property. The southeasterly portion of the property is zoned R-3 (high density) residential; and is currently undeveloped. The project is conditioned to require that this portion of the property be maintained in accordance with the standards of the R-3 zoning that zoning district that is applied to the property.

E. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

As conditioned in Tentative Parcel Map Permit 2025-053-TPM, the use of the building and the resulting lots would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties nor the general neighborhood.

EXHIBIT 3

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Ruedas Tentative Parcel Map
{2025-053-TPM)

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Project Description: The project is a tentative parcel map to modify the existing lot lines between five existing parcels to result in four lots on 0.87 acre. The five lots are Lots 9, 10,11,12, 14 and a portion of Lot 13, in Block 6, as shown on that certain Map of the Town of Guadalupe, recorded in Book B of Official Records at Page 9 Santa Barbara County Records. The property is currently co-owned by two parties, and the parties have expressed the desire to realign the existing lot lines to accommodate an equitable division of the four resulting parcels. The resulting lots would become Lots 1, 2, 3 and for in Tract 29,073 as shown upon the tentative tract map. The building would remain under co-ownership by both parties, and the applicants intend to enter into a private agreement that would establish individual control over certain portions of the building.

The Parcel Map would adjust the common lot line between Lots 9 and 12 to provide a symbolic demarcation between those portions of the building.

2. The Applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this resolution, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, at Applicant's expense, City and City's agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the approval of this permit or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attach hereto. City shall promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which City receives notice, and City will cooperate fully with Applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney fees that the City may be required to pay as a result of any such claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of the obligation of this condition.

Applicants’ acceptance of this permit approval or commencement of construction or operations under the approval shall be deemed to be acceptance of all conditions of approval.

3. in the event that any condition imposing a fee, exaction, or dedication is challenged by the project sponsors in an action filed in a court of law or threaten to be filed therein which action is brought within the time period provided for by law, this approval shall be suspended pending dismissal of such action, the expiration of the limitation period applicable to such action, or final resolution ofsuch action. If any condition isinvalidated by a court of law,the entire project shall be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

4. Effectuation: This Tentative Parcel Map shall not become effective until the final Parcel Map has been approved by the Office of the Santa Barbara County Surveyor and recorded by the Office of the County Recorder.

5. Outdoor Storage Removal: As specified by General Plan Land Use Figure 2-1 (Neighborhoods), the project site has a Central Business District (CBD) overlay. The intent and purpose of the CBD is to promote the revitalization of Downtown Guadalupe. Currently there are several abandoned, stored or neglected and inoperable vehicles and vehicles parts on Obispo Street side of the property. The keeping of such materials is inconsistent with the revitalization efforts of the Downtown CBD, Furthermore, the retention of these materials is in conflict with the R-3 (residential) zoning on the property; and with Municipal Code Chapter 8.50 (Property Nuisance). a) Within six (6) months of the approval of this conditional Map Permit, or prior to recordation of the map, whichever comes first, the property owner(s) shall complete the removal of all of the materials on the vacant portion of the property.
b) The materials will be taken to an established wrecking, recycling, dismantling or other certified disposal facility to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or designee and the Code Compliance Officer.

6. Building Maintenance: This parcel map permit only affects the location of the lot lines and the configuration of those certain parcels identified as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 on said map. The applicants are reminded that this parcel map shall have no official effect upon the use of the building at 868-878 Guadalupe Street. A condominium map as provided by Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 is required to legally subdivide the building.
a) The co-owners are free to enter into a private agreement to delegate the operation, control and maintenance of all or any portions of the building. However, so long as the building remains in joint ownership, any code violation identified by the City that directly or indirectly affects the building, including any problem occurring the grounds immediately beneath or adjacent to the building, shall remain the full responsibility of all or both of the owners of record.
b) The requirements and responsibilities as stated in this condition shall remain in effect, unless and until such time as the building may legally be partitioned through a condominium map or other legal documentation to the satisfaction of the City.

7. Property Usage: Any use or activity on or in the building or on any of the resulting lots shall be conducted in full conformance with the provisions of the City of Guadalupe Municipal Code. Any proposed change in use or modification to any building or structure, paving or fencing on any of the resulting properties shall require prior approval from the Planning Department.

8. Land Maintenance: Control, usage, construction and maintenance of the parcels beyond the building footprint shall be the responsibility of the individual owner or record of that particular lot or parcel. Each property shall be maintained in an orderly manner and free of accumulations of dirt and litter to the satisfaction of the City; and as further specified by Title 8 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code.

9. Expiration: As specified by Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act, the applicant must submit a Final Map for review by the Office of the County Surveyor within twenty-four (24) months of approval of this tentative parcel map. Failure to submit a Final Map in a timely manner will result in expiration of this tentative parcel map.

10. Addressing: The landowner(s) shall contact the City of Guadalupe Building Department to address any suite, lot or parcel that is covered under this Permit.

ATTACHMENT 2 -AERIAL SITE PHOTO
DIVIDING LINE _..,..

ATTACHMENT 3- BUILDING CO-OWNERS DIVIDING LINE
ATTACHMENT 4
Ownership Division
Upon division of the four separate parcels, the co-owners will divide the property as follows:

Ernie Ruedas will transfer his interest in Lot 9 (as adjusted) and Lot 10 to Yolanda Martinez. In exchange, Yolanda Martinez will transfer her interest in Lot 12 and the combined Lots 11 and 14 to Ernie Ruedas.

Please note, Mr. Ruedas is compensating Mrs. Martinez for the reduction in sqft of Lot 9 and purchasing her undivided interest in Lot 14.

The parties jointly own the property with Mrs. Martinez operating, managing, and controlling the premises located on Lot 9 and Mr. Ruedas operating, managing, and controlling the premises located on Lot 12. Due to some differences, the parties no longer wish to jointly own the property. Therefore, the purpose for the subdivision is to avoid unnecessary litigation, i.e. partition. As a result, the parties can effectuate the fair and equitable division of the property.

ATTACHMENT 5 - CO-OWNER DIVISION SUMMARY
2025-058-DR Page 1 of 4 February 24, 2026
Agenda Item No. 13

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 24, 2026

________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Bill Scott, Associate Planner David Trujillo, Interim City Administrator SUBJECT: Review of a Design Review Permit (2025-058-DR) to construct two new greenhouses totaling 33,768 square feet on the 8-acre campus of Pan American Seed Company. The property is in the G-I General Industrial zoning district at 400 Obispo Street (APN 115-040- 014)
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff;
b. Conduct a public hearing, including: 1) an opportunity for the applicant to present the proposed project, 2) receive any comments from the public; and c. Approve Design Review Permit 2025-058-DR, including the requisite findings, a CEQA 15601(b)(3)(General Exemption), and the Conditions of Approval.

BACKGROUND:

The applicant, Mr. Josh Gardner, Project Architect, representing the Pan American Seed company, is requesting City Council approval of a Design Review Permit to allow construction of two new greenhouses on its agricultural/industrial campus at 400 Obispo Street. The 8-acre property is located in the G-I (General Industrial) zoning district. Municipal Code Section 18.73.010 specifies City Council approval of a Design Review permit for any project of a considerable size or when a development proposal may be visible from a public street. In this case the 34,000 square foot project was deemed to be large enough to warrant a design review. Additionally, some parts of the project would affect the appearance of the property as viewed from Obispo Street.

Surrounding Land Uses
To the south, across Fourth Street, are homes in the Treasure Park neighborhood. The neighborhood is in the R-1 (single-family) residential zoning district. To the east there are unincorporated county lands under agricultural production. Immediately to the north are outdoor growing lands used by Pan American Seed Company. Across Obispo Street to the west there are various industrial operations in the G-I (General Industrial) zoning district (Attachment 2 - Aerial Vicinity Map).

Bill Scott
2025-058-DR Page 2 of 4 February 24, 2026
Project Description:

Based in Guadalupe, the Pan American Seed Company supplies its products to wholesale and retail distributors worldwide. Currently, the 8-acre property contains 108,780 square feet of existing greenhouses: a 22,730 square foot administration building and a 4,500 square foot tractor storage building. Three driveways provide access to the complex. The primary driveway extends from Obispo Street on the west side. Secondary access is provided by two driveways extending from Fourth Street on the south side. Sixty-four parking spaces exist on the property. The property and all of its driveways are fenced and gated. Hours of operation are 8:00 am. – 6:00 pm. Tuesday – Friday.

The two new greenhouses are identified as “Greenhouse 1” (22,512 square-feet) and “Greenhouse 2” (11,258 square-feet); and both would be built on vacant dirt pads in the row of existing greenhouses on the northerly side of the campus (Attachment 2 – Aerial Vicinity Map). A stormwater basin would be constructed between Greenhouse 1 and Obispo Street on the west side of the property. One existing tree would be removed to accommodate the stormwater basin. Ten new trees will be planted onsite as part of the project. The applicant has stated the new greenhouses would simply provide additional indoor growing area and there would be no substantial change to the method of operations or the activities currently occurring on the property.

DISCUSSION:

The primary issues associated with the project are 1) neighborhood compatibility; and 2) conformance with the zoning ordinance.

Neighborhood Compatibility:

It is noted that the Pan American Seed company’s campus is already developed and has been in operation for 50 years. Staff has no record of complaints from the surrounding neighborhood. The facility already has 109,800 square feet of greenhouses. Thus, the two new greenhouses would simply infill two vacant spaces beside existing greenhouses. Visually, the material and color of the new structures would match that of the existing structures.

No increase in traffic would occur. The applicant has indicated that the current 42 daily traffic trips to and from the site would remain unchanged. Those daily trips include 35 employees and 7 small delivery vehicles. Likewise, large truck deliveries typically occur only four to six times per year. The quarterly large truck deliveries provide growing soil to the facility. That schedule would also remain unchanged.

Hazardous materials are limited to fertilizers and pesticides commonly used in agricultural operations.

Specifically stated, fertilizer used is: Peter's fertilizer 15-3-25 used in the greenhouses. The most fertilizer onsite at one time is 800 lbs. Pesticides used are as follows: 1) Actuate SC, Atticus, EPA# 91234-17 2) Endeavor, Syngenta, EPA # 100-913; and 3) Isarid, Koppert, EPA # 89635-5. The maximum amount of pesticides stored an any time fits within two metal cabinets with dimensions of 3 feet wide by 6 feet tall by 2 feet deep (36 cubic feet). The environmental assessment (Initial Study) prepared for the project concluded that the amounts of those materials stored is small and no substantial increase in their use would result from the new greenhouse project.
2025-058-DR Page 3 of 4 February 24, 2026
The sixty-four existing parking spaces were found by Planning to be adequate to meet the future parking needs of the facility. No parking spillover into the neighborhood is anticipated. Noise impacts are anticipated to be negligible. The most discernable sound currently emanating from the property comes from the intermittent use of the mechanical equipment that already exists on the south side of the administration building. Furthermore, the closest of the two new greenhouses would be over 250 feet from the homes across Fourth Street. Therefore, the new greenhouse additions would not create any new problems for the nearby neighborhoods.

Stormwater Basin:

According to the Applicant’s project description, the greenhouse project would result in 35,312 square feet of new impervious surfaces. Currently the construction sites have porous dirt surfaces. In accordance with the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan, a stormwater retention basin would be installed to retain, treat and infiltrate the stormwater runoff from the new greenhouse development. The basin would ensure post project runoff replicates pre-project runoff rates. The preliminary grading plan shows the new stormwater basin would be located between Greenhouse 1 and the westerly property line at Obispo Street. A mature tree would be removed to accommodate the stormwater basin. To compensate, and to further enhance the appearance of the property, the applicant has agreed to plant ten new trees as a part of the project.

Landscape Plan:

No Landscape Plan was submitted with the initial application package. However, staff has requested that a Landscape Plan be submitted. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect. Since the applicant has strongly expressed the desire to expediently move this project forward, staff has conditioned this Design Review Permit to allow the Landscape Plan review to occur later during the Zoning Clearance review stage. The subsequent Zoning Clearance review ensures the requirements of the Design Review are carried over through the building permit process. The Zoning Clearance requirement is specified in Condition 6.

As conditioned, the Landscape Plan would provide a planting plan for the basin and to depict ten new trees to be planted in on-site locations to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. To the maximum extent practicable, the majority of the trees would be near the Obispo Street and Fourth Street frontages. The tree species would be those best suited for Guadalupe as listed in the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan.
1 The specifications for the Landscape Plan are provided in Conditions 5 and 27 in the Design Review Permit. The applicant has expressed agreement to the above-cited conditions.

Conformance to the Zoning Ordinance:

The project would meet all applicable standards of the zoning ordinance; as follows:

Height Limits (GMC Section 18.52.020):

Required: Maximum 50 Feet.

Provided: 30 feet (at peak of greenhouse roof)
1 The City of Guadalupe’s Urban Forest Management Plan has not been adopted by the City Council as of the date this staff report was prepared, however, this plan is on the same meeting agenda as this item and, while staff assumes it will be adopted at this meeting, even if it is not, the tree species identified in the draft Urban Forest Management Plan will still be the appropriate tree species for the required Landscape Plan.
2025-058-DR Page 4 of 4 February 24, 2026
Setbacks (GMC Section 18.52.050):

Required: Setbacks in the G-I zone are as specified by a Design Review Permit.

Provided, Front - Obispo Street: 35 feet. The 35-foot front setback is between Greenhouse 1 and the property line at Obispo Street is deemed to be satisfactory.

Provided, North Side: Zero (0). No setback is provided abutting the agricultural fields on the north. The zero setback matches the existing greenhouses and is deemed to be satisfactory.

Landscape (GMC Section 18.62.040):

Required: Ten Percent Minimum - Must include a balanced mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover.

Provided: Existing 112,502 square feet of landscaped area (32%). Existing landscaped areas are good and include a very good mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover. Additional landscaped area including ten additional trees would be installed as part of the project.

Parking (GMC Chapter 18.60):

Required: For this type of project, required parking is based on the number of employees.

Provided: 64 spaces (deemed satisfactory).

Environmental Considerations:

The project involved nearly 34,000 square feet of industrial/agricultural development. Therefore, a preliminary environmental assessment (Initial Study) was prepared for the project. The Initial Study concluded that the construction and operations of the new greenhouses would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 15601(3)(b) (General Exemption), the project was found to be exempt from further CEQA Review.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the two new greenhouses would simply fill vacant spaces between existing greenhouses on the property. The two new greenhouses would entail 0.90-acre: a relatively small portion of the 8-acres facility. The greenhouse development is a relatively non-intensive use. No new traffic trips would result from the project, and no noise impacts would result. Hazardous materials are limited to relatively small amounts of pesticides and fertilizers typical of agricultural operations and would not expand over what is currently stored onsite. Existing landscape areas exceed code standards and additional trees would be provided. The project would meet all applicable zoning code standards. This greenhouse expansion would support the expressed needs of Pan American Seed Company a notable asset at this prominent corner location in Guadalupe.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2026-10, including CEQA Notice of Exemption (Exhibit 1), Approval Findings (Exhibit 2), and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3).

2. Aerial Site Map

3. Plan Set
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (2025-058-DR) FOR PAN AMERICAN SEED COMPANY, TO ADD TWO GREENHOUSES TOTALLING 33,768 SQUARE-FEET ON AN 8-ACRE PROPERTY AT 400 OBISPO STREET (APN 115 -140 - 014)
WHEREAS, Mr. Josh Gardner (“Applicant”) representing Pan American Seed Company (“Property Owner”) has applied to the City of Guadalupe for a Design Review (DR) Permit to allow a greenhouse expansion project consisting of two new greenhouses totaling 33,768 square feet and associated stormwater treatment facilities, landscaping and infrastructure improvements on an 8-acre property at 400 Obispo Street; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the G-I (General Industrial) zoning district and Municipal Code Section 18.73.010 requires City Council approval of a Design Review permit for any development proposal of the scale of the current project when such a project would be visible from a major public street; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the project and the proposed improvements and has concluded that the project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and meets the requisite Municipal Code standards for such a development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and notice of said hearing was published in the Santa Maria Times at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Said public hearing notice also was posted in three public places in the City (including one onsite near the area of proposed construction); and
WHEREAS, after hearing evidence from City staff and taking public testimony, the City Council finds, pursuant to the Findings attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 2, including findings made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and subject to the project’s Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 3, that the approval of the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and applicable Articles of the City’s Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the entire administrative record, including application materials, staff report, the California Environmental Quality Act determination, and oral and written testimony from interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that after completely reviewing this Design Review Permit, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore the activity is not subject to CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(3)(b)(Common Sense Exemption), Exhibit 1; and